Feminism in International Relations (IR) emerged as a critical response to the androcentric bias of mainstream theories such as Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism, which largely ignored or marginalized the experiences, roles, and perspectives of women in world politics. While feminist theories in IR share a common concern with gender hierarchies, they differ in their conceptual frameworks, epistemological orientations, and political agendas. Among the various strands, Liberal Feminism and Post-Colonial Feminism represent two distinct approaches that offer contrasting analyses of gender, power, and global order. Liberal feminism focuses on achieving gender equality within existing political and economic structures, whereas post-colonial feminism critiques those very structures as being rooted in imperialism, racism, and Western dominance.

The liberal feminist approach in IR draws its intellectual roots from classical liberal thought and the Enlightenment ideals of individual rights, equality, and rationality. Thinkers like Mary Wollstonecraft (1792) in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and later John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill laid the philosophical foundation by arguing for equal political rights and access to education and employment for women. Liberal feminists in IR, such as Jean Bethke Elshtain, Cynthia Enloe, and Anne Tickner, sought to reveal how international politics is shaped by gender hierarchies that exclude women from positions of power and decision-making.

In contrast, post-colonial feminism emerged in the late 20th century as part of the broader post-colonial critique of Western knowledge systems, influenced by scholars such as Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, bell hooks, and Uma Narayan. These theorists challenged the universalizing tendencies of Western feminist thought, particularly the liberal variant, which often portrayed women in the Global South as homogeneous victims in need of Western rescue or enlightenment. Post-colonial feminism insists that gender cannot be analyzed in isolation from race, class, colonial history, culture, and geopolitical power. It thus emphasizes intersectionality—a term popularized by Kimberlé Crenshaw—to highlight how multiple structures of domination intersect to shape women’s lived experiences differently across contexts.

Liberal feminism’s entry into IR was marked by the desire to make women visible in international politics. It questioned why traditional theories like realism and liberal institutionalism ignored women as actors. For instance, J. Ann Tickner in Gender in International Relations (1992) critiqued Hans Morgenthau’s Realist principles by arguing that his conception of power as domination reflects masculinist assumptions. Liberal feminists argued that if women were included in diplomacy, peacekeeping, and governance, the international system would become more cooperative and humane. They supported reforms such as gender quotas, equal representation in international organizations, and inclusion of women’s issues—like human rights, health, and education in the global agenda.

Post-colonial feminists, however, found such reformist strategies superficial. They contended that liberal feminism, while appearing progressive, fails to interrogate the imperial power structures that have historically privileged Western norms of gender and civilization. Chandra Mohanty’s essay “Under Western Eyes” (1984) famously criticized Western feminist scholarship for producing the “Third World woman” as a singular, monolithic subject—depicted as oppressed, passive, and in need of salvation. This, she argued, reproduced the colonial discourse of superiority, where Western women are seen as liberated and modern while non-Western women are traditional and subjugated.

In the epistemological dimension, liberal feminism remains within the positivist tradition of social science. It assumes that gender inequality can be empirically identified and corrected through rational policy interventions. It views gender discrimination as an anomaly within an otherwise neutral system that can be reformed. For example, international organizations like the United Nations have adopted liberal feminist frameworks through initiatives such as CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) and UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. These policies seek to mainstream gender in global governance without necessarily questioning the capitalist or imperialist structures of the system.

Post-colonial feminism, on the other hand, adopts a post-positivist epistemology that rejects the notion of objective, universal knowledge. Drawing from Michel Foucault’s ideas of power/knowledge and Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), post-colonial feminists argue that Western feminist discourses themselves are forms of power that define and control the representation of “Other” women. They emphasize situated knowledges, acknowledging that feminist theory must emerge from the lived realities and histories of women in specific cultural and political contexts. Thus, while liberal feminism seeks to integrate women into existing institutions, post-colonial feminism aims to decolonize feminist knowledge and transform the global order that perpetuates inequality.

In practical terms, liberal feminism’s policy orientation aligns with initiatives like gender mainstreaming, economic empowerment programs, and leadership training for women. It advocates for inclusion within the liberal international order, emphasizing that gender equality enhances efficiency, development, and peace. For instance, the World Bank’s gender equality programs are based on the liberal feminist logic that empowering women boosts economic growth—a view encapsulated in the slogan, “Gender equality is smart economics.” However, post-colonial feminists argue that such approaches often instrumentalize women’s empowerment for neoliberal development goals, treating women as tools of productivity rather than as subjects of justice and autonomy.

A significant contrast lies in their conceptions of power. Liberal feminists conceptualize power as something possessed and exercised, primarily in terms of access to positions of authority and decision-making. They aim to enable women to compete on equal terms with men within the existing global order. For instance, they demand more women diplomats, peacekeepers, and leaders in international organizations. Post-colonial feminists, however, conceptualize power as relational, discursive, and structural. They argue that even when women enter these institutions, they often do so within hierarchies shaped by colonialism and patriarchy, which determine whose voices are heard and whose knowledge counts.

In the field of security studies, liberal feminists have made path-breaking contributions by highlighting the gendered impact of war, militarism, and peacekeeping. Scholars like Cynthia Enloe, in Bananas, Beaches and Bases (1989), revealed how women’s labor—whether as military wives, prostitutes, or factory workers—is central to the functioning of global militarism. Liberal feminists thus call for policies that protect women from sexual violence in conflict zones, include them in peace processes, and recognize their roles as peacebuilders. Post-colonial feminists agree that war and militarism are gendered but argue that Western security discourses often portray Third World women as victims needing protection, reinforcing paternalistic and racial hierarchies. For example, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (2001) was justified partly through the rhetoric of “saving Afghan women,” which post-colonial feminists like Lila Abu-Lughod criticized as a colonial feminist narrative that legitimized imperial intervention under the guise of women’s liberation.

The notion of agency also diverges sharply between the two schools. Liberal feminists assume a universal model of rational, autonomous agency, which all women should be able to exercise if given equal opportunities. Post-colonial feminists, however, caution against imposing such Western models. They emphasize contextual forms of resistance and agency, such as collective struggles, indigenous feminist movements, and everyday acts of survival that may not conform to Western liberal ideals. For instance, Leila Ahmed and Saba Mahmood have shown how Muslim women’s choices regarding the veil, piety, or family life can represent complex negotiations of identity and power, rather than mere signs of subjugation.

When it comes to global economic relations, liberal feminists tend to emphasize equal participation in the workforce, fair wages, and anti-discrimination laws. They advocate for greater female representation in global trade institutions like the WTO and in transnational corporations. Yet, post-colonial feminists expose how global capitalism—often celebrated by liberal feminists—relies on the cheap labor of women in the Global South, particularly in export-processing zones, garment industries, and care economies. Scholars like Naila Kabeer and Chandra Mohanty argue that the neoliberal economy exploits gender and race hierarchies under the banner of empowerment. The so-called “empowered factory worker” in Bangladesh or Vietnam, while financially independent, often endures exploitative working conditions dictated by Western consumer demand.

In the realm of development theory, liberal feminism’s approach is exemplified in Women in Development (WID) and Gender and Development (GAD) paradigms. These frameworks aim to integrate women into development projects by providing education, credit, and employment. However, post-colonial feminists argue that such models uncritically accept Western notions of progress and modernization, which erase indigenous knowledge systems and community-based economies. The Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) network, established in the 1980s by feminists from the Global South, represents a post-colonial feminist alternative. DAWN critiques both patriarchy and neoliberal globalization, advocating for people-centered, sustainable development grounded in local realities.

The relationship between feminism and the state further distinguishes these approaches. Liberal feminists tend to view the state as a potential ally that can promote gender equality through legislation and policy reform. They push for laws against domestic violence, trafficking, and workplace discrimination. Post-colonial feminists, however, view the state—especially postcolonial states—as an ambivalent entity. On the one hand, it is a product of colonial power and patriarchal nation-building; on the other, it can be a site of resistance. For example, post-colonial feminists analyze how nationalist movements often mobilized women symbolically as “mothers of the nation” but excluded them from actual political power once independence was achieved.

Another dimension of divergence lies in their critique of universalism and difference. Liberal feminism, committed to universal human rights, tends to promote a single global standard of gender equality. Post-colonial feminism critiques this as epistemic imperialism, where Western norms of individualism and secularism are imposed on societies with different value systems. It calls for plural feminist voices that recognize diversity in cultural expressions of gender justice. For example, while liberal feminism might critique practices like the veil or arranged marriage as oppressive, post-colonial feminists argue that these practices must be understood within local cultural logics rather than dismissed through Western liberal lenses.

Despite their tensions, there are areas of convergence between liberal and post-colonial feminisms. Both recognize gender as a crucial category of analysis in international relations and seek to challenge patriarchal structures that perpetuate women’s subordination. Both also contribute to broadening the IR discipline by incorporating voices, subjects, and experiences previously marginalized in mainstream theories. Yet, while liberal feminism works within the system to make it more inclusive, post-colonial feminism seeks to transform or even transcend the system by questioning its very foundations.

Critics of both approaches point out their limitations. Liberal feminism has been criticized for being elitist, Western-centric, and reformist, focusing on inclusion rather than transformation. It risks co-optation by neoliberal agendas that celebrate gender equality only insofar as it enhances productivity or governance efficiency. Post-colonial feminism, on the other hand, faces criticism for excessive relativism and for sometimes neglecting universal norms of justice and rights in the name of cultural specificity. Furthermore, the fragmentation of post-colonial discourses can make it difficult to formulate coherent policy alternatives at the international level.

Nevertheless, their dialogue is mutually enriching. Liberal feminism’s insistence on institutional reform provides tangible pathways for advancing women’s rights, while post-colonial feminism’s decolonial critique ensures that such reforms remain context-sensitive and globally just. The UN Women’s emphasis on intersectionality and the feminist foreign policies of countries like Sweden, Canada, and Mexico illustrate how contemporary feminist practice in IR increasingly draws from both traditions—combining equality with diversity, empowerment with decolonization.

In conclusion, liberal and post-colonial feminist approaches in IR represent two contrasting yet complementary efforts to reimagine global politics through the lens of gender. Liberal feminism, rooted in universalism, rights, and equality, strives to correct the gender imbalance within existing institutions, while post-colonial feminism, grounded in historical consciousness and intersectionality, exposes the imperial and racial dimensions of global patriarchy. Their comparison highlights a deeper tension in feminist theory itself—between reform and revolution, between inclusion and transformation, between universality and difference. The future of feminist IR may well lie in synthesizing these perspectives, creating a plural, intersectional, and decolonized feminist vision of world politics that not only adds women into the international system but also rethinks the system itself.

Feminism as a theoretical and political enterprise emerged as a profound critique of traditional social, political, and epistemological frameworks that privileged male experiences as universal. Within the field of International Relations (IR), feminist scholarship gained traction in the late 1980s and early 1990s when scholars began to question the gender blindness of mainstream paradigms such as realism and liberalism. These dominant theories, preoccupied with states, power, and anarchy, had largely ignored how gender hierarchies shape international structures and practices. Feminist approaches in IR thus aimed to uncover how international politics is not gender-neutral but rather embedded in patriarchal systems that sustain male privilege and marginalize women’s experiences. However, feminism in IR is not monolithic. It encompasses multiple perspectives that differ in their conceptual foundations, normative objectives, and strategies of analysis. Among these, the liberal, Marxist, radical, and postmodern feminist approaches stand out as distinctive yet interrelated frameworks that engage with questions of gender, power, and global inequality from divergent angles.

Liberal feminism is the oldest and most reformist strand within feminist theory, rooted in Enlightenment ideals of individual rights, equality, and rationality. Thinkers such as Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill laid its philosophical foundations by arguing that women should have the same political, educational, and economic opportunities as men. In the context of IR, liberal feminists such as Ann Tickner, J. Ann Towns, and Jean Elshtain have highlighted how the exclusion of women from decision-making processes, diplomacy, and global governance perpetuates gendered hierarchies at the international level. They contend that international politics mirrors domestic inequalities: just as women are underrepresented in parliaments or corporate boards, they are similarly absent from the corridors of global power. The liberal feminist project thus seeks inclusion and reform within existing institutions, advocating for policies such as gender mainstreaming in foreign policy, increased female participation in international organizations, and attention to women’s rights in development and peacebuilding.

The liberal feminist approach views gender inequality primarily as a result of discriminatory social norms and institutional barriers rather than structural contradictions inherent in capitalism or patriarchy. It maintains faith in the potential of legal reform, education, and political participation to rectify historical injustices. For example, initiatives like UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security exemplify liberal feminist ideals in global politics. By emphasizing women’s agency in conflict resolution and peacebuilding, such measures align with the liberal belief that gender equality strengthens democratic governance and international stability. However, critics argue that liberal feminism often risks co-optation by the very structures it seeks to reform. It tends to universalize Western notions of emancipation and fails to adequately challenge the gendered logic of the international system, which privileges states and markets over human welfare.

In contrast, Marxist feminism situates gender inequality within the broader framework of capitalist exploitation and class relations. Drawing from Karl Marx’s materialist conception of history, Marxist feminists argue that patriarchy cannot be fully understood apart from the economic structures that underpin global capitalism. Early Marxist feminists such as Clara Zetkin and Alexandra Kollontai highlighted how capitalism relies on the unpaid domestic labor of women, which sustains the productive labor of men and thus the capitalist mode of production itself. Later theorists like Heidi Hartmann and Silvia Federici expanded this insight by exploring how capitalism and patriarchy constitute a “dual system” of oppression, where women’s labor—both reproductive and productive—is systematically undervalued and controlled.

Applied to IR, Marxist feminism exposes the gendered dimensions of global capitalism. The international division of labor, for instance, often relegates women in the Global South to exploitative sectors such as garment manufacturing, electronic assembly, and care work. These forms of labor reproduce global hierarchies that mirror the patriarchal subordination of women within national economies. Cynthia Enloe’s classic work, Bananas, Beaches and Bases (1989), vividly illustrates how international politics depends on the invisible labor of women—from diplomatic wives and military prostitutes to domestic workers and factory employees. The Marxist feminist critique therefore extends beyond demands for inclusion to question the structural foundations of global inequality. It views institutions like the World Bank, IMF, and WTO as complicit in perpetuating capitalist and patriarchal exploitation under the guise of development and globalization.

While liberal feminism advocates for women’s integration into existing systems, Marxist feminism calls for their transformation. It argues that true emancipation requires dismantling capitalist relations of production and reorganizing social life around collective ownership and economic equality. Yet Marxist feminism has also been criticized for economic reductionism—its tendency to subsume gender under class and to prioritize the economic over the cultural or ideological. Moreover, critics like Nancy Fraser have pointed out that Marxist feminism often overlooks issues of identity, sexuality, and intersectionality, focusing instead on class struggle as the primary terrain of emancipation. Nonetheless, its contribution to IR lies in its insistence that global politics cannot be divorced from the material conditions of production and reproduction that sustain both patriarchy and capitalism.

Radical feminism, emerging prominently during the second wave of the 1960s and 1970s, departs from both liberal and Marxist paradigms by asserting that patriarchy—rather than capitalism or discrimination—is the fundamental source of women’s oppression. Theorists like Kate Millett, Shulamith Firestone, and Andrea Dworkin argue that patriarchy is a pervasive system of male domination that penetrates all aspects of social, political, and personal life. Unlike Marxists who view women’s subordination as rooted in economic relations, radical feminists emphasize the biological, psychological, and sexual dimensions of power that sustain male control over women’s bodies and sexuality. For them, the private sphere is not separate from the political; it is a primary site of oppression. Hence, the famous slogan “the personal is political” encapsulates radical feminism’s core insight.

In the realm of IR, radical feminists extend this critique to the militarized and masculinized nature of global politics. The state, according to scholars like J. Ann Tickner and Cynthia Cockburn, embodies patriarchal values of aggression, hierarchy, and control. War, nationalism, and militarism are seen as gendered institutions that valorize masculine traits such as strength, rationality, and dominance while marginalizing feminine qualities like care, empathy, and cooperation. The association of masculinity with security and femininity with vulnerability reproduces gendered binaries that justify war and violence. Radical feminists therefore seek a reconceptualization of security—one that centers human well-being, ecological balance, and social justice rather than state sovereignty or military power.

However, radical feminism’s focus on universal patriarchy has invited substantial criticism. Postcolonial and intersectional feminists argue that radical feminism often assumes a homogeneous category of “woman,” neglecting how race, class, culture, and geography mediate women’s experiences of oppression. Moreover, its essentialist tendencies—such as valorizing “feminine” values or opposing “male” domination—risk reproducing the very gender binaries it aims to dismantle. Despite these limitations, radical feminism’s insistence that international politics is deeply gendered has profoundly influenced feminist IR, particularly in studies of war, peace, and militarism.

The emergence of postmodern feminism in the 1980s and 1990s represented a decisive epistemological turn in feminist thought. Drawing inspiration from poststructuralism and deconstruction, particularly the works of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Judith Butler, postmodern feminists challenge the idea of a stable, unified subject “woman.” They argue that both gender and power are discursively constructed, meaning that identities and social hierarchies are produced through language, norms, and practices rather than natural or essential attributes. For postmodern feminists such as Christine Sylvester and Marysia Zalewski, feminist theory itself must remain reflexive and critical, avoiding the universalizing claims that earlier feminist traditions sometimes made.

In international relations, postmodern feminism interrogates the discursive foundations of global politics—how concepts like “security,” “sovereignty,” or “development” are imbued with masculine assumptions that shape policy and practice. It deconstructs the narratives through which states legitimize power, war, and inequality. For example, Carol Cohn’s influential study of U.S. defense intellectuals reveals how the language of nuclear strategy—filled with terms like “clean bombs” or “penetration capability”—sexualizes and sanitizes violence, making it more acceptable. Postmodern feminists thus expose how power operates through discourse, shaping not only what is said but what can be thought within the field of IR.

A key contribution of postmodern feminism is its epistemological critique of objectivity. It contends that traditional IR theories, by claiming neutrality and universality, conceal their own masculine and Western biases. Instead, knowledge should be seen as situated and partial, reflecting the standpoint of those who produce it. This insight has profound methodological implications: it calls for plural, context-sensitive, and self-reflexive approaches to studying international politics. However, critics often charge postmodern feminism with relativism—its reluctance to make normative claims or to offer concrete strategies for change. By deconstructing all categories, it risks undermining the very possibility of collective feminist action. Yet its value lies precisely in questioning power/knowledge relations and exposing how discourses of modernity, progress, and security reproduce gendered hierarchies at the global level.

When these four feminist perspectives are compared, what emerges is a complex map of theoretical divergences regarding the nature of patriarchy, the source of women’s oppression, and the strategies for emancipation. Liberal feminism identifies exclusion and discrimination as the main problems and seeks reform within the existing order through inclusion and representation. Marxist feminism locates women’s subordination in capitalist economic structures and demands systemic transformation of production relations. Radical feminism attributes oppression to patriarchy as an autonomous system of male domination that transcends class and calls for a radical reordering of gender relations and social values. Postmodern feminism, in turn, problematizes all fixed categories—including “woman” and “patriarchy”—and focuses on how power operates through discourse and representation.

These theoretical differences also reflect divergent epistemological commitments. Liberal and Marxist feminisms remain largely modernist in their belief in reason, progress, and emancipatory politics. Radical feminism oscillates between essentialism and social constructionism, depending on whether it emphasizes biology or ideology as the root of patriarchy. Postmodern feminism, however, rejects grand narratives altogether, embracing deconstruction and pluralism instead. The result is a productive tension within feminist IR: while some strands prioritize practical policy change and institutional reform, others insist on rethinking the very foundations of knowledge and power.

In practical terms, these feminist approaches offer different visions of global transformation. A liberal feminist might advocate for greater female representation in the United Nations, gender budgeting, or feminist foreign policies such as those adopted by Sweden and Canada. A Marxist feminist would emphasize redistributing global wealth, regulating transnational corporations, and recognizing reproductive labor as economically valuable. A radical feminist would seek to dismantle militarism, challenge gendered socialization, and promote non-hierarchical forms of politics. A postmodern feminist, meanwhile, would question the very categories through which such reforms are conceived, asking how “security” or “development” are themselves gendered discourses that constrain feminist imagination.

Importantly, these strands also share common ground. All feminist approaches to IR reveal the gendered foundations of global politics, highlighting how traditional theories have ignored or marginalized women’s roles and experiences. They insist that gender is not a peripheral issue but central to understanding war, peace, economy, and governance. Moreover, feminist IR has expanded the discipline’s methodological and normative horizons by introducing reflexivity, ethics of care, and intersectionality as analytical tools. Yet, the diversity within feminism should not be seen as fragmentation but as intellectual richness—a reflection of the complexity of gendered power relations in a globalized world.

Thus, while liberal, Marxist, radical, and postmodern feminisms diverge in their diagnoses and prescriptions, they collectively constitute a transformative challenge to the discipline of IR. They force us to reconsider who counts as a subject of international politics, what counts as knowledge, and whose security and welfare are prioritized in global decision-making. In an era marked by deepening inequalities, militarized nationalism, and ecological crisis, feminist perspectives—despite their differences—remain vital for envisioning a more just, inclusive, and humane international order.

Comparative Summary Table