Why we need to talk about gender and representation in Security Politics

Security politics is a male dominated field. Not only in academia, but on the international scene as well. As of 2020, only 13% of current defence ministers were women. There is no defence minister of other marginalised genders. This is highly problematic because matters of defence and security covers the safety and security of all genders. Here, I will focus mostly on the lack of representation of cis women in security politics, but I would like to acknowledge the underrepresentation of all genders and non-binary people as well.

My experience at university

Silje Abrahamsen

Originally from Norway, I moved to Sydney at the age of 19 to pursue my interests in international affairs and foreign policy. I found security politics and conflict and peace studies to be highly interesting and graduated with a Bachelors degree in International Relations from The University of Sydney. Right now I am moving to Dublin for work, but I am hoping to do my masters degree in Europe in the near future.

When I embarked on my degree at the University of Sydney, I didn't expect my favourite area to be Security Politics. I wasn't brought up with any influence towards this area. I have since realised that most women haven't as it's not a field where women, or people of other marginalised genders, are welcome. Politics in general is a male dominated arena, and I soon realised this in class discussions with my peers.  

There are countless examples from the classroom where either me or other women were totally overrun by another cis male student. In discussions there would usually always be one man who would talk over us and not respect our voice or opinion. Each teacher dealt with this differently, but usually they would just let it pass which validated the actions by the young men who believed their opinions mattered the most. For some reason I met more of these “entitled men” in my international security classes than in any of the other classes in the government faculty. I can only presume that the strong ties between security, the military and hyper masculinity played some part in it. 

Why are men in security politics taken more seriously?

War, conflict and the military are topics that are usually associated with masculinity and assertiveness. We have been taught that men are the only ones suited to discuss matters of war and politics because they are rational creatures, whereas women are the opposite; sensitive, fragile creatures unable to handle the horrors and atrocities of war. These ideas and stereotypes are dangerous and affect the way we address conflicts and security concerns. For example, the testing of nuclear weapons has been referred to as a means to prove that “we are not eunuchs”.  The use of sexualised language and jokes when talking about weapons reinforces the notion that men are supposed to “wage war” to prove their masculinity, effectively shutting out women from the entire conversation.

Why the gendered lens is so important and why we need women in security studies / security politics

Several high-profile conflicts in the 1990s gives us plenty of reason to focus on the importance of gender in security politics. The Rwandan civil war and genocide is a great example. Here women were raped while men were killed due to their respective worth and perceived roles in society. Women were seen as a symbol of community and thus raping women was seen as raping the community, effectively destroying it. This conflict should have taught us to include women in security talks, but we’re still debating it today.

This notion that women are unable to discuss security concerns in war and conflict needs to be addressed. But it should not be addressed and changed through women, non-binary people and other marginalised genders being expected to adopt the hypermasculine traits of cis male colleagues. Rather, we should use our own perspectives to our advantage. This is not to say that women should play into stereotypical notions about them. But I believe women can reclaim the traits that are currently perceived as negative. We are being taught that women are hysterical and emotional, but the display of emotion is also a sign of passion, drive and strength. However, none of these traits should characterise what it means to be a woman working in foreign policy. Women are multifaceted and we should be able to use our individual characteristics and strengths to make our way in foreign policy and security politics rather than playing into any stereotypical notion about any gender. We have the power to provide a more holistic view of various security concerns when we allow for this to happen.

Published 15th December 2021

Edited by Lauren Matthews