Introduction
Security studies, as a subfield of international relations, has traditionally been dominated by state-centric and militaristic perspectives, often reflecting masculinist assumptions about power, conflict, and protection. However, the emergence of feminist scholarship has challenged these conventional views, introducing alternative understandings of security that prioritise human experiences, gender dynamics, and structural inequalities. This essay compares feminist and masculinist views on security, focusing on their differing approaches to military power, state sovereignty, and the role of women in security contexts. It further explores key critiques by feminist scholars of masculinist security theories and evaluates how these critiques have influenced modern security studies. By drawing on a range of academic sources, the essay aims to provide a balanced analysis of these perspectives, highlighting their implications for understanding security in a gendered world.
Masculinist Views on Security
Masculinist perspectives on security, often embedded within traditional realist and liberal theories of international relations, frame security primarily in terms of state sovereignty and military power. These views tend to prioritise the protection of national borders, the maintenance of state authority, and the use of force to deter or combat external threats (Tickner, 1992). Military power is seen as the cornerstone of security, with states investing heavily in defence capabilities to ensure survival in an anarchic international system. State sovereignty, in this context, is sacrosanct, often equated with the ability to assert control over territory and resources, as well as to resist foreign interference.
Moreover, masculinist approaches typically marginalise the role of women in security, viewing them as passive beneficiaries of state protection rather than active agents. Women are often cast in roles of vulnerability, needing safeguarding by male-dominated institutions such as militaries or governments (Enloe, 2000). Indeed, the language of security in masculinist discourse frequently invokes notions of strength, dominance, and aggression—traits culturally associated with masculinity. This perspective, arguably, reinforces a hierarchical view of international relations where power is measured by military might and geopolitical influence, often sidelining non-state actors and non-military forms of security.
Feminist Views on Security
In contrast, feminist perspectives on security challenge the state-centric and militaristic focus of masculinist theories by broadening the definition of security to include human security and structural issues. Feminist scholars argue that security should encompass not just the absence of war or external threats, but also freedom from fear, want, and oppression at individual and community levels (Tickner, 1992). Military power, rather than being a solution, is often critiqued as a perpetuator of insecurity, particularly for women and marginalised groups who may face violence or displacement as a result of conflict (Cohn, 2013). For instance, feminist analyses highlight how militarisation can exacerbate gender-based violence, both during and after conflicts.
Regarding state sovereignty, feminist theorists question the primacy of the state as the ultimate arbiter of security, pointing out that states themselves can be sources of insecurity for women through policies or practices that perpetuate gender inequality (Enloe, 2000). Furthermore, feminist approaches elevate the role of women in security, recognising them as active participants rather than mere victims. Women’s contributions to peacekeeping, conflict resolution, and community-building are emphasised, as are their unique experiences of insecurity, such as sexual violence in war zones or economic deprivation in post-conflict settings (Cohn, 2013). This perspective thus seeks to reframe security as an inclusive concept that accounts for gendered experiences and power dynamics.
Key Critiques of Masculinist Security Theories by Feminist Scholars
Feminist scholars have offered several critiques of masculinist security theories, primarily focusing on their narrow focus and exclusionary nature. First, they argue that masculinist theories ignore the gendered dimensions of security, failing to account for how men and women experience threats differently (Tickner, 1992). For example, while men may face direct combat risks, women are disproportionately affected by indirect consequences of militarisation, such as sexual violence or loss of livelihoods. By overlooking these differences, masculinist theories present an incomplete picture of security.
Second, feminist critiques challenge the valorisation of military power in masculinist frameworks, suggesting that it often perpetuates cycles of violence rather than resolving underlying causes of insecurity (Cohn, 2013). Militarised responses, they contend, prioritise elite male interests over the needs of broader populations, particularly women and children who are rarely involved in decision-making processes. Additionally, the emphasis on state sovereignty is critiqued for obscuring intra-state inequalities, where women often face systemic discrimination or violence from state actors themselves (Enloe, 2000).
Finally, feminist scholars criticise the patriarchal underpinnings of masculinist theories, which associate security with masculine traits like aggression and control, while devaluing traits like care and cooperation often linked to femininity (Tickner, 1992). This binary, they argue, not only limits the conceptual scope of security studies but also reinforces gender hierarchies in policy and practice.
Influence on Modern Security Studies
The critiques raised by feminist scholars have significantly influenced modern security studies, prompting a shift towards more inclusive and multidimensional approaches. One notable impact is the growing acceptance of human security as a framework that prioritises individual and community wellbeing over state-centric concerns (Hudson, 2005). This concept, partly inspired by feminist thought, addresses issues such as poverty, health, and gender-based violence as critical security concerns, thereby expanding the field’s analytical lens.
Moreover, feminist contributions have led to greater attention to gender in security policy, including the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000, which recognises women’s roles in peace and security and calls for their inclusion in decision-making processes (Cohn, 2013). While implementation remains uneven, this resolution reflects a broader recognition of feminist arguments within international discourse. Additionally, security studies now increasingly incorporate gender analysis, examining how policies and conflicts impact men and women differently—a direct result of feminist advocacy for gendered perspectives (Hudson, 2005).
However, challenges persist. Masculinist frameworks still dominate much of security policy and academic discourse, often relegating feminist perspectives to the margins. Nevertheless, the gradual integration of feminist critiques continues to reshape the field, encouraging a more nuanced understanding of security that acknowledges diverse experiences and vulnerabilities.
Conclusion
In summary, feminist and masculinist views on security present starkly contrasting approaches to key issues like military power, state sovereignty, and the role of women. While masculinist perspectives focus on state-centric, militarised notions of security that often exclude women’s agency, feminist theories advocate for a broader, human-centric understanding that highlights gendered experiences and structural inequalities. Feminist critiques of masculinist theories—centring on their exclusionary focus, militaristic bias, and patriarchal foundations—have played a pivotal role in challenging traditional security studies and fostering more inclusive frameworks such as human security. Although masculinist views remain influential, the impact of feminist thought is evident in evolving academic and policy approaches, suggesting a slow but meaningful transformation of how security is conceptualised and addressed. This shift, arguably, holds significant implications for creating a more equitable and comprehensive understanding of security in the contemporary world.
References
- Cohn, C. (2013) Women and Wars: Contested Histories, Uncertain Futures. Polity Press.
- Enloe, C. (2000) Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. University of California Press.
- Hudson, H. (2005) ‘Doing’ Security as Though Humans Matter: A Feminist Perspective on Gender and the Politics of Human Security. Security Dialogue, 36(2), 155-174.
- Tickner, J. A. (1992) Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. Columbia University Press.
