The Fallacy of Feminism

April 13, 2007

by Chris Giliberti

Recently, there has been more discussion than ever on the topic of feminist international relations (IR) theory. Developed in the 1980s, feminist IR thought was, until recently, largely regarded as a research program in the most discerning academic circles. These days, feminism’s freshness and ingenuity have lent it great attention and theoretical credibility in IR, a field otherwise dominated by classically-rooted theories. Despite its recent hype, I believe feminist theory to be nothing more than a shaky attempt to redefine terms differently.

To lend perspective, I will compare feminism with realism, the theory with which most IR theories are commonly juxtaposed. Feminism, along with realism, regards the international system as inherently anarchic. Though they are similar in their explanations for the existence of anarchy, realism and feminism henceforth deviate dramatically. While realism provides an all-encompassing lens through which to interpret all actions of and interactions between states, feminism specifically seeks to accomplish an ontological correlation, in both the realms of power politics and academia, between the character of international politics and predisposed gender-biases.

Feminism values the role that gender bears in the personality of a leader’s policy; insinuating that intrinsic masculine tendencies, apparently inclined toward belligerence, are to blame for the international system’s anarchic nature and an unnecessarily active state of conflict and war. Feminists argue that since leadership posts in both the applied and academic realms of politics dominated by men, masculine tendencies serve to influence the general perception and holistic nature of international politics. In short, countries lead primarily by males would be more likely to instigate war than a country whose policies were shaped and enforced by women. To support such claims, feminists explain power exclusively in terms of gender-exclusive traits. Where realism defines power relationships as a zero-sum race driven by self-interest, feminism insists that relationships of mutual ability and cooperation are possible, though under the sole condition of dominant feminine influence in the international system.

It is clear to see that feminist thought differs drastically from realism, a reasonable representation of most mainstream IR theory. Feminism’s points are certainly inventive, though their narrow scope creates difficulties. Because all feminist postulations address gender-biases, it is impossible to employ feminism in the same way one might realism, as an exhaustive resource through which to view all behaviors in the international system. In light of this, feminism may be more accurately defined as an assemblage of compelling “what if” queries that provoke thought and conversation but should not serve as a worldview.

Another obvious flaw is feminism’s lack of tangible supporting evidence. Though feminism is innovative in its inquiries, its heavy reliance on hypotheticals, such as the existence of an international system dominated by feminine influence, translates to a considerable deficiency of empirical evidence to support its postulations, inviting a great deal of criticism. A reliance on hypotheticals is indicative of a shortage of empirical (statistical, observable, or factual) evidence, a highly valued point-of-proof that any major IR theory is expected to present in order to effectively defend its postulates. Perhaps an even more crippling flaw is that feminism’s insufficiency of empirical evidence excludes feminist researchers from using straightforward methods of research like other theories. Consequently, feminists are faced not only with the challenges of defending a theory which may not be observed in historic or present-day politics, but additionally must deal with the burden of confronting thrashing critiques without the ability to present sound evidence.

Though feminism has recently been hyped as excitingly new and ingenious, in reality, it bears many flaws. The price of feminism’s ingenuity lies in claims that may not be proved empirically. If Hillary wins office, we may see the difference in a woman’s presidency. Until then, feminists must rely on hypotheticals, unsupported hypotheticals.