Chapter 2: Theories of International Relations & Zombies

2.6: Feminism

Feminism in international relations shifts the focus from economic class to gender, arguing that traditional international relations theories overlook the roles and experiences of women. Feminist theorists critique the ways in which global politics has been shaped by patriarchal structures, historically dominated by men. This perspective challenges the assumption that international politics is gender-neutral, pointing out how gender dynamics influence power relations, security, and conflict. For example, wars and peace processes are typically framed around male-dominated institutions like the military, often ignoring how women experience conflict differently—whether through gender-based violence, forced displacement, or their roles in peacebuilding. Feminist IR theory insists that understanding international relations fully requires us to see how gender operates at every level of global politics.

A key concept in feminist IR is patriarchy, which refers to the historical dominance of men in shaping political, economic, and social institutions. Feminist scholars argue that the global political system is heavily influenced by male-dominated institutions like governments, militaries, and corporations. This male-centric framework influences how states behave and how power is distributed. For example, the fact that national security is often defined in terms of military power, rather than human well-being or social welfare, reflects patriarchal assumptions that prioritize traditionally “male” concerns—like state sovereignty and territorial control—over issues that might be seen as “feminine,” like education, healthcare, or environmental sustainability. Feminist theory challenges these assumptions and calls for a rethinking of what we consider important in international relations.

This leads to the concept of gendered security, which critiques the traditional, state-centric view of security. Traditional definitions of security focus on protecting states from military threats. However, feminist theorists argue that this overlooks how global issues like poverty, environmental degradation, and war disproportionately affect women. For instance, in many conflict zones, women face heightened risks of sexual violence and are often excluded from peace negotiations, despite being critical to post-conflict rebuilding. Gendered security expands the definition of security to include the safety and well-being of individuals—especially women—and calls attention to how policies that overlook gender can lead to deeper inequalities. Feminist IR theory thus broadens the scope of what it means to be “secure” in the international system.

Both Marxist and feminist theories fall under the broader umbrella of critical theory, which challenges us to question the status quo and consider how power is distributed globally. These approaches emphasize that international relations are not neutral or objective; they are shaped by power imbalances that perpetuate inequality, whether through economic exploitation or gendered oppression. While traditional theories like realism and liberalism might focus on states and institutions, critical theories push us to look at the underlying structures that keep certain groups—whether they are economic classes, women, or entire nations—in positions of disadvantage. This call for emancipation and social justice lies at the heart of critical approaches to international relations, offering a powerful critique of how global politics operates.

Feminism: Who Runs the World? Girls… and Also Zombies

When the zombie apocalypse hits, don’t be surprised if the survival plans are drafted by generals and politicians who forget that someone still needs to change diapers, find food, and keep communities functioning. Feminist IR theory would offer a critical view of how gender dynamics shape the response to a zombie apocalypse, arguing that global strategies for dealing with the crisis would be heavily influenced by patriarchal structures. Decision-making would likely be dominated by male-led institutions like the military and governments, prioritizing militarized solutions while sidelining the needs and experiences of women. Feminist theorists would critique this approach, highlighting how traditional security measures—such as border fortifications and military interventions—often ignore the everyday struggles faced by women and marginalized communities during crises. In a zombie outbreak, survival wouldn’t just depend on guns and walls; it would also require addressing food security, healthcare, and social stability—areas where women often play critical but undervalued roles.

In World War Z, much of the response is centered around military solutions and state-led efforts, with little attention paid to how women experience the crisis differently. Feminist theorists would argue that these narratives overlook key aspects of survival, such as the burden of caregiving, the increased risk of gender-based violence in chaotic conditions, and the lack of representation of women in leadership roles making critical policy decisions. In many zombie films and shows, women are often depicted as secondary characters, caregivers, or victims rather than as central decision-makers. Feminist IR theory challenges these traditional portrayals, arguing that addressing a global crisis—whether a real pandemic or a fictional zombie apocalypse—requires recognizing and addressing the unique challenges faced by women, rather than treating them as an afterthought.

Feminist IR also introduces the concept of gendered security, emphasizing that traditional approaches to security—focused on state borders and military defense—often neglect the human security needs of marginalized groups, especially women. For example, as food supplies dwindle, women in many societies are the ones primarily responsible for providing for their families, putting them at greater risk in dangerous, zombie-infested environments. Feminists would push for a more inclusive approach to security, one that considers the safety and well-being of all people, not just the protection of the state.