In fact, this comparison attempts to explain how these systems of oppression have been historically constructed or normalized using the concept of 'nature'. Mill gives examples from countries and says that monarchy and slavery were once accepted as natural and inevitable by everyone. And most of the people the same thing links women's inferiority in society to the rationalization of such a natural order.

In fact, what Mill means in this comparison is to emphasize that mentalities that offer arguments based on nature to legitimately demonstrate inequality and oppression are wrong. He emphasizes that even great thinkers such as Aristotle overlooked this. Mill opposes the normalization of so-called natural superiority throughout history. He claims that such hierarchies are socially constructed.

With this comparison, it is possible to see that the nature arguments used to justify inequality have flaws. According to whom it is natural or not. As the saying goes, what is unnatural is something that cannot be accustomed to. Moreover, perceiving something as natural does not indicate that it is right or legitimate. In summary, Mill emphasizes that all individuals should have equal rights, freedom and justice, regardless of nature.

Comparing slavery and monarchy to the subordination of women shows that throughout history it has been possible for certain parts of societies to justify inequality and oppression by claiming to be naturally superior or inferior. Mill questions these claims and emphasizes that such developments are arbitrary and socially constructed.

According to Mill, if something is natural, is it just? What differs him from Rousseau? 

There's actually quite a big difference. Mill does not equate the natural with justice. According to Mill, natural does not mean that something is fair or just. On the contrary, it is used as a tool to legitimize some natural things. Mill brings a different perspective by criticizing the norms and traditions defended as nature. Mill emphasizes that problems should be solved not by resorting to nature, but by the principles of reason, freedom and equality.

Roussea, on the other hand, looks at nature differently. According to him, people were good in their natural state, but they were corrupted by civilization. He argues that the concepts of morality and justice exist naturally. And he emphasizes that as society moves away from this state of nature, inequality and injustice come to the fore. So, according to him, the natural state is justice. he is himself. In the natural state, women have roles.

According to him, as people live in society, they experience incompatibilities with what is natural, and this causes injustice. According to Rousseau, returning to the natural state or harmonizing society with natural tendencies can help create a more just and harmonious society. In this case, women are behind men and have inherent duties such as motherhood and housework.

The main difference between these two thinkers is in their approach to the relationship between nature and justice. While Mill argues that the natural is not automatically synonymous with justice, Rousseau emphasizes that the natural is the source of justice and the importance of returning to the natural state or creating a society in accordance with natural tendencies in order to make society more fair. The natural tendency here is that the woman is emotional and the man represents power. gender roles like

Public space refers to areas of economy, politics and social interaction. In this part, it is possible to talk about interactions such as political participation and labor force participation. Private space generally refers to the interior of the home, privacy, family and personal areas. For example, activities such as doing housework and raising children are in this area. is carried out. So what does this have to do with gender inequality? In fact, the society we live in has confined women to the private sphere. This is a process. While men have always been identified with the public sphere since the past; rational decision, power, etc. Women have been removed from public spaces and confined to private spaces. These spaces are one of the factors affecting gender inequality and hierarchy. In addition, activities carried out in the private sphere are seen as worthless and are put in the background and do not include a fee. However, women are not given enough opportunities for public sphere and women are excluded. In fact, at this point, feminism strives to create a more equal and inclusive system. Gender inequality is frequently observed in women's political representation. Situations such as the scarcity of women in political leadership roles, their underrepresentation in decision-making bodies, and their restriction of participation in policy-making processes are examples of gender inequality in the public sphere. In the private sphere, gender inequality can occur in the division of housework and care based on gender. While women generally undertake a large portion of the housework, men's participation and responsibility in this area may be insufficient.

According to Pateman, what is the biggest failure of liberal writers with respect to gender equality?

The biggest failure of liberal writers is that they act without caring or considering the private and public spheres. They only draw attention to the public sphere without focusing on this part. They do not evaluate gender relations in the private sphere. And at the end of the day, while advocating equality in the public sphere, the conditions, equality and freedom in the private sphere remain in the background. Therefore, Pateman says that liberalism is insufficient to explain gender inequality and the relationship between the private and the public sphere is ignored. In particular, liberal theories do not adequately address issues such as the frequent economic dependence of women in the private sphere and the devaluation of activities such as domestic work in society. In light of all this, gender equality should be addressed in a more inclusive manner. Pateman advocates the adoption of policies aimed at improving the status of women in both the public and private spheres.

 Security policy, according to feminist perspectives, should take gender equality and women's safety into consideration. According to Blanchard, feminist analysts have a significant impact on the fields of international relations and security studies. These analyses offer a more thorough grasp of topics including humanitarian aid, human rights, war and peace, and conflict resolution from a gender perspective. The essay explores the theory's potential future applications as well as critiques of feminist security theory. It focuses, in particular, on how gender equality issues can be more successfully addressed in security policies and how a gender perspective can be integrated into larger areas of international relations.

Robinson may argue that traditional security approaches, which primarily focus on military defense and state sovereignty, are insufficient for addressing contemporary security challenges, such as poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and human rights abuses. She may advocate for a broader understanding of security that encompasses these non-traditional threats and emphasizes the interconnectedness of global issues

The prevalent realist, state-centered approaches to national security that prioritize state security over the threat of external violence are rejected by feminist security studies as well as human security approaches. Both contend that mainstream methods overlook the factors that lead to human insecurity, such as threats to the economy, environment, and society, which can come from both outside and inside the state. It has been stated that the gender component of the human security strategy is frequently overlooked, even though it is wide and comprehensive.

A feminist ethics of care opposes the usual focus on people, governments, and institutions as independent players in the context of international politics, as well as the assessment of globalization and human security that exclusively considers macrolevel regimes and processes. This viewpoint contrasts with the view that people exist inside intricate networks of interconnectedness, such as families, communities, ethnic groups, and religious organizations, since it is within these contexts that their perceptions of security and insecurity are genuinely manifested.

The conversation on individual rights is insufficient on its own to handle the intricate web of relationships that both cause and eventually resolve human insecurity. This in no way implies that the demands of justice, particularly those that acknowledge personal autonomy and political freedom, should be disregarded or that the recognition of political freedom from the state's coercive authority is insignificant.

In fact, it is possible to talk about the concept of culture in the background of these violence. In addition, it is a fact that the policy of intimidation is implemented by using not only the business life but also the general life of the female representatives in the political arena. There are many female politicians who are subjected to verbal mobbing about their families. And those who make these comments are not even punished under 'freedom of expression'.

We can classify all these violence under the following headings; physical violence, psychological violence, psychological violence, economic violence, symbolic violence. So, how can this whole problem of violence be solved? First of all, a discussion area should be created and awareness should be created to solve this problem. Innovative ideas brought by international organizations should be put into practice. There should be resistance and supporting state initiatives should be supported.

Feminist foreign policy (FFP) aims to address gender inequalities and promote gender justice in international relations. This concept emerged in 2014, when Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström announced the first foreign policy in the world to be explicitly described as "feminist". Since then, other countries such as Canada, France, Mexico, Spain and Libya have adopted or expressed interest in FFP. While there is no single definition for FFP, the goals it generally includes are: Promoting gender equality and women's rights, ensuring the representation and participation of women in diplomatic processes, supporting women's involvement in conflict prevention and peacebuilding activities, and promoting solidarity for gender equality and women's rights at the global level. All this will be held in 2021, at the Generation Equality Forum (GEF ) led to the establishment of the Global Partners Network for Feminist Foreign Policy, which aims to promote common practices and accountability in FFP.

Countries have different feminist foreign policies. Examples from several countries are given in this research. First, Sweden is mentioned. Sweden's feminist foreign policy is defined by the "three R's": women's rights (Rights), backed by resources (Resources) and increased female representation (Representation). Sweden's feminist foreign policy covers three areas: foreign policy and national security, development cooperation, and trade and promotion policy. Goals include human rights, protection from violence, conflict prevention, political participation and economic empowerment.

Sweden's feminist foreign policy emphasizes women's rights and gender equality and uses it to support other foreign policy priorities.

 Canada, on the other hand, announced the world's first Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) in 2017. The policy, created under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, focused on international aid rather than broad areas of foreign policy. Canada's FIAP aims to support women's rights and representation by allocating 95 per cent of development assistance to gender equality goals. FIAP includes six priority areas: gender equality, humanitarian aid, economic growth, climate change, inclusive governance and women, peace and security

Luxembourg committed to a feminist foreign policy in 2018, emphasizing three key areas: the protection and promotion of the human rights of women and girls, the representation and participation of women, and the promotion of gender equality within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself. The government's policy applies to the areas of defence, diplomacy and development. Luxembourg also expressed its commitment to the national action plan for gender equality, the UN's Women, Peace and Security initiatives, and environmental sustainability

Mexico announced its intention to draft a feminist foreign policy in its speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 2019. In 2020, it became the first country in Latin America and the Global South to officially declare a feminist foreign policy. Mexico's feminist foreign policy includes five main principles: integrating a gender perspective in foreign policy, achieving gender equality in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, combating gender-based violence, making women's contributions visible, and adopting an intersectional feminist approach.

Spain became the sixth country to adopt feminist foreign policy by publishing the Feminist Foreign Policy Guide in March 2021. This guide aims to align both Spain's national and foreign policies to strengthen the rights of women and girls. Spain's feminist foreign policy is based on five principles: structural reform in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, leadership, coordination mechanisms, participation and partnership building, and intersectionality and diversity. These principles apply in priority areas such as trade, defence, climate action and economic justice.

The women's movement in Turkey has an important historical background since the Ottoman Empire. The struggle for women's rights gained significant momentum with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey and secular reforms. However, the influence of European feminism played a critical role in transforming and strengthening women's rights movements in Turkey.

Especially in the 1980s and 1990s, the women's movement in Turkey was reshaped by taking inspiration from feminist discourses in Europe. During this period, new discourses and movements regarding gender equality, women's rights and feminist perspectives emerged in Turkey. The European Union accession process provided a significant incentive for Turkey to raise its standards on women's rights. The approaches of feminist movements in Europe on intersectionality, gender roles and sexual freedom have been a source of inspiration for feminist activists in Turkey.

The article also touches upon the challenges faced by women's rights movements in Turkey. Turkey's cultural and political context is different from Europe, and different challenges are faced in the fight for women's rights. In Turkey, patriarchal structures, traditional gender roles and conservative political movements create obstacles to the women's movement.

Kemalist reforms encouraged women to play an active role both at home and in the public sphere. The adoption of the Swiss Civil Code gave women equal rights with men in matters such as divorce, inheritance and child custody. However, women's demands for political rights came to the fore, especially with the efforts of activists such as Nezihe Muhittin. Women were given the right to vote in local elections in 1930 and in general elections in 1934. However, the Republican ideology rejected the need for women's organizations, with the myth that women were equal to men, and the Turkish Women's Union was closed in 1935, which marked the end of first wave feminism in Turkey.

Second wave feminism in Turkey emerged after the 1980 military coup, at a time when the political and social environment was severely restricted. During this period, many political leaders were imprisoned and political parties were closed, but the women's movement became stronger by organizing, especially on issues such as violence and inequality.

The third wave of feminism in Turkey in the 1990s faced several challenges posed by the rise of Kurdish nationalism and Islamist politics. Kurdish and Islamist feminists criticized Turkish mainstream feminism as ethnocentric and exclusionary of other identities

In the third wave of feminism, relations between Kurdish and Islamist movements and Turkish mainstream feminism became increasingly complex. While some Turkish feminists criticized the Kemalist ideology, considering the difficulties faced by Kurdish women, others supported the state's current secularist policies. The emergence of Islamic feminism has increased diversity within the feminist movement and deepened debates about what feminism means. The headscarf issue has led to the emergence of different views among feminists by questioning Turkey's path to modernization.

Today, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play an important role in social development programs related to women. However, the concepts of "NGOization of feminism" or "project feminism" have been criticized. Some critics point out that such projects may be run by for-profit individuals and place additional burdens on women

The article analyzes how feminist performance activism is used to challenge gender norms within the contemporary anti-war movement and argues that it can contribute to wider acceptance of the anti-war movement by popularizing feminist ideology.

This historical and current review, which evaluates the waves of feminism in Turkey, emphasizes three points that point to certain tendencies in the development of the movement. The first is that the criticisms and demands voiced by women activists change over time. While in the first wave, women focused on legal and political equality between the sexes, the second wave used a more radical tone, directly challenging patriarchy. Third wave feminism has become identity-focused and demands have diversified according to women's ethnic, religious or sexual identities. In the third wave, it was observed that women's organizations became more professional.

The second observation is that the women's movement in Turkey is highly dependent on the political context. For example, while the movement in the 1920s was closely associated with the Kemalist ideology and reform process, the 1990s was a period when criticism of the Kemalist ideology increased by Kurdish and Islamist groups. The third observation is that the characteristics of women who participated in the movement changed. While the feminist movement in Turkey was initially a movement consisting of elite women, over time it spread to large masses and included women from relatively lower classes.

Women who fought for women's rights in the 1920s generally came from families with high levels of education, living in cities, especially in Istanbul and Izmir, and supporting modernization and Westernization. Second-wave feminists were urban in origin but included greater numbers of university-educated professionals and ideologically politicized individuals. Third wave feminism in Turkey included eastern and southeastern women of Kurdish origin, mostly from remote parts of the country, and traditional women politicized through Islamism. During these different periods, it is clear that Turkey's political space has expanded as Turkish feminism has become more diversified.