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, a central idea in feminist international relations theory that critiques the traditional, state-centric definition of security. Conventional IR approaches often define security in terms of military threats and the protection of national borders. In this framework, the primary concern is preventing war or external aggression against the state. Feminist scholars challenge this narrow definition, arguing that it ignores the everyday, lived experiences of individuals—especially women and marginalized communities—who may face constant insecurity even in so-called “peaceful” societies. Security, they contend, should not be limited to the absence of war, but should also include protection from structural violence like poverty, inequality, and discrimination. Scholars such as Cynthia Enloe have been instrumental in asking, “Where are the women?” in global politics—pointing out how traditional IR often renders them invisible.

Feminist theorists argue that global issues such as poverty, environmental degradation, and armed conflict disproportionately affect women and are often overlooked in mainstream security discussions. In many conflict zones, for example, women face heightened risks of sexual and gender-based violence, forced displacement, and loss of access to healthcare or education. Despite playing essential roles in sustaining communities and rebuilding societies after conflict, women are often excluded from peace negotiations and decision-making processes. Gendered security responds to these realities by expanding the concept of security to focus on the well-being and safety of individuals, not just the survival of states. Feminist scholar Laura Sjoberg, in works like Gender, War, and Conflict (2014), emphasizes how ignoring gender in conflict studies leads to incomplete and biased understandings of both violence and peace. Her work illustrates how the intersection of gender and war reshapes who is seen as vulnerable, who is protected, and whose security “counts.” Feminist IR theory, in this way, reframes what it means to be “secure” in the international system—not as a condition enjoyed only by powerful states, but as a universal right that must be accessible to all people, regardless of gender.

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. And if global politics already leaves some groups fighting for scraps, what happens when the scraps are brains—and the patriarchy still gets first dibs?

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.