174 Statelessness and the Feminist Toolbox our understanding of the issue, foster creative solutions to ending it, and is therefore arguably vital in these formative years of statelessness research. 3 Women’s Work and Men’s Citizenship In investigating literature for this article, two pieces of research that explore the dimensions of gender and feminism as they relate to statelessness—specifically beyond research focused on gender discriminatory nationality laws—were found. The first is the 2005 book, ‘Statelessness, Human Rights and Gender: Irregular Migrant Workers from Burma in Thailand’ by Tang Lay Lee. In exploring Lay Lee’s reflections on the history of gendered citizenship, this section teases out when the statelessness sector’s compartmentalization of gender began. This section also explains how the deconstruction, or dismantling, of patriarchy can serve the work of statelessness actors. In 2005, Lay Lee noted an ‘absence of feminist critiques on statelessness’.25 She believed it could be due to the fact that current forms of statelessness are mainly in Asia and Africa, which Lay Lee explained by linking this to her claim that ‘feminist critiques are primarily Western and European, even those by feminists of colour’.26 The main argument of this paper supports Lay Lee’s observation of a gap in feminist critiques of statelessness. However, the reason she posits for this gap is more controversial. There is a catalogue of Black and Third World Feminist theories to refute the claim that even feminists of color are primarily situated in the West.27 More specifically, five years before Lay Lee’s publication, a pivotal critique of the gendered and male-centric nature of citizenship (from a largely political science perspective of citizenship as membership) was made by Arab feminists.28 Lay Lee’s observation of the gap in feminist statelessness scholarship as such, may have had more to do with the period in which she published. The years in and around 2005 can now be reflected upon as the very beginning of statelessness scholarship. This makes Lay Lee’s “early” feminist work an interesting point of enquiry. Although statelessness research has since evolved, the stubbornness of this feminist gap has still not been filled in over fourteen years. Lay Lee’s chapter indeed provides what is probably the first feminist analysis of statelessness and application of feminist theory to statelessness. Lay Lee vividly illustrates the “crystallization” of the fraternal and patriarchal citizenship imperative, in which the principle of jus sanguinis was a male-gendered construction. Citizenship was acquired on the basis of having a father or husband who was a citizen. This remains the case today, to some degree at least, in roughly fifty countries.29 This system privileged the “man” and identified him as being part of the fraternal social pact, which Lay Lee explains was necessary in order not to disrupt the social order men had established.30 Lay Lee relies on feminist scholar and political theorist, Carole Pateman’s work for this analysis of citizenship. She explains that the international law/domestic law dichotomy mirrors the public/private argument of feminist literature (i.e. the separation of the private and domesticated world of women from the public and political world of men). Pateman’s public/private analysis shed light on how states and international bodies historically shirked responsibility for eradicating gender discriminatory nationality laws: statelessness of a private character, resulting from male gendered nationality laws does not give rise to state responsibility, because the non-acquisition, loss or deprivation of nationality laws is deemed intra vires state powers. The legislative organ of the state has not committed an internationally wrongful act for which the state is responsible.31 Lay Lee’s interpretation of Pateman’s work within a statelessness setting posits a convincing argument, at least from a political theory perspective, that patriarchy is at the heart of the creation and maintenance of citizenship laws.32 When a fraternal and patriarchal agenda decides who is excluded and included from membership of the state, it enables the preservation of male domination through the state. Considering 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 T Lay Lee, Statelessness, Human Rights and Gender (Brill Nijhoff 2005) 115. Ibid. See, M J Alexander and C T Mohanty, Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures (Routledge 1997). S Joseph, (ed) Gender and citizenship in the Middle East (Syracuse University Press 2000). See, Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights (GCENR), ‘The Problem’ <http://equalnationalityrights.org>. T Lay Lee, Statelessness, Human Rights and Gender (Brill Nijhoff 2005) 121. T Lay Lee, Statelessness, Human Rights and Gender (Brill Nijhoff 2005)132. For the examination of the history of statelessness in America see, L K Kerber, ‘Toward a History of Statelessness in America’ (2005) 57(3) American Quarterly 727. Also, C L Bredbenner, A nationality of her own: Women, marriage, and the law of citizenship (­University of California Press 1998).