For decades, mainstream International Relations (IR) theories have been criticized for being fundamentally *malestream* — a term that underscores how they are shaped by a male-dominated perspective that excludes women and disregards the role of gender relations in international affairs. Feminist scholars, such as Gilian Young, Laura Sjoberg, Sandra E. Via, have long challenged this oversight, urging us to reconsider how war, militarism, and international conflict are gendered. Feminist IR scholars ask: How do the experiences of women shape our understanding of war, security, and international power structures? How does the absence of gender analysis distort our understanding of violence in conflict, as well as our ability to resolve and prevent it?
One of the most blinding omissions in traditional IR theory is the treatment of sexual violence during war. While sexual violence has long been a tactic of warfare, it has often been relegated to the margins of scholarly inquiry. The feminist turn in IR was the first to raise the alarm, focusing on how sexual violence — specifically rape — has been used to humiliate, dehumanize, and subjugate women during conflict. The feminist critique is not merely about calling attention to these abuses but about understanding them as a function of gendered power relations.
Sexual violence in conflict is not a recent phenomenon. Rape, sexual mutilation, forced pregnancy, and sterilization are not just acts of brutality — they are acts of domination, a way for armed groups to assert their power over both the body and identity of the enemy. In war, women’s bodies become battlegrounds for asserting national or ethnic superiority. For example, in the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, sexual violence was used not only to humiliate but also as a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing, with rape being recognized as a war crime.
Feminists in IR have long argued that sexual violence is a tool of patriarchal dominance, reflecting a deeply entrenched gendered hierarchy that pervades the military and the state. War itself, as a hyper-masculine institution, relies on an ideal of *militarized masculinity* — the dominant, aggressive, and violent form of masculinity that both legitimizes and perpetuates violence. As feminist theorist Raewyn Connell has argued, militarized masculinity is not just an individual behavior but a cultural ideal that shapes the expectations of men, particularly in wartime. In such an environment, sexual violence against women becomes an almost inevitable expression of male dominance and power over the "other," in this case, the women of the defeated side.
Other forms of masculinity relevant to sexual violence include 'thwarted' masculinities, where typical markers of manhood valued in peacetime become harder to attain in conflict, leaving men feeling humiliated by being unable to fulfil their roles and violence often being framed as a viable pathway to reclaiming this, and 'nostalgic' masculinities - whereby communities may yearn for patriarchal gender norms and relations as part of an idealised pre-conflict past where women are subordinated to men - can lead to sexual violence as a route to reclaiming lost hierarchies.
Men are also subjected to sexual violence during war, but it nevertheless always serves as a method of feminization and humiliation of the victim/survivor. It is important to note that it is incorrect to assume that men cannot be subjected to rape, and that women can not be the ones who commit violence. A comprehensive appeal to the problem of sexual violence, regardless of the gender of the victim and the perpetrator, allows us to see the commonality motivating people to resort to violence, which means to develop a better approach to eliminating these problems.
Feminist scholars have taken the critical step of focusing not only on the perpetrators of violence but also on the *victims/survivors* — those who suffer the most during armed conflict. Studies have shown that women and girls make up 95% of all conflict-related sexual violence victims/survivors. This fact underscores the deeply gendered nature of conflict, where women are disproportionately targeted in the chaos of war. The use of rape as a military strategy is not a side effect of war; it is integral to how wars are fought and how power is asserted. As the United Nations has pointed out, sexual violence in conflict is often used as a weapon to terrorize and demoralize the enemy, and to humiliate entire communities by attacking women, who are seen as the bearers of cultural identity and family honor.
Despite the progress made through UNSC resolutions like 1325 — often heralded as a milestone in integrating women’s rights into peace and security agendas — feminists remain critical of the ways in which women have been framed as passive victims in these frameworks. While Resolution 1325 was groundbreaking in acknowledging the specific vulnerabilities of women in conflict zones, it also reinforced a limited, victimizing narrative that portrays women as passive recipients of protection. This passive view of women undermines them from being active agents in peace processes and conflict resolution, thus rendering their experiences invisible in discussions of international relations.
In this sense, feminist scholars argue that the language of *protection* — while well-meaning —can inadvertently reinforce the paternalistic logic of international power structures. By framing women as passive victims in need of external protection, feminist theorists argue, we risk reinforcing the very gendered hierarchies that perpetuate violence. What is needed is not merely protection, but empowerment. Women must be seen as active participants in the peace process, with agency and voice in the shaping of policies that directly affect their lives. Moreover, there is a need to disrupt the patriarchal structures which create and perpetuate these issues in the first place.
Feminists urge us to rethink the nature of sexual violence in conflict, not merely as an unfortunate byproduct of war but as an integral part of the larger patriarchal system that underpins global conflict. In doing so, they seek to break the binary gender narrative that often dominates discussions of war: the dichotomy between the heroic male warrior and the innocent, passive female victim. This binary not only excludes women from the political and military realms but also reinforces the idea that war is a male domain, and women, by default, are excluded from the mechanisms of power.
The feminist critique of international relations has illuminated the gendered nature of power, violence, and conflict. By examining the experiences of women in war, feminist scholars have not only highlighted the specific forms of violence that women endure, but also challenged the dominant narratives that frame war, statehood, and power as male-centric. Their contributions have deepened our understanding of conflict and emphasized the need for a more inclusive approach to peace and security.
As Charlotte Hooper, the author of “Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics,” aptly put it, one of the greatest achievements of feminist contributions to IR has been to reveal the extent to which the entire field is gendered. By expanding the boundaries of international relations to include gender analysis, feminists have not only brought attention to the horrors of sexual violence in conflict but also demanded that we rethink the very foundations of international politics itself. Only through this expanded lens can we hope to build a more just and equitable international system that genuinely protects and empowers all people — regardless of gender —during times of conflict.