Gendering U.S. Foreign Policy and Women's Leadership

Whether in the boardroom, peace negotiations, or governments, studies consistently show that including women leads to better outcomes (e.g., higher returns on investments; lower rates of civil conflict) (Brooks 2013; Wilson 2016; Victor 2016). Moreover, feminist IR scholars have shown that states with greater gender equality (as measured by “women’s equal political, economic, and social power”) have foreign policies that are less belligerent (Caprioli 2000). Without the inclusion of women, alternative options for foreign policy are not likely to be considered and presented if more voices, diverse voices, and expertise are excluded, which further hinders “critical decision-making” (Zenko and Wolf 2015). Given the evidence that having women in policy making impacts both decision making processes and outcomes, do women make a difference in U.S. foreign policy? And if so, in what ways do they make a difference? Tracing different presidential administrations, and where and when women are present in foreign policy positions, including leadership positions, provides an opportunity to assess the decision-making process and policy outcomes. Moreover, examining the five post-Cold War presidential administrations demonstrates that some administrations institutionalized and embedded pro-gender norms in foreign policy (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden), while others resisted doing so (George W. Bush and Donald Trump). Even in those administrations promoting pro-gender norms, barriers to women’s participation and representation remain. In further exploring these cases, questions under consideration include: how was foreign policy gendered? Who mattered in promoting foreign policy that prioritized women’s empowerment and gender equality? Consequently, this paper analyzes several factors that account for the connection between gender and foreign policy across different U.S. administrations, and the institutionalization of commitments to gender equality and women’s rights in the contemporary period. First, an increased number of women at the middle and senior levels in foreign policy positions (descriptive representation). Second, feminists within the government (political appointees and career civil servants) promoting pro-gender norms (substantive representation of women in these foreign policy positions). Third, feminist activists outside the government (including transnational networks) who provide information to policymakers on women and pro-gender issues. Fourth, presidents with the political will to promote and implement pro-gender norms and foreign policies. These factors echo Aggestam and True’s (2020) three ways of studying gender and foreign policy: gender representation, gender mainstreaming, and feminist transformative principles.