Feminism today is often met with skepticism, frequently misrepresented as an extreme ideology that rejects traditional femininity. These misconceptions stem from media distortions, persistent stereotypes, and the actions of radical factions online. While some believe feminism's primary purpose is to advocate for women's rights and that gender equality has already been achieved, its broader mission extends to addressing the roles of both men and women in establishing global peace.
Initially, feminist research sought to expose androcentric biases in political science, where theoretical models historically reflected male-centric perspectives. Scholars have pointed out that even in analyses of rational decision-making, models were typically based on traits traditionally attributed to men. Classic studies of foreign policy decision-making, for instance, focused on leadership traits but rarely considered gender as a factor.
As feminism evolved, one of its key objectives became advocating for the increased presence of women in various spheres, including security studies. Social constructs surrounding gender roles have long influenced security discourse, often excluding women as subjects of analysis. Feminist scholars have emphasized the need to incorporate gender as a critical variable, addressing the widespread cultural underrepresentation of women in this field. Notably, theorist Judith Butler has argued for refining language to enhance the political visibility of women. Contemporary feminist studies continue to challenge theoretical and methodological inconsistencies that position women at a disadvantage.
Feminist inquiry into security studies often begins with fundamental questions: "Why are women so rarely found in international political conflicts?" and "Why has international security failed to recognize women's contributions despite their active roles behind the scenes?" A journalist recently noted that women participate in all aspects of political life, contradicting the prevailing notion that security studies primarily associate women with peace or as victims in need of protection.
A journalist opined that women exist anywhere and everywhere in every aspect and women were one of the ways of how contemporary International politics work in modern days. This opinion contradicts with the stigma of security studies, where women are often associated with peace and victims of a conflict where they often need help and protection. A lot of feminist figures made a conclusion that the government pushes their citizens to accept the vision where men are the “protector” and women are always the “protected one”. This relationship of the protector-protected one creates a perspective where the protected one lose all their authority towards themselves and entirely devote themselves to the protector while deluding themselves away from the fact that the protector role itself may not be dependable enough and may be one of the core reasons of conflict where this put the protected ones on a greater danger. Although there are various kinds of research where women could hold a violent role, a lot of journalists and analysts ignore the fact that women are considered “violent” because they’re a misfit to the standardization of feminism. Some journalists also opined that there should be further research about the association of patriarchy and masculinity to violence because of its impacts to class hierarchy, race, religions, and mostly; gender.
The contrast between men and women is often perceived as a fundamental biological reality, yet its significance is shaped by cultural context. This duality; both natural and socially constructed, has profound implications, especially within patriarchal structures that determine the roles and destinies of individuals. Robert J. Stoller's 1968 monograph was pivotal in demonstrating that sex is a social construct rather than an intrinsic trait.
Security studies, which traditionally focus on international relations, national security, and peace research, have long remained skeptical of postmodern feminist analysis. Jacek Czaputowicz identifies three primary streams of feminism in global relations: the empirical, which examines women's roles in international affairs; the standpoint feminist perspective, which seeks to integrate feminist epistemology into international relations; and the postmodernist, which argues that the category of "women" itself is a social construct designed to maintain inequality.
Feminist scholars have critically examined the assumption that women are inherently peaceful, questioning whether pacifism is rooted in nature or culture. In security discourse, feminist empiricists highlight the exclusion of women from dominant narratives, calling attention to the blind spots in traditional analyses. Feminist post-structuralists challenge the foundational claims of reason, science, and objectivity in security studies, questioning the power structures that shape them. Meanwhile, postcolonial feminists emphasize that gender oppression is just one facet of a broader system of domination, encompassing race, class, and colonial histories.
Divergent feminist perspectives often lead to internal contradictions. For instance, liberal feminists advocate for gender equality within existing power structures, while anti-war feminists critique the military as a tool of patriarchal control. Despite these differences, a common feminist argument remains: true security cannot be achieved until gendered hierarchies of domination and subordination are dismantled.
Finally, post-colonial feminists point out that gender subordination is only one form of oppression women face, which is solid and unshakable. Some commitments, such as the liberal feminist goal of achieving equality while also integrating women into unchecked power, and the anti-war feminist analysis of the military as a central element of patriarchal control, directly contradict each other. Moreover, ‘any feminist perspective would argue that a truly comprehensive security system cannot be achieved until gender relations of domination and subordination are eliminated’. This means that a commitment to theorizing based on women's experiences to achieve meaningful security arrangements is common to all feminists. Because of the centrality of women's experiences, the most fundamental and wide-ranging debate among feminists concerns the question of essentialism. This leads to the hell of a loophole, Do women and men truly have a fundamental universal essence?