So why is it that, even at the Lowy Institute, well regarded women are studying and writing about international relations issues yet few of them appear as public commentators? In the case of the Lowy Institute, the answer is probably statistical – women on the staff write and comment as much as men, but there are more men, hence more male voices. 

But does this hold true in the broader international relations community?Are there fewer women commentators because there are fewer women in the international relations field? Is it because women are discriminated against when the media seeks comment on international relations issues? Or is there another explanation? 

Someone opined that the reason is that women prefer direct communication – they much more comfortable in talking one-on-one, and much less motivated to have a profile by commenting publicly. 

This rang true with my experience over two years ago, when there was a similar comment made about the lack of female commentators. I made a point of writing a series of blogs highlighting stories about women in Arab politics and received a number of e-mails from women who thanked me for doing this – no blog posts, just direct e-mails. So maybe there is something to this notion of women preferring intimate modes of communication rather than metaphorically shouting from the media rooftops, as we men are wont to do.

So, two years after I last did it, I am going to write another series of posts about women in international relations. I would like to again concentrate on Middle Eastern issues, but the disturbing lack of any ruthless, bloodthirsty female autocrats trying to hold onto power in the region makes it a somewhat difficult task. Sure, there are examples such as the female Libyan television presenter Hala Misrati, who made an impassioned and fully armed defence of the Qhadhafi regime on live television. But for the most part, stories about the Arab Spring have been male affairs. 

Still, in my white, middle-aged male kind of way I will attempt to fulfil this undertaking. I would welcome public comments from women who are unafraid to be published on the blog as to why women appear to be the forgotten sex when it comes to international relations commentary.

Photo by Flickr user CharlesFred.

I also think there are more subtle, but potentially more damaging, sorts of gender discrimination at play in this field as in many others. By way of example, there are a lot of common expressions that associate one gender or the other with certain traits – fight/run/throw ‘like a girl,’ man up, sack up, take it like a man. These expressions seem harmless on their own, but they can do harm. We use them so often and so easily that we don’t even think about them. About two weeks ago, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Governor Rick Perry made a comment that provoked a flurry of commentary. People were saying that Governor Perry had accused President Obama of being ‘unmanly’ or effeminate, to give a couple of examples. However, this is what Governor Perry actually said: “One of the reasons that I’m running for president is I want to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on the uniform of the United States respects highly the president of the United States.” All that it is clear Perry was implying with this statement (and not that this is not an important reference worthy of discussion for its civil-military implications, but that’s not the issue here) is that Obama does not have the respect of our military. I was struck that so many others took that and (presumably unconsciously) added gender to the mix, and for a few reasons. First of all, Perry never said he is manlier than Obama, or that Obama is effeminate, but a lot of people came up with like interpretations that he did. More disturbingly, so what if he did? Being a man should not be a prerequisite for military respect and being a woman should not disqualify one from such.

Unfortunately, I think the reason so many people made this leap of interpretation is that it was all too short a leap to make. It is common to impugn a man’s strength by comparing him to a woman or otherwise implying he has feminine qualities; it is common to associate toughness, strength and other such qualities with men; and there is undeniably a macho culture around a lot of the military, as well as the national security/defense field at large. To me, though, when a man says he wants the members of our military to respect the President, and a broad swath of people see it as a statement about gender, we have a problem. This indicates a culture where women are underrated, or even totally discounted, in large and important areas of life. It’s not hard to imagine that these attitudes contribute to the shortage of women in major positions of security and foreign policy. While women have made great strides, and there are a number of women making inroads every day, these things add up. As long as we accept the casual associations of toughness and strength and firmness and respect and defense and security with men, the similar associations of softness and sensitivity and weakness with women, and countless other thoughtlessly diminishing turns of phrase or attitudes – assigning some attributes to men, others to women, and placing the most value on the ‘male’ attributes – then the inequality will remain, because even casual associations, when made repeatedly enough, become habit.

Moving beyond the potential reasons why women are not more involved in international relations, I want to address the many women who are involved, quite a few of whom comment publicly on a regular basis, or would gladly do so given more opportunity. I myself have a M.A. in International Relations, am seeking employment in the security and/or foreign policy fields, and am very involved in discussions of these issues where I can be, on Twitter and blogs. Much more notable than me, though, I would direct you to established female voices like Princeton University’s Anne-Marie Slaughter, former director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department, who currently writes for the Atlantic; counterterrorism expert Leah Farrall; Journalist Naheed Mustafa; the women who are helping to set policy at think tanks like Research Director Kristin Lord at the Center For a New American Security (the female representation of which was defended by Andrew Exum here); or young, vocal women such as Natalie Sambhi of Security Scholar; Diana Wueger, who writes for the Atlantic, UN Dispatch, and her own blog Gunpowder & Lead; the unconventional Courtney Messerschmidt of Great Satan’s Girlfriend; Lauren Jenkins of UN Dispatch and International Development Without Pity; Elmira Bayrasli of Forbes; entrepreneur and blogger Kalsoom Lakhani; Morehouse’s Laura Seay; and countless others currently seeking a voice through their work, through Twitter, or through a number of other avenues. All of these women, and many others, are writing, talking, tweeting, blogging, debating, working in the field, taking every opportunity they can get to be heard. We are here. We are in the public realm. We want to be heard. It’s just not clear that you are listening.

I intended to post this as a response to your blog post, but have sent it as an email as the Lowy Interpreter does not accept comments. Please feel free to publish this email in whole or in part.

No inequality in the sector, no no, and no imbalance in the voice represented by the media. It's not the recent of involvement of people with two X chromosomes in a world traditionally dominated by those with one that's keeping the discussion on the blokey side. Women are just shy and retiring types who, in Mr Shanahan's own words, prefer 'intimate modes of communication'. Well that's excellent. I shall put down my copy of Pape's The Strategic Logic of Suicide Bombing and start working on my needlepoint depicting the storming of Normandy then.

I'm sorry, is the Lowy Institute blog being posted from the 1890s this week? Or is it that Mr Shanahan only regards a blog post as a legitimate form of commentary? I don't even really understand how he drew the conclusion that a few emails meant that chicks don't like to argue in public. I'm not going to write a blog post on this (although if you like I'll link to it on my Tumblr ooh how 21st century and confrontational of me! That must mean I really mean it!).

If Lowy (or Mr Shanahan) are so worried about the paucity of female voices in their publications and public events, why don't they put out a call for women contributors and speakers? Hey, the next time you want a few snarky hundred words on the Southern Thailand insurgency or Southeast Asian terrorism, give me a call, I've got a degree in it. Why don't you hire more women if you want more. Don't say, oh, 'we wring our hands about in at lunch'. Go hire some.

If you suggest there are none, I shall scream. At the end of June, I completed my Masters of International Security at the University of Sydney. My research supervisor was Dr Sarah Phillips — if you can't contact her right now it's because she's in Yemen. Yes. That Yemen. The one where things go 'boom' a lot. 'She is currently looking at political and security developments in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the Horn of Africa, and the relationship between tribes and militant jihadi networks in fragile states'. That's directly from her bio on the USYD website.

Who else is there at USYD? Oh, well there's Professor Leanne Piggott, who I guess you may have heard of at some point. I believe she knows a bit about the Middle East. Monika Barthwal-Datta is good on food security. Elsina Wainright does statebuilding and fragile states. That's four women at one institution off the top of my head. I find it unlikely that they are the only ones in the country. Claims that there are no women writing about security are lazy and insulting to those who are and there is absolutely no excuse for making them.

Onto Mr Shanahan's second point, which was a little vague, so I thought I'd just quote the offending paragraph in full and go from there:

I am going to write another series of posts about women in international relations. I would like to again concentrate on Middle Eastern issues, but the disturbing lack of any ruthless, bloodthirsty female autocrats trying to hold onto power in the region makes it a somewhat difficult task. Sure, there are examples such as the female Libyan television presenter Hala Misrati, who made an impassioned and fully armed defence of the Qhadhafi regime on live television. But for the most part, stories about the Arab Spring have been male affairs.

This, surely is some sort of absurd joke. Mr Shanahan presumably recognises that the autocrats themselves are only a small part of the Arab Spring story; it is the revolutionaries themselves who are generating most of the stories. If only there were some high profile women involved in some of these countries...oh, like Asma al-Assad, the wife of the Syrian dictator? The one who has fled to London, and was earlier this year the subject of a gushing profile in Vogue? You mean like that?

Or maybe he meant women on the ground who have been involved in the various uprisings? I guess there aren't any. Everyone knows women in the Middle East — particularly Muslim women — are even more shy and retiring than their Western counterparts, and I mean they've got those head scarves and everything so they're seriously oppressed. Yes? I can't think of anyone whose work you could link to or discuss or oops is that Mona Eltahawy I see on the horizon?

Oh no is this a Guardian article about how women have emerged as 'key players' in the Arab Spring (complete with oppressed ladies in niqabs)? Here's a Nation article that says they've been at the forefront of protests! Le Monde: 'Arab Spring: The Female Factor'

Do you know how I found those articles? I googled 'Women Arab Spring'. I am in no way, shape or form a Middle East expert, yet I — unlike Mr Shanahan, whose bio suggests he is — was able to find these things in about five seconds. Mainly because I had already read a few articles along the same lines. I knew they were out there because I had been paying attention.

And so Mr Shanahan ends:

Still, in my white, middle-aged male kind of way I will attempt to fulfil this undertaking. I would welcome public comments from women who are unafraid to be published on the blog as to why women appear to be the forgotten sex when it comes to international relations commentary.

Look at that, I fulfilled it for him with my amazing powers of Google! It is very kind of Mr Shanahan to provide me — a delicate shimmering flower of Australian womanhood who prefers more intimate discussions — with an opportunity to be published on his blog. 'Forgotten sex' is right though. Forgotten by him.

My impression is that women in the audience at conferences on international relations are likely to be younger or around retirement age, rather than in mid- or senior career levels. I think there's a correlation with those career levels, age and women's responsibilities for looking after children. It's pretty hard keeping up with the literature and developing well-thought-through opinions when one's attention is so divided. 

A lot of younger women are studying international security – classes here often have more women than men. But perhaps they tend to go on to jobs in government, which might be more flexible than academic careers. Working in government restricts your ability to make public comment. Others go on to work in civil society – and in conferences on aid effectiveness, you'll find as many vocal women as men.

But there must be some disincentives at work restricting the likelihood that women will work in international relations departments. A quick glance at my local university international relations school shows fewer than a quarter of the lecturers are women.

Tim Dunlop:

I am a big fan of the site and of Sam's, but I was disappointed in Sam's response to Jen Bennett. I think Sam underestimates terribly the anger and frustration that some women feel when reading pieces like that by Rodger Shanahan. I agree with Sam that some of Jen's criticism was misplaced, but I must admit I had a similar reaction to hers on reading his piece. There is something terribly condescending in the way he presented his concerns and it is the sort of condescension professional women have to deal with too often. 

His representation of women as frightened ('I would welcome public comments from women who are unafraid to be published on the blog'), and his positioning himself as their champion ('Still, in my white, middle-aged male kind of way I will attempt to fulfil this undertaking') is precisely the sort of casual sexism that men too often get away with unchallenged.  I can accept that his comments were probably well-meaning, but his good intentions in that regard do not excuse the unexamined sexism apparent in the way he positioned women commentators and himself in regard to them. 

The fact that Sam was more offended by the angry tone of Jen's response than by the polite condescension in Rodger's piece is unfortunate. Instead of reacting like a scold to Jen's response and making cheap cracks about her 'playing to her Twitter gallery', it might be better to try and understand her anger. 

Let me just say again, I'm a big fan of Sam's and of the site. What's more, I do not have a dog in this fight as I don't know -- beyond what they have written here -- either Jen or Rodger. But I do sympathise with Jen's anger and I think Rodger, despite obvious good intentions, badly misfired in the published piece.

Within the academic and public policy sector, writing on an issue can be as influential, if not more, than speaking on it. In fact, written work is often more widely disseminated, reaching a broader audience and influencing the general public for a longer period of time.

It is puzzling that Shanahan does not consider writing as a form of public commentary. As researchers in the foreign-policy think-tank world, each time we author a piece, our work is pushed into the public realm for scrutiny. The people reading our pieces are PhDs, experts in the field, or journalists whose contextual background is deep and varied. Blogs and op-eds, cached online and searchable for years to come, are perpetually open to criticism and discussion and influence the thoughts of the policymakers and the general public.

In Washington's corridors of power, most speaking invitations in the think tank world are awarded to experts on the basis of the quality of their written work. 

Shanahan's use of anecdotal evidence is understandable but dangerous. He relies on his personal observations to substantiate the assumption that women are less inclined to speak publicly. For women in academic and international public policy, this idea could be incredibly damaging. Jobs in academia and in public policy require boldness and openness to public debate. And if women are 'less prone' to doing this, then they are poorer candidates for grad school, think tank and academic positions, or public policy jobs, which routinely require these skills.

However, numerous articles do point out, as Shanahan notes, that women are under-represented in speaking engagements, even with respect to their proportional representation in the field. If women are writing and publishing as much as men, but are sought after less for public speaking engagements, what gives? One factor, Patricia Kushlis suggest, is 'unconscious cronyism'. Heather Hurlburt expounds:

...we must be honest that the core problem is that many men still turn first to other men -- in hiring, but also in picking conference speakers, media spokespeople, and handing out assignments. If you don't want to call it sexism, it is at least a bias toward comfort with what's familiar.

The articles and responses generated by Micah Zenko's City of Men suggest that a wide variety of factors contribute women's poor representation in foreign policy overall. In two additional posts, Zenko summarizes these responses: unconscious favoritism towards other men, inadequate maternity leave, family pressures, a subtle pressure for women to study 'soft power' issues and women's general lack of interest in military/security studies (apparently, we are an exception to the rule, having both published on hard power issues recently) as core problems.

While Shanahan raises an important point on women's underrepresentation in foreign policy, to blame the lack of public female faces on women's preference towards private rather than public discussion reinforces the notion that women weren't cut out for foreign policy. Instead, public discussion should consider patterns which keep women out of the corridors of power. In the meantime, women may need to be even more proactive about seeking out public speaking engagements.

Photo by Flickr user US Army Korea.

Is it false? Are other explanations more pertinent? Readers have suggested a lack of time by mid-career women; lower priority given to 'women's' security issues; male cronyism. Are there any ways in which the Lowy can address these? This is of course assuming that you think it's worth the effort to bring in more female opinions.

Anyway, thanks to a number of respondents you've now been presented with an exhaustive list of female commentators on security issues. I'd be interested in learning what you're going to do with it.

There are three issues here, which I will take in turn: (1) style and substance in blog debates; (2) comments policy; and (3) the level of female participation on The Interpreter.

Style and substance

Olivia is right. I did not rebut all the arguments in Jennifer Bennett's email, partly because I knew Rodger would prepare his own reply, and partly because, as I said in the piece, I thought Jennifer raised two important points. But I don't apologise for focusing on style, and I think Olivia draws too sharp a distinction between style and substance. In written debates, the two are intimately linked.

Note today's contribution from Rocchetta and Milligan, which strikes a firm but never strident tone. Some might mistake this for meekness or an unwillingness to risk confrontation, but what it's really about is a recognition that tone plays a large part in determining whether you actually convince anyone of your point of view.

Comments policy

I take it that Olivia's reference to a more conversational format on The Interpreter alludes to the fact that, unlike most blogs, we don't have open comment threads. There are various 'negative' reasons for this, but I actually think this debate showcases a strength of our approach, in which comments emailed to us are selected by our editorial team for publication on the site (a format, BTW, which I stole from Andrew Sullivan).

For the most part, the reader feedback we have received on this issue has been of outstanding quality, and I think it would have been a shame to see that material relegated to a comments-section ghetto. As it was, we featured those comments prominently as Reader Ripostes, and as a result I think the writer at centre of the debate, Rodger Shanahan, had much more incentive to respond to them. Had they been relegated to a comments thread, they would have been much easier to ignore.

Female participation on The Interpreter

My rough estimate is that only 5-10% of contributions to The Interpreter come from women. Olivia Kember asks what I am going to do about this. The obvious solution is to approach more qualified women and invite them to write.

The Interpreter is in the fortunate position of not having to solicit a great deal of content. Writers send stuff to us, and we work with them to make it publishable. There are slow periods where we go in search of material, and we are trying to find young writers in the Asia Pacific who can report on issues that get too little attention in Australia. But on the whole, we have enough quality supply of content to keep us busy. So, it's a supply-driven model, and overwhelmingly, the supply comes from men.

Yes, I'm always looking for new contributors, but generally these come via tips and introductions from colleagues and contacts. I almost never 'cold call' people to ask them to write for The Interpreter, partly because I don't have to, but also because it's not very productive. The best contributors are those who are motivated to write (we don't pay), and who know and like the site from having read it. So just sending a bunch of invites to female academics and commentators doesn't strike me as a promising strategy.

All that said, I'm open to ideas as to how we can attract more female contributors to the site. But equally, potential women contributors reading this don't need to wait to be asked. Pitch me your ideas on blogeditor@lowyinstitute.org .

Developed Western societies aren't just missing female babies, but male ones too. Western empowered women are now choosing to have fewer children and delay childbearing, often until past the peak of their fertility when their ability to fall pregnant declines rapidly. The demographic result is a national fertility rate of less than 2.1 (rate of replacement in developed countries). Low national fertility is being compensated for by immigration across most of the OECD, with Japan as the notable exception. Reliance on immigration is exacerbated by the other consequence of the decline in fertility rates, the aging of the population.

While population aging usually has more to do with declining mortality than declining fertility, although there are notable exceptions, countries where fertility rates dropped precipitously will experience similarly accelerated population aging. The most significant of these is China, whose population is aging so rapidly it is predicted to have a significant effect on long term growth potential and prospects for political stability. Chinese leaders will eventually need to stabilise the population, or at least slow the decline to a less damaging pace, however the situation in Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore (see rank order) makes clear that ending the one-child policy will probably not be enough.

Economically empowered Asian women are rejecting or delaying marriage because social values associated with family have failed to keep up with economic reality. Traditionally, wives were expected to devote themselves to the care of their husbands, children and elderly relatives, making it virtually impossible to continue to pursue a career. Until marriage and childbearing becomes a more attractive prospect, empowered women will continue to avoid them, in the East as in the West, with destructive long term economic and social consequences.

Social attitudes are difficult, not impossible to change. The successes of feminism in changing the law and raising awareness have slowly altered social attitudes in many countries, but more needs to be done, especially to promote gender equality in the home. Instituting compulsory home economics for all school students would probably have a positive impact on the division of household labour (thereby making marriage more attractive to women), and increasing choice and availability of quality affordable child care has been shown to be one of the best ways to support career minded women realise their plans to have children. For instance, a recent OECD report on government policies to support families emphasises childcare provision in a number of its recommendations.

On the more general question raised initially by Rodger Shanahan about the paucity of women as public commentators, may I share my experience? I have written or edited ten books on aspects of international relations, as well as many articles for journals and newspapers, but I find it next to impossible to place an op-ed in a mainstream newspaper now.

Late last year I proposed to the press a series of articles by several authors leading up to Australia's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, a timely topic, and one that much of the media continue to neglect, but without success. It may be me, but if so the question remains: why don't we see articles by plenty of other women whose views on international relations would make a refreshing change from the predictable views of regular columnists?

I can remember a time when women were not allowed to read the radio news because broadcasters thought they didn't sound authoritative. Perhaps something similar lingers on in the international relations/strategic policy dichotomy, a bit like the argument over the role of women in the armed forces. Perhaps the preference in the media for reporting conflict, and their regard for aggression as news, automatically segregates anyone who takes a different approach to international relations. Or perhaps there's a black list of people who are not to be invited and of topics that are not to be touched.

• Professor Samina Yasmeen, internationally recognised  expert on diplomacy, counter-terrorism and Indo-Pakistani relations, who is also the founding Director of the Centre for Muslim States and Societies at the University of Western Australia.
• Professor Jacqueline Lo, Director of the ANU Centre for European Studies, who is also a renowned expert on post-colonialism, cosmopolitanism and cross-cultural studies.
• Professor Pascaline Winand from the Monash University, Director of Europe and EU Centre, who is a world-class political scientist and diplomatic historian.
• Associate Professor Philomena Murray from the University of Melbourne, who is eminent political scientist, recipient of Personal Jean Monnet Chair in 2006, and a recognised strategist on Australia’s expanding relationship with the European Union.
• Melissa Conley Tyler, National Executive Director of the Australian Institute for International Affairs, who is also a specialist on conflict resolution and negotiation.

These women are to be found within a pool of strong minority of women in political science who are world-class experts in their respective fields. Their research regularly appears in specialised publications, journals and international press. An under-representation of women in international relations commentary in Australia that many in this debate have been referring to, therefore, might be a consequence of a distorted image and perceptions held locally about women in international affairs and in modern society more generally. Perceptions always influence political reality.

One should stop genderising when talking about politics. Gender biases and prejudices certainly exist, although it is difficult to measure them. The obsession with marital status which some commentators have referred to in this debate (in an era of unlimited technological opportunities) represents a significant barrier to what we are trying to achieve.

Women are certainly more publicly visible as being engaged as active participants and actors of change in the field of international relations and in the not-for-profit sector than only half a century ago. When looking for all those experts who are commenting regularly on international issues in the media and blogosphere we need look no further than the talented group of Australia women who are making their mark on the international stage.