CNDI - Feminism Kritik-1

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic
Feminism Kritik
Feminism Kritik
Feminism Kritik...................................................................................................................................1 Feminism Kritik 1NC...........................................................................................................................2 Feminism Kritik 1NC...........................................................................................................................3 Feminism Kritik 1NC...........................................................................................................................4 Feminism Kritik 1NC...........................................................................................................................5 Feminism Kritik 1NC...........................................................................................................................6 ***2NC BLOCKS***..............................................................................................................................7 2NC Link IR .....................................................................................................................................7 2NC Link War...................................................................................................................................8 2NC Impact Calculus...........................................................................................................................9 2NC Alternative................................................................................................................................10 A2: Perm...........................................................................................................................................11 A2: Cede the Political .......................................................................................................................12 A2: Cede the Political........................................................................................................................13 ***Links***........................................................................................................................................14 LinksIR...........................................................................................................................................14 LinksState .....................................................................................................................................15 LinksSecurity.................................................................................................................................16 LinksSecurity.................................................................................................................................17 LinksCrisis Based Politics...............................................................................................................18 LinksCultural Hegemony................................................................................................................19 LinksScience..................................................................................................................................20 LinksScience..................................................................................................................................21 LinksTechnology............................................................................................................................22 LinksRealism.................................................................................................................................23 LinksRealism.................................................................................................................................24 LinksDeterrence............................................................................................................................25 LinksMilitarism...............................................................................................................................26 LinksIdentity Politics......................................................................................................................27 ***Impacts***...................................................................................................................................28 ImpactsPatriarchy..........................................................................................................................28 ImpactsPatriarchy..........................................................................................................................29 ImpactsMilitarism..........................................................................................................................30 ImpactsMilitarism..........................................................................................................................32 ***Alternative Solvency***...............................................................................................................33 Alt SolvencyFem Perspectives.......................................................................................................33 Alt SolvencyStructural Violence.....................................................................................................34 Alt SolvencyStructural Violence.....................................................................................................35 Alt SolvencyCriticism.....................................................................................................................36 Alt SolvencyCrisis Based Politics....................................................................................................37 Alt SolvencyPatriarchy...................................................................................................................38 Alt SolvencyPatriarchy...................................................................................................................39 ***Framework***..............................................................................................................................40 Framework........................................................................................................................................40 ***Affirmative***..............................................................................................................................41 USE FEM IR BAD CARDS FROM SOUTH KOREA FILE..........................................................................41 AffNeo-Liberalism Solves...............................................................................................................42 Aff Essentialism .............................................................................................................................43 AffRevolutions fail..........................................................................................................................44 AffPerm.........................................................................................................................................45 Aff Victimization Good....................................................................................................................46
Feminism Kritik
Feminism Kritik 1NC

A. Links 1. The affs understanding of international relations is profoundly genderedit situates the state as the center of power relations and objectifies everything outside the blinders of predictive security discoursethis calls into question their entire political strategy Ruiz 05
[Tricia Ruiz, CSU Hayward, Feminist Theory and International Relations: The Feminist Challenge to Realism and Liberalism, Soundings Journal, 2005, http://honors.csustan.edu/journals/Soundings.pdf] How do feminists use gender and patriarchy to describe the field of international relations (IR)? Overall, feminist theory says that most of the key players in IR, such as diplomats, policymakers, heads of government, and academic
professionals, have been, and still are, males who come from patriarchal social and political backgrounds. Thus, discussions within IR remain largely constrained by those who lack consideration of womens roles in world politics (because they have not been trained to value and include the perspective of women). Should IR perpetuate the exclusion of women from its discipline, along with their potential contributions and additional viewpoints, IR will remain a prime example of patriarchy, in both its practice and accomplishments. Indeed, IR is frequently referred to as the last bastion of the social sciences, indicating how rigid it remains in reconsidering itself through the gender lens. Feminists also apply the
terms gender and patriarchy when analyzing how situations have been shaped to exclude women from the international political arena. For example, Eric M. Blanchard refers to a catch-22 situation, in which a candidate seeking political office will highly depend on past military service as qualification for the position, putting women at a disadvantage since they generally have less military experience. This significantly limits a womans chances to attain a national government position directly involved with international issues of defense and security.4 From this example alone, we can understand how the areas of domestic politics, the military, and even the topic of education (which is directly related to this example), are issues with respect to which feminists would argue that gender and patriarchy do not allow women equal access to power positions in world politics. As with many theories, feminist theory reflects a wide range of perspectives generating many internal debates concerning how it should be represented. As Diana Thorburn notes, there can never be a truly singular voice of feminist foreign policy simply because of the diversity of views within feminism itself.5 However, a brief look at some relevant facets of the discipline can be seen through Lorraine Codes summary of two salient areas within feminist IR theory, standpoint feminism and radical feminism.6 Standpoint theory considers how the gendered construction of
knowledge...[helps to] understand traditional topics in international relations and is alerting us to the idea that gender may be structuring how we think in the international context.7 Author Martin Griffiths
classifies feminist scholar J. Ann Tickner as a standpoint feminist.8 Before even addressing existing IR theory, Griffiths first argues that the purpose and definition of theory is in itself male-centered, because it is oppressingly normative rather than conjectural and analytic.9 Simply put, the processes of forming and learning theory is constructed around on
automatically-accepted ideas of what is standard and normal, rather than first challenging the norm and questioning if the standard is objective enough. In this case, theory lacks female perspective because it is not objectively sought at the onset of formulating ideas. Tickner argues that IR is gendered to marginalize womens voices, and stresses that women have knowledge, perspectives and experiences that should be brought to bear on the study of international relations. For example, Tickner would argue that security, a main topic in IR, should not only be understood as defending the state from attack, but should also consider that security for women might be different because women are more likely to be attacked by men they know, rather than strangers from other states.10 In other words, in contrast to traditional IR views that view security as protecting the state from other states, feminists argue the topic of security should address acts of rape and violence, not only from foreign perpetrators, but from their own fellow citizens as well. Feminists would also add that
occurrences of rape increase during times of war, and is even used as a method of ethnic cleansing among the rivalries within their state,11 yet would never enter into typical IR discussions that focus solely on stateto- state interaction, simply because IR discussions traditionally remain focused on states as the key actors. Thus, the topic of security shows how gender
consideration, excluded from the very beginning of the discussion, results in policymaking that would be subsequently exclusive of, and likely detrimental to, women.
Feminism Kritik
Feminism Kritik 1NC

2. The affs preoccupation with military presence is part of a larger project of crisis-based politics. War is not an event but rather a continual force that causes violence. Cuomo 96 (Chris J. Hypatia, War is not just an event: Reflections on the significance of everyday Violence,
Bloomington: Fall 1996. Vol. 11, Iss. 4; pg. 30)
Philosophical attention to war has typically appeared in the form of justifications for entering into war, and over appropriate activities within war. The spatial metaphors used to refer to war as a separate, bounded sphere indicate assumptions that war is a realm of human activity vastly removed from normal life , or a sort of
happening that is appropriately conceived apart from everyday events in peaceful times. Not surprisingly, most
discussions of the political and ethical dimensions of war discuss war solely as an event -- an occurrence,
or collection of occurrences, having clear beginnings and endings that are typically marked by formal, institutional declarations. As happenings, wars and military activities can be seen as motivated by identifiable, if complex, intentions, and directly enacted by individual and collective decision-makers and agents of states. But many of the questions about war that are of interest to feminists -- including how large-scale, state-sponsored violence affects women and members of other oppressed groups; how military violence shapes gendered, raced, and nationalistic political realities and moral imaginations; what such violence consists of and why it persists; how it is related to other oppressive and violent institutions and hegemonies -- cannot be adequately pursued by focusing on events. These issues are not merely a matter of good or bad intentions and identifiable decisions. In "Gender and `Postmodern' War," Robin Schott introduces some of the ways in which war is currently best seen not as an event but as a presence (Schott 1995). Schott argues that postmodern understandings of persons, states, and politics, as well as the high-tech nature of
much contemporary warfare and the preponderance of civil and nationalist wars, render an eventbased conception of war inadequate, especially insofar as gender is taken into account. In this essay, I will expand
upon her argument by showing that accounts of war that only focus on events are impoverished in a number of ways, and therefore feminist consideration of the political, ethical, and ontological dimensions of war and the possibilities for resistance demand a much more complicated approach. I take Schott's characterization of war as presence as a point of departure, though I am not committed to the idea that the constancy of militarism, the fact of its omnipresence in human experience, and the paucity of an event-based account of war are exclusive to contemporary postmodern or postcolonial circumstances.(1) Theory that does not investigate or even notice the omnipresence
of militarism cannot represent or address the depth and specificity of the everyday effects of militarism on women, on people living in occupied territories, on members of military institutions, and on the environment. These effects are relevant to feminists in a number of ways because military practices and institutions help construct gendered and national identity, and because they justify the destruction of natural nonhuman entities and communities during peacetime. Lack of attention to these aspects of the business of making or preventing military
violence in an extremely technologized world results in theory that cannot accommodate the connections among the constant presence of militarism, declared wars, and other closely related social phenomena, such as nationalistic glorifications of motherhood, media violence, and current ideological gravitations to military solutions for social problems.
Feminism Kritik
Feminism Kritik 1NC

B. Impacts This patriarchy will result in extinction and is the root cause of all impacts. Nhanenge 2007
(Jytte, Masters @ U South Africa, Accepted Thesis Paper for Development Studies, ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT, uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/570/1/dissertation.pdf)
The androcentric premises also have political consequences. They protect the ideological basis of exploitative relationships. Militarism, colonialism, racism, sexism, capitalism and other pathological 'isms' of modernity get legitimacy from the assumption that power relations and hierarchy are inevitably a part of human society, due to man's inherent nature. Because when mankind by nature is autonomous,
competitive and violent (i.e. masculine) then coercion and hierarchical structures are necessary to manage conflicts and maintain social order. In this way, the cooperative relationships such as those found among some women and tribal cultures, are by a dualised definition unrealistic and utopian. (Birkeland 1995: 59). This means that power relations are generated by universal scientific truths about human nature, rather than by political and social debate. The consequence is that people cannot challenge the basis of the power structure because they believe it is the scientific truth, so it cannot be otherwise. In this way, militarism is justified as being unavoidable, regardless of its patent irrationality. Likewise, if the scientific "truth" were that humans would always compete for a greater share of resources, then the rational response to the environmental crisis would seem to be "dog-eat-dog" survivalism. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which nature and community simply cannot survive. (Birkeland 1995: 59). This type of social and political power structure is kept in place by social policies. It is based on the assumption that if the scientific method is applied to public policy then social planning can be done free from normative values. However, according to Habermas (Reitzes 1993: 40) the scientific method only conceal pre-existing, unreflected social interests and pre-scientific decisions. Consequently, also social scientists apply the scientific characteristics of objectivity, value-freedom, rationality and quantifiability to social life. In this way, they assume they can unveil universal laws about social relations, which will lead to true knowledge. Based on this, correct social policies can be formulated. Thus, social processes are excluded, while scientific objective facts are included. Society is assumed a static entity, where no changes are possible. By promoting a permanent character, social science
legitimizes the existing social order, while obscuring the relations of domination and subordination, which is keeping the existing power relations inaccessible to analysis. The frozen order also makes it
impossible to develop alternative explanations about social reality. It prevents a historical and political understanding of reality and denies the possibility for social transformation by human agency. The prevailing condition is seen as an unavoidable fact. This implies that human beings are passive and that domination is a natural force, for which no one is responsible. This permits the state freely to implement laws and policies, which are controlling and coercive. These are seen as being correct, because they are based on scientific facts made by scientific experts. One result is that the state, without consulting the public, engages in a pathological pursuit of economic growth. Continued Technology can be used to dominate societies or to enhance them. Thus both science and technology could have developed in a different direction. But due to patriarchal values infiltrated in science the type of technology developed is meant to dominate, oppress, exploit and kill. One reason is that patriarchal societies identify masculinity with conquest. Thus any technical innovation will continue to be a tool for more effective oppression and exploitation. The highest priority seems to be given to technology that destroys life. Modern societies are dominated by masculine institutions and patriarchal ideologies. Their technologies prevailed in Auschwitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and in many other parts of the world. Patriarchal power has
brought us acid rain, global warming, military states, poverty and countless cases of suffering. We have seen men whose power has caused them to lose all sense of reality, decency and imagination, and we must fear such power. The ultimate result of unchecked patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe and nuclear holocaust.
Feminism Kritik
Feminism Kritik 1NC

Alternative Text We should substantially increase our physical and/or intellectual presence in feminist international relations criticism and redeploy all efforts toward a rejection of the affirmative. D. Reject the affirmatives gendered worldview our feminist methodological criticism disproves the validity and the desirability of the 1AC. Tickner 2001
[Ann, professor at the School of International Relations USC. B.A. in History, University of London. M.A. in IR, Yale. PhD from Brandeis University, Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era, QUESTIA]
When we treat individuals as the objects of security, we open up the possibility of talking about a transcendent human community with common global concerns and allow engagement with the broadest global threats. 41 The theme of emancipation is one that runs through much of the criticalsecurity studies literature.
Emancipatory critical security can be defined as freeing people as individuals and groups from the social, physical, economic, and political constraints that prevent them from carrying out what they would freely choose to do. 42 A postrealist, postpositivist emancipatory notion of security offers the promise of maximizing the security and improving the lives of the whole of humankind: it is a security studies of inclusion rather than exclusion. 43 Yet imagining security divested of its statist connotations is problematic; the institutions of state power are not withering away. As R. B. J. Walker has claimed, the state is a political category in a way that the world or humanity is not. 44 The
security of states dominates our understanding of what security can be because other forms of political community have been rendered unthinkable. Yet, as Walker goes on to say, given the dangers of nuclear weapons, we are no longer able to survive in a world predicated on an extreme logic of state sovereignty, nor one where war is an option for system change. Therefore, we must revise our understanding of the relationship between universality and particularity upon which a statist concept of security has been constructed. Security must be analyzed in terms of how contemporary insecurities are being created and by a sensitivity to the way in which people are responding to insecurities by reworking their understanding of how their own predicament fits into broader structures of violence and oppression. 45 Feministswith their bottom-up approach to security, an ontology of social relations, and an emancipatory agendaare beginning to undertake such reanalyses. Critical-security studies challenges realism on both ontological and epistemological grounds. Many of its adherents argue for a broader definition of security, linked to
justice and emancipation; a concept of security that starts with the individual allows for a global definition of security that moves beyond hierarchical binary distinctions between order and anarchy and inside and outside. Although not all criticalsecurity scholars are willing to dispense with state-centric analysis, all agree that an examination of states' identities is crucial for understanding their security-seeking behavior. Most feminist scholarship on security also employs a different ontology and epistemology from conventional security studies. Reluctant to be associated with either side of the realist/idealist debate, for reasons outlined in chapter 1, and generally skeptical of rationalist, scientific claims to universality and objectivity, most feminist scholarship on security is compatible with the critical side of the third debate. Questioning the role of states as adequate security providers, many feminists have adopted a multidimensional, multilevel approach, similar to some of the efforts to broaden the definition of security described above. Feminists' commitment to the emancipatory goal of
ending women's subordination is consistent with a broad definition of security t hat takes the individual, situated in broader social structures, as its starting point. Feminists seek to understand how the security of individuals and groups is compromised by violence, both physical and structural, at all levels.
Feminists generally share the view of other critical scholars that culture and identity and interpretive bottom up modes of analysis are crucial for understanding security issues and that emancipatory visions of security must get beyond statist frameworks. They differ, however, in that they adopt gender as a central category of analysis for understanding how unequal social structures, particularly gender hierarchies, negatively impact the security of individuals and groups.
Feminism Kritik
Feminism Kritik 1NC

Challenging the myth that wars are fought to protect women, children, and others stereotypically viewed as vulnerable, feminists point to the high level of civilian casualties in contemporary wars. Feminist
scholarship has been particularly concerned with what goes on during wars, especially the impact of war on women and civilians more generally. Whereas conventional security studies has tended to look at causes and consequences of wars from a top-down, or structural, perspective, feminists have generally taken a bottom-up approach, analyzing the impact of war at the microlevel. By so doing, as well as adopting gender as a category of analysis, feminists
believe they can tell us something new about the causes of war that is missing from both conventional and critical perspectives. By crossing what many feminists believe to be mutually constitutive levels of analysis, we get a better understanding of the interrelationship between all forms of violence and the extent to which unjust social relations, including gender hierarchies, contribute to insecurity, broadly defined.
Claiming that the security-seeking behavior of states is described in gendered terms, feminists have pointed to the masculinity of strategic discourse and how this may impact on understanding of and prescriptions for security; it may also help to explain why women's voices have so often been seen as inauthentic in matters of national security. Feminists have examined how states legitimate their security-seeking behavior through appeals to types of hegemonic masculinity. They are also investigating the extent to which state and national identities, which can lead to conflict, are based on gendered constructions. The valorization of war through its identification with a heroic kind of masculinity depends
on a feminized, devalued notion of peace seen as unattainable and unrealistic. Since feminists believe that gender is a variable social construction, they claim that there is nothing inevitable about these gendered distinctions; thus, their analyses often include the emancipatory goal of postulating a different definition of security less dependent on binary and unequal gender hierarchies.
Feminism Kritik
***2NC BLOCKS*** 2NC Link IR

Extend 1NC link RUIZ 05 that International relations are patriarchal and refuse to be viewed through a gender lens. This evidence is sweet because not only is Ruiz a well known feminist IR thinker, but it also gives direct examples of how deeply rooted in patriarchal ideas International relations has always been. Winning this argument means that the Affirmative's entire plan, by working through a government and through international relations, is patriarchal, and should be rejected. Traditional international relation theories have failed us the plan is an extension of a militaristic mindset that focuses on security at the expensive of more personal forms of suffering. Any productive investigation into this years topic must begin with an interrogation of this force through a gendered lens. Tickner 92 (J. Anne Tickner, Associate Professor of Political Science at the College of the Holy Cross, GENDER IN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 1992, https://wwwc.cc.columbia.edu/sec/dlc/ciao/book/tickner/tickner12.html)
The dramatic events of the late 1980s and early 1990s brought to light many of the shortcomings in realist explanations noted by critics for some time. Whereas the world wars of the first half of the twentieth century involved the transgression of great powers across international boundaries, most of the conflicts of the second half have taken place inside or across the boundaries of weak states. Although they have frequently involved at least one of the great powers, many of these conflicts have not been fought to protect international boundaries but over ethnic or religious issues, or issues of national identity and national liberation. The militarization of the South, with weapons sold or given by the North, has resulted in a situation whereby the
state is often perceived, not as a protector against outside dangers, but as the ultimate threat to the security of its civilian population. The precarious armed peace that characterized the relationship between the two superpowers during the Cold War owed whatever stability it achieved not to military strength but to the threat of nuclear obliteration of winners and losers alike: nuclear weapons and other modern military technologies continue to pose the threat of mass destruction. These new
threats to security demand new solutions quite at odds with the power politics prescriptions of traditional international relations theory. As we face the prospect that, by the year 2000, 80 percent of the world's population will
live in the South, we in the West can no longer afford to privilege a tradition of scholarship that focuses on the concerns and ambitions of the great powers. Faced with a stubborn gap in living standards between the rich and the poor that some observers doubt can ever be overcome, realist prescriptions of self-help are inappropriate; the health of the global economy depends on the health of all its members. Environmental degradation, a relatively new item on the agenda of international relations, threatens rich and poor alike and appears intransigent to state-centered solutions. Along with the
traditional issues of war and peace, the discipline of international relations is increasingly challenged by the necessity of analyzing the realities of economic and ecological interdependence and finding ways of mitigating their negative consequences. We must also face the reality of how easily these wider security issues, which threaten the survival of the earth and all its inhabitants, disappear from the agenda when military crises escalate. As Sarah Brown suggests, a genuinely emancipatory feminist international relations will take gender difference as its starting point but it will not take it as given. While attempting to explain how gender has been constructed and maintained in international relations, we must also see how it can be removed. A world that is more secure for us all cannot be achieved until the oppressive gender hierarchies that operate to frame the way in which we think about and engage in international politics are dismantled.
Feminism Kritik
2NC Link War

The affirmatives depiction of war and peace as definite is misleadingmilitarism is on going and pervades the every day life of its victims, even during peace time. Shepherd 2008
[Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART As discussed above, ideas
about masculinity and femininity, dignity and sacrifice may not only be violent in themselves, but are also the product/productive of physical violences. With this in mind, the feminist argument that 'peacetime' is analytically misleading is a valid one. Of interest are the 'in-between days' and the ways in which labeling periods of war or peace as such can divert attention away from the myriad violences that inform and reinforce social behaviour.[W]ar can surely never be said to start and end at a clearly defined moment. Rather, it seems part of a continuum of conflict , expressed now in armed force, now in economic
sanctions or political pressure. A time of supposed peace may come later to be called 'the pre-war period'. During the fighting of a war, unseen by the foot soldiers under fire, peace processes are often already at work. A time of postwar reconstruction, later, may be re-designated as an inter bellum a mere pause between wars (Cockburn and Zarkov, cited in El Jack, 2003, p. 9). Feminist security studies interrogates the pauses between wars, and the political processes and
practices of power that demarcate times as such. In doing so, not only is the remit of recognisable violence (violence worthy of study) expanded, but so too are the parameters of what counts as IR. Everyday violences and acts of everyday resistance ('a fashion show, a tour, a small display of children's books' in Enloe, 2007, pp. 11720) are the stuff of relations international and, thus, of a comprehensive understanding of security. In the following section I outline the ways in which taking these claims seriously allows us to engage critically with the representations of international relations that inform our research, with potentially profound implications.
Feminism Kritik
2NC Impact Calculus

The Kritik outweighs the plan for three reasons: 1. Magnitude- Traditional International Relations neglects everyday violence which has destroyed more lives and killed more people than all wars combined 2. The impacts of the plan are based on precisely the flawed patriarchal viewpoint we critique
3. Patriarchy is the root cause of all systemic, utilitarian, and deontological impacts because it is disassociation that underlies all violence and oppression. Hierarchal dichotomies become institutionalized and incorporated into existing structural inequalities. Patriarchy is the root cause of all impacts nuclear war, environmental destruction, and domestic violence. Challenging patriarchy key to prevent extinction. Warren and Cady 96 (Karen and Duane, Assistant Profs, Macalester University and Hamline University, Bringing
peace home: feminism, violence, and nature, p. 12-13) Operationalized, the evidence of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it gives rise, (c) the unmanageability, (d) which results. For example, in the United States, current estimates are that one out of every three or four women will be raped by someone she knows; globally, rape, sexual harassment, spouse-beating, and sado-masochistic pornography are examples of behaviors practices, sanctioned, or tolerated within patriarchy. In the realm of environmentally destructive behaviors, strip-mining, factory farming, and pollution of the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors maintained and sanctioned within patriarchy. They, too, rest on the faulty beliefs that it is okay to rape the earth, that it is mans God-given right to have dominion (that is, domination) over the earth, that nature has only instrumental value, that environmental destruction is the acceptable price we pay for progress. And the presumption of warism, that war is a natural, righteous, and ordinary way to impose dominion on a people or nation, goes hand in hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of nations and ultimately to international unmanageability. Much of the current unmanageability of contemporary life in patriarchal societies, (d), is then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal preoccupation with activities, events, and experiences that reflect historically male-gender-identified beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions. Included among these real-life consequences are precisely those concerns with nuclear proliferation, war, environmental destruction, and violence towards women, which many feminists see as the logical outgrowth of patriarchal thinking. In fact, it is often only through observing these dysfunctional behaviorsthe symptoms of dysfunctionalitythat one can truly see that and how patriarchy serves to maintain and perpetuate them. When patriarchy is understood as a dysfunctional system, this unmanageability can be seen for what it isas a predictable and thus logical consequence of patriarchy. The theme that global environmental crises, war, and violence generally are predictable and logical consequences of sexism and patriarchal culture is pervasive in ecofeminist literature. Ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak, for instance, argues that a militarism and warfare are continual features of a patriarchal society because they reflect and instill patriarchal values and fulfill needs of such a system. Acknowledging the context of patriarchal conceptualizations that feed militarism is a first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on Earth. Stated in terms of the foregoing model of patriarchy as a dysfunctional social system, the claims by Spretnak and other feminists take on a clearer meaning: Patriarchal conceptual frameworks legitimate impaired thinking (about women, national and regional conflict, the environment) which is manifested in behaviors which, if continued, will make life on earth difficult, if not impossible. It is a stark message, but it is plausible. Its plausibility lies in understanding the conceptual roots of various woman-nature-peace connections in regional, national, and global contexts.
Feminism Kritik
2NC Alternative
Extend the 1NC Tickner 01 evidenceadopting a feminist perspective on international relations is key to understanding the everyday wars and violence that characterize the status quo. We must transcend traditional statist securitization methods by incorporating gender into our considerations of world politics. Only our approach can solvegendered analyses deconstruct the realist securitization that we criticize. Our card accounts for years of conventional securitization and specifies that our method is the only one that can emancipate the world from patriarchal subordination. Prefer Ticknershes a qualified Professor of International Relations at USC and has written many books on the topic. AND, Only a gendered criticism of traditional IR theory can effectively challenge the violence pervading everyday life. Shepherd 2008 [Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham,
Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART All of the texts under discussion in this essay argue that it is
imperative to explore and expose gendered power relations and, further, that doing so not only enables a rigorous critique of realism in IR but also reminds us as scholars of the need for such a critique. The critiques of IR offered by feminist scholars are grounded in a rejection of neo-realism/realism as a dominant intellectual framework for academics in the discipline and policy makers alike. As Enloe reminds us, 'the government-centred, militarized version of national security [derived from a realist framework] remains the dominant mode of policy thinking' (Enloe, 2007, p. 43). Situating gender as a central category of analysis encourages us to 'think outside the "state security box"' (p. 47) and to remember that 'the "individuals" of global politics do not work alone, live alone or politic alone they do so in interdependent relationships with others' (Sjoberg and Gentry, 2008, p. 200) that are inherently gendered. One of the key analytical contributions of all three texts is the way in which they all challenge what it means to be 'doing' IR, by recognising various forms of violence, interrogating the public/private divide and demanding that attention is paid to the temporal and physical spaces inbetween war and peace.
10
Feminism Kritik
A2: Perm
Perm failscriticism of state based approaches must persist. Shepherd 2008 [Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of
Birmingham, Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART
critical engagement with conventional, state-based approaches to (national) security must persist as the academic discourses we write are complicit in the construction of the global as we understand it. Further, 'if all experience is gendered, analysis of gendered identities is an imperative starting point in the study of political identities and practice' (Peterson, 1999, p. 37). To this end, I conclude by suggesting that we take seriously Enloe's final comment: 'Tracking militarization and fostering demilitarization will call for cooperative investigations, multiple skills and the appreciation of diverse perspectives' (2007,
I have also argued that p. 164).
Perm failsno net benefit all aff truth claims are suspect. You cant perm a method Kritik. Peterson 92 [V. Spike Peterson, Gendered States: Feminist (re)visions of International Relations Theory, 1992,
http://www.questia.com/read/98189720?title=Gendered%20States%3a%20Feminist%20%28Re%29Visions%20of %20International%20Relations%20Theory#]
Women's experience systematically differs from the male experience upon which knowledge claims have been grounded. Thus the experience on which the prevailing claims to social and natural knowledge are founded is, first of all, only partial human experience only partially understood: namely, masculine experience as understood by men. However, when this experience is presumed to be gender-freewhen the male experience is taken to be the human experiencethe resulting theories, concepts, methodologies, inquiry goals and knowledge-claims distort human social life and human thought. Political action re-entrenches patriarchy. Nhanenge 2007 (Jytte, Masters @ U South Africa, Accepted Thesis Paper for Development Studies, ECOFEMINSM:
TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT, uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/570/1/dissertation.pdf)
androcentric premises also have political consequences. They protect the ideological basis of exploitative relationships. Militarism, colonialism, racism, sexism, capitalism and other pathological 'isms' of modernity get legitimacy from the assumption that power relations and hierarchy are inevitably a part of human society, due to man's inherent nature. Because when mankind by nature is autonomous, competitive and violent (i.e. masculine) then coercion and hierarchical structures are necessary to manage conflicts and maintain social order. In this way, the cooperative relationships such as those found among
The some women and tribal cultures, are by a dualised definition unrealistic and utopian. (Birkeland 1995: 59). This means that power relations are generated by universal scientific truths about human nature, rather than by political and social debate. The consequence is that people cannot challenge the basis of the power structure because they believe it is the scientific truth, so it cannot be otherwise. In this way, militarism is justified as being unavoidable, regardless of its patent irrationality. Likewise, if the scientific "truth" were that humans would always compete for a greater share of resources, then the rational response to the environmental crisis would seem to be "dog-eat-dog" survivalism. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which nature and community simply cannot survive. (Birkeland 1995: 59) This type of social and political power structure is kept in place by social policies . It is based on the assumption that if the scientific method is applied to public policy then social planning can be done free from normative values. However, according to Habermas (Reitzes 1993: 40) the scientific method only conceal pre-existing, unreflected social interests and pre-scientific decisions.
11
Feminism Kritik
A2: Cede the Political

Turn Our critical and poststructural stance is the only effective political strategy. The political has already been ceded to the rightbroadening the scope of politics is key to effective engagement. Grondin 2004 [David, master of pol sci and PhD of political studies @ U of Ottowa (Re)Writing the National Security
State: How and Why Realists (Re)Built the(ir) Cold War, http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/ieim/IMG/pdf/rewriting_national_security_state.pdf]
A poststructuralist approach to international relations reassesses the nature of the political. Indeed, it calls for the repoliticization of practices of world politics that have been treated as if they were not political. For
instance, limiting the ontological elements in ones inquiry to states or great powers is a political choice. As Jenny Edkins puts it, we need to bring the political back in (Edkins, 1998: xii). For most analysts of International Relations, the conception of the political is narrowly restricted to politics as practiced by politicians. However, from a poststructuralist viewpoint, the political acquires a broader meaning, especially since practice is not what most theorists are describing as practice. Poststructuralism sees theoretical discourse not only as discourse, but also as political practice. Theory therefore becomes practice. The political space of poststructuralism is not that of exclusion; it is the political space of postmodernity, a dichotomous one, where one thing always signifies at least one thing and another (Finlayson and Valentine, 2002: 14). Poststructuralism thus gives primacy to the political , since it acts on us, while we act in its name, and
leads us to identify and differentiate ourselves from others. This political act is never complete and celebrates undecidability, whereas decisions, when taken, express the political moment. It is a critical attitude which encourages dissidence from traditional approaches (Ashley and Walker, 1990a and 1990b). It
does not represent one single philosophical approach or perspective, nor is it an alternative paradigm (Tvathail, 1996: 172). It is a nonplace, a border line falling between international and domestic politics (Ashley, 1989). The poststructuralist analyst questions the borderlines and dichotomies of modernist discourses, such as inside/outside, the constitution of the Self/Other, and so on. In the act of definition, difference thereby the discourse of otherness is highlighted, since one always defines an object with regard to what it is not (Knafo, 2004). As Simon Dalby asserts, It involves the social construction of some other person, group, culture, race, nationality or political system as different from our person, group, etc. Specifying difference is a linguistic, epistemological and, most importantly, a political act; it constructs a space for the other distanced and inferior from the vantage point of the person specifying the difference (Dalby, cited in Tvathail, 1996: 179). Indeed, poststructuralism offers no definitive answers, but leads to new questions and new unexplored grounds. This makes the commitment to the incomplete nature of the political and of political analysis so central to poststructuralism (Finlayson and Valentine, 2002: 15). As Jim George writes, It is postmodern resistance in the sense that while it is directly (and sometimes violently) engaged with modernity, it seeks to go beyond the repressive, closed aspects of modernist global existence. It is, therefore, not a resistance of traditional grand-scale emancipation or conventional radicalism imbued with authority of one or another sovereign presence. Rather, in opposing the large-scale brutality and inequity in human society, it is a resistance active also at the everyday, community, neighbourhood, and interpersonal levels, where it confronts those processes that systematically exclude people from making decisions about who they are and what they can be (George, 1994: 215, emphasis in original). In this light, poststructural practices are used critically to investigate how the
subject of international relations is constituted in and through the discourses and texts of global politics. Treating theory as discourse opens up the possibility of historicizing it. It is a myth that theory can be abstracted from its socio-historical context, from reality, so to speak, as neorealists and neoclassical realists believe. It is a political practice which needs to be contextualized and stripped of its purportedly neutral status. It must be understood with respect to its role in preserving and reproducing the structures and power relations present in all language
forms. Dominant theories are, in this view, dominant discourses that shape our view of the world (the subject) and our ways of understanding it.
12
Feminism Kritik
A2: Cede the Political

And, the political has already been cededits try or die for the alternative. Grondin 2004 [David, master of pol sci and PhD of political studies @ U of Ottowa (Re)Writing the National Security
State: How and Why Realists (Re)Built the(ir) Cold War, http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/ieim/IMG/pdf/rewriting_national_security_state.pdf] As American historian of U.S. foreign relations Michael Hogan observes in his study on the rise of the national security state during the Truman administration, the national security ideology framed the Cold War discourse in a system
of symbolic representation that defined Americas national identity by reference to the un-American other, usually the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or some other totalitarian power (Hogan, 1998: 17). Such a binary system made it difficult for any domestic dissent from U.S. policy to emerge it would have amounted to an act of disloyalty (Hogan, 1998: 18).15While Hogan distinguishes advocates from critics of the American national
security state, his view takes for granted that there is a given and fixed American political culture that differs from the new national security ideology. It posits an American way, produced by its cultural, political, and historical experience. Although he stresses that differences between the two sides of the discourse are superficial, pertaining solely to the means, rather than the ends of the national security state, Hogan sees the national security state as a finished and legitimate state: an American state suited to the Cold War context of permanent war, while stopping short of a garrison state: Although government would grow larger, taxes would go up, and budget deficits would become a matter of routine, none of these and other transformations would add up to the crushing regime symbolized in the metaphor of the garrison state. The outcome instead would be an American national security state that was shaped as much by the countrys democratic political culture as it was by the perceived military imperatives of the Cold War (Hogan, 1998: 22). I disagree with this essentialist view of the state identity of the United States. The United States does not need to be a national security state. If it was
and is still constructed as such by many realist discourses, it is because these discourses serve some political purpose. Moreover, in keeping with my poststructuralist inclinations, I maintain that identity need not be, and indeed never is, fixed. In a scheme in which to say is to do, that is, from a perspective that accepts the performativity
of language, culture becomes a relational site where identity politics happens rather than being a substantive phenomenon. In this sense, culture is not simply a social context framing foreign policy decision-making. Culture is a signifying part of the conditions of possibility for social being, [] the way in which culturalist arguments themselves secure the identity of subjects in whose name they speak (Campbell, 1998:221). The Cold War national security culture represented in realist discourses was constitutive of the American national security state. There was certainly a conflation of theory and policy in the Cold War military-intellectual complex, which were observers of, and active participants in, defining the meaning of the Cold War. They contributed to portray the enemy that both reflected and fueled predominant ideological strains within the American body politic. As scholarly partners in the national security state, they were instrumental in defining and disseminating a Cold War culture (Rubin, 2001: 15). This national security culture was a complex space where various representations and representatives of the national security state compete to draw the boundaries and dominate the murkier margins of international relations (Der Derian, 1992: 41). The same Cold War security culture has been maintained by political practice (on the part of realist analysts and political leaders) through realist discourses in the post-9/11 era and once again reproduces the idea of a national security state. This (implicit) state identification is neither accidental nor inconsequential. From a poststructuralist vantage point, the identification process of the state and the nation is always a negative process for it is achieved by exclusion, violence, and margina- lization. Thus, a deconstruction of practices that constitute and consolidate state identity is necessary: the writing of the state must be revealed through the analysis of the discourses that constitute it. The state and the discourses that (re)constitute it thus frame its very identity and impose a fictitious national unity on society; it is from this fictive and arbitrary creation of the modernist dichotomous discourses of inside/outside that the discourses (re)constructing the state emerge. It is in the
creation of a Self and an Other in which the state uses it monopolistic power of legitimate violence a power socially constructed, following Max Webers work on the ethic of responsibility to construct a threatening Other differentiated from the unified Self, the national society (the nation).16 It is through this very practice of normative statecraft,17 which produces threatening Others, that the international sphere comes into being. David Campbell adds that it is by constantly articulating danger through foreign policy that the states very conditions of existence are generated.
13
Feminism Kritik
***Links*** LinksIR
International Relations is constricted by the patriarchal mindset Ruiz 05
[Tricia Ruiz, CSU Hayward, Feminist Theory and International Relations: The Feminist Challenge to Realism and Liberalism, Soundings Journal, 2005, http://honors.csustan.edu/journals/Soundings.pdf] Overall, feminist theory says that most of the key players in IR, such as diplomats, policymakers, heads of government, and academic professionals, have been, and still are, males who come from patriarchal social and
political backgrounds. Thus, discussions within IR remain largely constrained by those who lack consideration of womens roles in world politics (because they have not been trained to value and include the
perspective of women). Should IR perpetuate the exclusion of women from its discipline, along with their potential contributions and additional viewpoints, IR will remain a prime example of patriarchy, in both its practice and accomplishments. Indeed, IR is frequently referred to as the last bastion of the social sciences,3 indicating how rigid it remains in reconsidering itself through the gender lens. Feminists also apply the terms gender and patriarchy when analyzing how situations have been shaped to exclude women from the international political arena. For example, Eric M. Blanchard refers to a catch-22 situation, in which a candidate seeking political office will highly depend on past military service as qualification for the position, putting women at a disadvantage since they generally have less military experience. This significantly limits a womans chances to attain a national government position directly involved with international issues of defense and security.4 From this example alone, we can understand how the areas of domestic politics, the military, and even the topic of education (which is directly related to this example), are issues with respect to which feminists would argue that gender and patriarchy do not allow women equal access to power positions in
world politics.
14
Feminism Kritik
LinksState
Current International Relations Theory looks only to State To State Interactions, Excluding Consideration of Women from Decisions Tricia Ruiz 05
In other words, in contrast to traditional IR views that view security as protecting the state from other states, feminists argue
the topic of security should address acts of rape and violence, not only from foreign perpetrators, but from their own fellow citizens as well. Feminists would also add that occurrences of rape increase during times of war, and is even used as a method of ethnic cleansing among the rivalries within their state,11 yet would never enter into typical IR discussions that focus solely on state to-state interaction, simply because IR discussions traditionally remain focused on states as the key actors. Thus, the topic of security shows how gender consideration, excluded from the very beginning of the discussion, results in policymaking that would be subsequently exclusive of, and likely detrimental to, women. Prior to discussing any IR topic, standpoint feminist
IR theory would first challenge those participating in the discussion, and those defining the key terms and issues, by critically asking them if the normative perspectives and working vocabulary are broad enough to effectively accommodate issues affecting women
In the State, Males have Full Power Over Women, which is Built Into Laws And Policies Thornburn, Diana 2000 [Feminism meets international relations]
A fourth way of considering the beginnings of feminist international relations is as a matter of natural progression--that feminist incursions into international relations are merely the final crumbling of this last bastion of the social sciences. International relations theory, itself a relatively new discipline, comprises various aspects of social science theory that have been interrogated by feminist approaches since the early 1970s. Yet only in the late 1980s did it become subject to feminist inquiry. This is most likely because of the dominance of men and a male perspective in the field. 8 Take, for example, the role of the state, a principal actor in international relations. The state is one of the most important subjects of feminist study, where it has long been argued that the foundations of the state are based on a patriarchal and gendered sexual division of labor that subordinates women. 9 As Kathleen Staudt phrased it: "Women had little or no hand in the process of state formation and consolidation. Yet male control over women--
specifically, over their labor, sexuality, and reproduction--was central to laws and policies that governed the gender realm."
15
Feminism Kritik
LinksSecurity
Security is more than just state vs. state aggressionit consists of everyday acts of violence as well. Womens voices are key. Ruiz 05
[Tricia Ruiz, CSU Hayward, Feminist Theory and International Relations: The Feminist Challenge to Realism and Liberalism, Soundings Journal, 2005, http://honors.csustan.edu/journals/Soundings.pdf]
Tickner argues that IR is gendered to marginalize womens voices, and stresses that women have knowledge, perspectives and experiences that should be brought to bear on the study of international relations. For example, Tickner would argue that security, a main topic in IR, should not only be understood as defending the state from attack, but should also consider that security for women might be different
because women are more likely to be attacked by men they know, rather than strangers from other states.10 In other words, in contrast to traditional IR views that view security as protecting the state from other states , feminists argue the topic of security should address acts of rape and violence, not only from foreign perpetrators, but from their own fellow citizens as well. Feminists would also add that occurrences of rape increase during times of war, and is even used as a method of ethnic cleansing among the rivalries within their state,11 yet would never enter into typical IR discussions that focus solely on state to- state interaction, simply because IR discussions traditionally remain focused on states as the key actors. Thus, the topic of security shows how gender consideration, excluded from the very beginning of the discussion, results in policymaking that would be subsequently exclusive of, and likely detrimental to, women. Prior to discussing any IR topic, standpoint feminist IR theory would first challenge those participating in the discussion, and those defining the key terms and issues, by critically asking them if the normative perspectives and working vocabulary are broad enough to effectively accommodate issues affecting women.
16
Feminism Kritik
LinksSecurity
The affirmatives preoccupation with international security is just a way to justify overlooking the structural violence against women. Shepherd 2008
[Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART In Human Insecurity, Roberts poses the question, 'What is violence?' (2008, p. 17). This is a question rarely asked in international relations. Violence is war: large-scale, state-dominated, much studied, war. However, the three texts under review here all offer more nuanced theories of violence that focus analytical attention on complex constructions of agency (institutional and international), structure, and the global context that is product and productive of such violence. Through an intricate and beautifully accessible analysis of modernity 'that pot of gold at the end of the global rainbow' (Enloe, 2007, p. 64) Enloe encourages her readers to seek the connections between globalisation and
militarisation, arguing that at the heart of this nexus lie important questions about violence and security. Roberts notes a broad dissatisfaction with the concept of 'human security' (2008, pp. 147), offering instead his investigative lens of 'human insecurity', defined as 'avoidable civilian deaths, occurring globally, caused by social, political and economic institutions and structures, built and operated by humans and which could feasibly be changed' (p. 28). Placing the human at the centre of concerns about security immediately challenges a conventional state-based approach to security, as Enloe explains. In a convincing
account of the hard-fought expansion of the concept of security, mapped on to strategic and organisational gains made by various feminist organisations, Enloe reminds us that
if we take seriously the lives of women their understandings of security as well as on-the-ground workings of masculinity and femininity, we will be able to produce more meaningful and more reliable analyses of 'security' personal, national and global (Enloe, 2007, p. 47). The affirmatives obsession with security legitimizes state patriarchy and violence. Shepherd 2008
[Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART As well as conceiving of gender as a set of discourses, and violence as a means of reproducing and reinforcing the relevant discursive limits, it is possible to see security as a set of discourses, as I have argued more fully elsewhere (Shepherd, 2007; 2008; see also Shepherd and Weldes, 2007). Rather than pursuing the study of security as if it were something
that can be achieved either in absolute, partial or relative terms, engaging with security as discourse enables the analysis of how these discourses function to reproduce, through various strategies, the domain of the international with which IR is self-consciously concerned. Just as violences that are gendering reproduce gendered subjects, on this view states, acting as authoritative entities, perform violences, but violences, in the name of security, also perform states. These processes occur simultaneously, and across the
whole spectrum of social life: an instance of rape in war is at once gendering of the individuals involved and of the social collectivities states, communities, regions they feel they represent (see Bracewell, 2000); building a fence in the name of security that separates people from their land and extended families performs particular kinds of violence (at checkpoints, during patrols) and performs particular subject identities (of the state authority, of the individuals affected), all of which are gendered.
17
Feminism Kritik
LinksCrisis Based Politics

The war peace dichotomy constructed by realist theorist ignores the human subject. Shepherd 2008
[Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART According to conventional accounts of international relations (IR), scholars focus on war (predominantly as a means to providing the sovereign state with security) and the existence of war's corollary is a foundational assumption
that goes largely unquestioned. Peace must exist, for international relations are not characterised by perpetual conflict. However, peace is implicitly defined, in dichotomous terms, by the absence of violent conflict, as 'not-war'. Of more analytical interest is conflict, which is always a possibility and which, moreover, occurs between states. International relations as a discipline, narrowly conceived, is largely unconcerned with activities that occur within the state. Minimally, feminist and other critical approaches to IR seek to correct such disciplinary myopia. While classical realism theorises the political actor Hans
Morgenthau's 'political man' (1973, pp. 156) in order to construct the state as actor, the now dominant neo-realism abstracts the human subject from its disciplinary musings, leading to the infamous 'black box' model of the state. Early feminist scholarship challenged this assumption as well, arguing that individuals, as human subjects in all their messy complexity, are an integral part of international relations (see Shepherd, 2007, pp. 2401). Attention to the human subject in I/international R/relations or, as Christine Sylvester phrases it, 'relations international', to
emphasise the embedded nature of all kinds of relations in the international sphere, including power relations and gender relations (Sylvester, 1994, p. 6; see also Enloe, 1996) allows critical scholars to look beyond the disciplinary obsession with war. Further, it allows us to investigate one of the simplest insights of feminist IR, which is also one of the most devastating: the war/peace dichotomy is gendered, misleading and potentially pathological.
18
Feminism Kritik
LinksCultural Hegemony
The affirmatives preoccupation with military thinking reflects a culture of militarism that infects all policy outcomes.
Enloe. 2k [Cynthia Enloe; professor in the Department of International Development, Community, and Environment at Clark University; Masculinity As Foreign Policy Issue; October, 2000; accessed: June 2010]
contemporary political culture that equates military experience and/or military expertise with political leadership. It is this cultural inclination that has made it very risky for any American public figure to appear less manly than a uniformed senior military male officer. It is a culture too often unchallenged by ordinary votersthat has given individuals with alleged military knowledge a disproportionate advantage in foreign policy debates.
Many observers have remarked on the peculiar American
Such a masculinized and militarized culture pressures nervous civilian candidates into appearing tough on military issues. The thought of not embracing a parade of militarized policy positionsthat increase the defense budget, make NATO the primary institution for building a new European security, expand Junior ROTC programs in high schools, insure American male soldiers access to prostitutes overseas,
invest in destabilizing antimissile technology, maintain crippling but politically ineffectual economic sanctions and bombing raids against Iraq, accept the Pentagons flawed policy of dont ask, dont tell, dont pursue, and finance a military-driven antidrug policywould leave most American public officials (women and men) feeling
uncomfortably vulnerable in the political culture that assigns high value to masculinized toughness. The result: a political competition to appear tough has produced U.S. foreign policies that severely limit the American capacity to play a useful role in creating a more genuinely secure international community. That is, Americas conventional, masculinized political culture makes it unlikely that Washington policymakers will either come to grips with a realistic analysis of potential global threats or act to strengthen those multilateral institutions most effective in preventing and ending conflicts. A feminist analysis turns the political spotlight on the conventional notion of manliness as a major factor shaping U.S. foreign policy choices. It demonstrates that popular gender presumptions are not just the stuff of sociology texts. Every official who has tried not to appear soft knows this . For example, early in
his administration, Bill Clinton made known his abhorrence of landmines and his determination to ban them. But by 1998, he had caved in to military pressure and stated, instead, that the U.S. would not sign the widely endorsed international landmines treaty until the Defense Department came up with an alternative.
19
Feminism Kritik
LinksScience
Science and the government are violent and coercive. They destroy value to life and reproduce patriarchy. Nhanenge 2007
(Jytte, Masters @ U South Africa, Accepted Thesis Paper for Development Studies, ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT, uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/570/1/dissertation.pdf) Consequently, also social
scientists apply the scientific characteristics of objectivity, value-freedom, rationality and quantifiability to social life. In this way, they assume they can unveil universal laws about social relations, which will lead to true knowledge. Based on this, correct social policies can be formulated. Thus, social processes are excluded, while scientific objective facts are included. Society is assumed a static entity, where no changes are possible. By promoting a permanent character, social science legitimizes the existing social order, while obscuring the relations of domination and subordination, which is keeping the existing power relations inaccessible to analysis. The frozen order also makes it impossible to develop alternative
explanations about social reality. It prevents a historical and political understanding of reality and denies the possibility for social transformation by human agency. The prevailing condition is seen as an unavoidable fact. This implies that human beings are passive and that domination is a natural force, for which no one is responsible. This permits the state freely to implement laws and policies, which are controlling and coercive. These are seen as being correct, because they are based on scientific facts made by scientific experts. One result is that the state, without consulting the public, engages in a pathological pursuit of economic growth. Governments support the capitalist ideology, which benefits the elite only, while it is destroying nature and increasing poverty for women and lower classes. The priority on capitalism also determines other social policies. There are consequently no considerations for a possible conflict between the aims of the government for social control and economic efficiency and the welfare needs of various social groups. Without having an alternative to the existing order, people become dis-empowered. Ultimately, the reaction is public apathy, which legitimates authorative governments. Thus, social science is an ideology, which is affirming the prevailing social, political and economic order. (Reitzes 1993: 36-39, 41-42). In reality, it is a contradiction to apply the scientific method to social policy making. Any social policy change will alter social relations and affect the relative welfare of classes of people, which makes social decision making normative. Social policy is related to politics, which is an extension of ethics. Since values and facts are different categories, one cannot apply indisputable empirical facts to social values. It is therefore impossible to legitimize political decisions with reference to scientific knowledge. Social decision-making is a political process. When science is applied to political and normative questions, it becomes an ideology, which supports the dominant interests. Thus, the state reproduces conditions for domination. In case the contradictions become too pronounced, and the power of the state is challenged, then the ideology becomes violent. The consequence is totalitarianism. It is a situation where the state sets limits to what is permissible to think and teach, if necessary by coercion. Conclusively social science manipulates reality to serve the vested interests of specific social groups. The result is a dominant and violent ideology masked as science. (Reitzes 1993: 32, 34, 42-45). Shiva also finds that scientific knowledge is directed towards violence and economic profits: 80% of scientific research is devoted to the war industry. War is aimed at violence against the perceived enemy and civilians, sometimes a country's own population. Also in peaceful domains does science relate to violence. It exploits nature for maximization of profit. Science can only include the quantifiable, profit generating properties of a resource system. Thus properties which are not profitable, but which are qualitative and stabilise ecological processes, are ignored and destroyed. The focus on power and control for profit means that science misses out on much of what is important for nature and people. Thus, science and technology choose nuclear energy, experimenting on animals and spreading deadly pesticide, while they are overlooking the lest profitable, but sustainable organic farming and solar energy. Consequently, science focuses on violence and profit, which destructs human and natural wellbeing. (Shiva 1989: 23; Des Jardins 2001: 255).
20
Feminism Kritik
LinksScience
Science is patriarchal and a way for men to exert violence and domination Nhanenge 2007
Science is consequently founded on androcentric premises and their associated values. The androcentric premises perceive a universal masculine model of man. The dualised feminist issues are objectified and only valued to the extent that they are useful to man. Man is seen as being autonomous from both nature and society. He is a rational individual striving for freedom and independence from social and natural constraints. This picture is generalized as being an implicit goal of humanity as a whole. In fact, what men do not experience is often regarded as somewhat unimportant, distant or unreal. The measurement of masculinity is power. Dependency and powerlessness are perceived as inferiority and calls for unequal treatment. (Birkeland 1995: 59). Thus the androcentric values leads powerful man to seek power over women, others and nature, which due to their lack of power deserve an unequal treatment. This makes science violent. When women, emotions and nature are constructed as the Other in scientific discourse, it reconfirms the masculine position as being rational, superior and the standard. Rationality and theoretical reason is in this way used as an instrument for male domination over
women and all others. It is a tool to eliminate and ridicule differences. However, when one lacks the ability to see the positive in diversity, and instead systematically depreciate differences, trying to make all one, it leads to fundamentalism. Forcing through a single rational and masculine definition of reality becomes in this way violent. Thus, there is a close link between masculinity, rationality and violence in mechanical science. These oppressive features inhere therefore also in the various scientific disciplines and in its technology. (Braidotti et al 1994: 32, 34; Des Jardins 2001: 255).
21
Feminism Kritik
LinksTechnology
Current technology is patriarchal and destroying our world. We need to have a grassroots feminist movement to solve Nhanenge 2007
(Jytte, Masters @ U South Africa, Accepted Thesis Paper for Development Studies, ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT, uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/570/1/dissertation.pdf) Already after the First World War did the British philosopher, civil-rights activist and Nobel Prize- winner Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) contemplate on the effects of modern science and its technology. In his book from 1923 called "The Prospects of Industrial Civilization" Russel concluded that the application of science has been "in the main immeasurably harmful", and it would only cease to be so "when men have a less strenuous outlook on life". Russell found that science has been used
for three purposes: to increase the total production of commodities; to make wars more destructive; and to substitute trivial amusement for those that had some artistic or hygiene values. The increase of production had its importance 100 years ago. Now it is more important to direct production wisely. Instead, science increased production and created environmental degeneration; it made wars more destructive which increased global violence and human suffering; and it trivialized cultural activities, hence destroying the quality of life. (Ullrich 1993: 276-277). 5.21.3. Technology values violence over peace and harmony "Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature, but as an outside force destined to dominate
and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that, if he won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side." F. E. Schumacher, 1973. (Schumacher 1993: 3). "More, further, quicker, richer and there is no alternative" are the watchwords in modern hi-tech society. It is a forward stampede: If there is crime, the solution is more police, better equipped. If there are environmental problems, faster economic growth to pay for antipollution techniques is prescribed. If there is lack of natural resources, we turn to synthetics. If fossil fuels run out, we turn to nuclear energy. There are no problems technology cannot solve. But the problem is that its solutions are based
on values destined to control and conquer the world. Scientific and technological solutions that poison nature, degrade social structures and generate war are inherently violent. They make the rich richer, while they create poverty and destroy life. Bigger technology means bigger concentration of economic power, which exerts greater violence against society and nature. (Schumacher 1993: 20, 126, 128, 130 ). Technology can be used to dominate societies or to enhance them. Thus both science and technology could have developed in a different direction. But due to patriarchal values infiltrated in science the type of technology developed is meant to dominate, oppress, exploit and kill. One reason is that patriarchal societies identify
masculinity with conquest. Thus any technical innovation will continue to be a tool for more effective oppression and exploitation. The highest priority seems to be given to technology that destroys life. Modern societies are dominated by masculine institutions and patriarchal ideologies. Their technologies prevailed in Auschwitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and in many other parts of the world. Patriarchal power has brought us acid rain, global warming, military states, poverty and countless cases of suffering. We have seen men whose power has caused them to lose all sense of reality, decency and imagination, and we must fear such power. The ultimate result of unchecked patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe and nuclear holocaust. Such actions are denial of wisdom. It is working against natural harmony and destroying the basis of existence. But as long as ordinary people leave questions of technology to the "experts" we will continue the forward stampede. As long as economics focus on technology and both are the focus of politics, we can leave none of them to experts. Ordinary people are often more capable of taking a wider and more humanistic view than these experts. (Kelly 1990: 112-114; Eisler 1990: 32- 33; Schumacher 1993: 20, 126, 128, 130).
22
Feminism Kritik
LinksRealism
Realist approaches to international relations ignores the oppression of women at the personal level. Shepherd 2008
[Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART
As to the question of when violence is worthy of study, all three texts implicitly or explicitly draw on the popular feminist phrase: 'the personal is political'. This slogan neatly encapsulates the feminist critique of a supposed foundational divide between the private and the public realms of social life. In arguing that the personal is political, feminist theory refuses to accept that there are instances of human behaviour or situations in social life that can or should be bracketed from study. At its simplest, this critique led to the recognition of 'domestic violence' as a political, rather than a personal issue (see, for example Moore, 2003; Youngs, 2003), forming the foundation for critical studies of gendered violence in times of war and in times of peace that would otherwise have been ignored. Crucially, Enloe extended the boundaries of critique to include the international, imbuing the phrase with
new analytical vitality when she suggested, first, that the phrase itself is palindromic (that is, that the political is also personal, inextricably intertwined with the everyday) and, second, that the personal is international just as the
international is personal. governments depend upon certain kinds of allegedly private relationships in order to conduct their foreign affairs. ... To operate in the international arena, governments seek other governments' recognition of their sovereignty; but they also depend on ideas about masculinised dignity and feminised sacrifice to sustain that sense of autonomous nationhood
'The international is personal' implies that (Enloe, 2000, pp. 1967).
These ideas about dignity and sacrifice are not neatly contained within the temporal boundaries of any given war, nor are they incidental to the practice of warfare. Further, there is of course also the question of who gets to define or declare war, or peace. While some of the violent women whose actions are analysed by
Sjoberg and Gentry perform their violences in wartime (for example, Lynndie England, who received the most attention from global media of the women involved in prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib; see Sjoberg and Gentry, 2008, pp. 6770), others are fighting wars that are not sanctioned by the international community (such as the Chechen women [pp. 97111] and female Palestinian suicide bombers [pp. 11240]).
23
Feminism Kritik
LinksRealism
Realism dimishes the role of the individual and excludeds feminist perception Ruiz 05
[Tricia Ruiz, CSU Hayward, Feminist Theory and International Relations: The Feminist Challenge to Realism and Liberalism, Soundings Journal, 2005, http://honors.csustan.edu/journals/Soundings.pdf] In relation to realism, feminist theory is clear:
realism is the antithesis to achieving gender equality, both in discussion and practice, and even in its tools of war and security, patriarchy remains the central theme. States are the actors and the individual is of little importance. When the individual is deemphasized, there is even less acknowledgement of a female individual, which effectively excludes feminist discussion. In contrast to realism, liberalist theory emphasizes the role of the individual over that of the state. Instead of
seeing anarchy and a struggle for power as a defining feature of world politics, these thinkers emphasize an international struggle for consensus as central to explaining international relations.17 Liberalist tools include free trade, education, and international institutions to protect and promote the economic and civil interests of the individual.
Traditional masculinity and realist international relations depict an archaic world where countries violently compete for supremacy. Peterson 92
[V. Spike Peterson, Gendered States: Feminist (re)visions of International Relations Theory, 1992, http://www.questia.com/read/98189720?title=Gendered%20States%3a%20Feminist%20%28Re%29Visions%20of %20International%20Relations%20Theory#] One line of feminist thought links the liberal valuing of individual autonomy to a psychic drive to autonomy implanted in the male psyche by early socialization. Nancy Chodorow, most notably, theorizes that the tradition of female child-raising makes separation from the mother or mother surrogate harder for boys than for girls as boys must establish themselves as definitively different from the women who raise them. In the process they become deeply concerned with separateness, otherness, clear bounds between one person and anotherautonomy, in short. 4 Transposed to international relations,
masculine concepts of autonomy produce a view of separate sovereign states as embodying a unitary interest in confrontation with other states and as properly engaging in competition and self-interested change. In other words, liberalism, by making individual autonomy its highest value, by relying on contract as its primary process, and by not recognizing unchosen, group-based systemic inequalities among members of a society, sets in motion, perpetuates, and legitimizes a social Darwinist order within states and among states. And it is possible that the impetus (or an important part of it) behind this order is a child-rearing dynamic
that cultivates personal autonomy as a dominating element of masculinity, lending a crucial emotional push to a politics of separation. Thus, for its feminist critics, the liberal state is virtually fixed in a posture of competition and
incipient violence. With autonomy at its heart, its behavior must be marked by boundedness, suspicion, hostility, and efforts to control whatever forces might threaten the sovereign self.
24
Feminism Kritik
LinksDeterrence
Deterrence is patriarchal and coercive Chon 87
(Carol Cohn, Researcher and Teacher at Harvard Medical Signs ,1987 ,"Sex and Death in a world of Defense Intellectuals", Center for Psycholocial Studies in the nuclear age at Harvard University Medical Center, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3174209.pdf)
Another striking metaphor of patriarchal power came early in the summer program, when one of the faculty was giving a lecture on deterrence. To give us a concrete example from outside the world of military strategy, he described having a seventeen-year-old son of whose TV- watching habits he disapproves. He deals with the situation by threatening to break his son's arm if he turns on the TV again. "That's deterrence!" he said triumphantly. What is so striking about this analogy is that at first it seems so inappropriate. After all, we have been taught to believe that nuclear deterrence is a relation between two countries of more or less equal strength, in which one is only able to deter the other from doing it great harm by threatening to do the same in return. But in this case, the partners are unequal, and the stronger one is using his superior force not to protect himself or others from grave injury but to coerce. But if the analogy seems to be a flawed expression of deterrence as we have been taught to view it, it is nonetheless extremely revealing about U.S. nuclear deterrence as an operational, rather than rhetorical or declaratory policy. What it suggests is the speciousness of the defensive rhetoric that surrounds deterrence-of the idea that we face an implacable enemy and that we stockpile nuclear weapons only in an attempt to defend ourselves. Instead, what we see is the drive to superior power as a means to exercise one's will and a readiness to threaten the disproportionate use of force in order to achieve one's own ends. There is no question here of recognizing competing but legitimate needs, no desire to negotiate, discuss, or compromise, and most important, no necessity for that recognition or desire, since the father carries the bigger stick The United States frequently appeared in discussions about international politics as "father," sometimes coercive, sometimes benevolent, but always knowing best. The single time that any mention was made of countries other than the United States, our NATO allies, or the USSR was in a lecture on nuclear proliferation.
The point was made that younger countries simply could not be trusted to know what was good for them, nor were they yet fully responsible, so nuclear weapons in their hands would be much more dangerous than in ours. The metaphor used
was that of parents needing to set limits for their children.
25
Feminism Kritik
LinksMilitarism
The aff attempts to make their politics of masculinity appear natural by militarizing the problem, thus artificially requiring a militarized response.
Enloe. 2k [Cynthia Enloe; professor in the Department of International Development, Community, and Environment at Clark University; Masculinity As Foreign Policy Issue; October, 2000; accessed: June 2010]
Feminist questioning also produces a more realistic accounting of the consequences of macho policies. Despite slight increases in the number of women in policy positions, U.S. militarized policies in the post-cold war era have served to strengthen the privileged positions of men in decision making, both in the United States and in other countries. For instance, the U.S. government is currently promoting NATO as the central bastion of Western security. Although it is true that there are now women soldiers in all NATO governments armed forces (the Italians were the most recent to enlist women), NATO remains a masculinized political organization. The alliances policies are hammered out by a virtually all-male elite in which the roles of masculinity are silently accepted, when they should be openly questioned. Thus, to the extent that the U.S. succeeds in pressing NATO to wield more political influence than the European Parliament (where women have won an increasing proportion of seats), not only American women but also European women will be shunted to the wings of the political stage. Consider what feminist analysis reveals about the consequences of militarizing antidrug policy. The American governments new billion-dollar-plus aid package to the Colombian military will, as its critics have noted [See FPIF brief Colombia in Crisis, v 5, n 5], further intensify the civil war and human rights abuses. But less discussed is the fact that this policy will serve to marginalize women of all classes in Colombias political life. Thisthe obsession of Americas politicians and senior appointees with not appearing soft on drugsmilitarizes drug prevention efforts and, in so doing, disempowers women both in the U.S. and in the drug producing countries. Womenboth as grassroots urban activists in American cities and as mobilizers of a broad, cross-class peace movement in Colombiahave offered alternative analyses and solutions to the problems of drug addiction and drug trade. However, their valuable ideas are drowned out by the sounds of helicopter engines and M-16 rifles. When any policy approach is militarized, one of the first things that happens is that womens voices are silenced. We find that when the U.S. touts any military institution as the best hope for stability, security, and development, the result is deeply gendered: the politics of masculinity are made to seem natural, the male grasp on political influence is tightened, and most womens access to real political influence shrinks dramatically.
This example illustrates a more general phenomenon.
26
Feminism Kritik
LinksIdentity Politics
Realist approaches to security inevitably failit places individuals second and precludes consideration of identity politics. Tickner 2001
[Ann, professor at the School of International Relations USC. B.A. in History, University of London. M.A. in IR, Yale. PhD from Brandeis University, Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era, QUESTIA] New issues and new definitions of security have been accompanied by calls for new ways of understanding security. Challenging Walt's view of the history of the field as a gradual evolution toward an objective, scientific discipline that ultimately yields a form of knowledge beyond time and history, Keith Krause and Michael Williams have claimed that Walt has created an epistemic hierarchy that allows conventional security studies to set itself up as the authoritative judge of alternative claims; 34 this leads to a dismissal of alternative epistemologies in terms of their not being scientific. Critics claim that issues they consider important for understanding security cannot be raised within a positivist-rationalist epistemology or an ontology based on instrumentally rational actors in a state-centric world. In addition to constraining what can be said about security, a realist-rationalist approach precludes consideration of an ethical or emancipatory politics. For example, Krause and Williams contest realism's claim that states and anarchy are essential and unproblematic facts of world politics. They suggest that this worldview is grounded in an understanding of
human subjects as selfcontainedas instrumentally rational actors confronting an objective external reality. This methodologically individualist premise renders questions about identity and interest formation as unimportant. 35 These and other critics claim that issues of identity and interest demand more interpretive
modes of analysis. For this reason, critical scholars see the necessity of shifting from a focus on abstract individualism to a stress on culture and identity and the roles of norms and ideas. Such criticisms are being voiced by scholars variously identified as constructivists, critical theorists, and postmodernists. While not all of them reject realism's state-centric framework, all challenge its assumptions about states as unitary actors whose identities are unimportant for understanding their security behavior. Although certain of these scholars see incommensurability between rationalist and interpretive epistemologies, others are attempting to bridge this gap by staying within realism's state-centric worldview while questioning its rationalist epistemology. Ronald Jepperson, Alexander Wendt, and Peter Katzenstein have argued for what they call sociological institutionalism a view that advocates an identity-based approach, but one that stays within the traditional security agenda, a focus on states, and explanatory social science. Where this approach differs from rationalism is in its investigation of how norms, institutions, and other cultural features of domestic and international environments affect states' security interests and policies. Claiming that realist ontology and its rationalist epistemology are interdependent, more radical versions of critical-security studies reject these bridging attempts. Their calls for broadening the security agenda are made within the context of both a rejection of rationalism and a search for emancipatory theories that can get beyond realism's skepticism about progressive change and the possibility of an ethical international politics. Poststructuralists claim that when knowledge about security is constructed in terms of the binary metaphysics of Western culture, such as inside/outside, us/them, and community/anarchy, security can be understood only within the confines of domestic community whose identity is constructed in antithesis to external threat. 39 This denies the possibility of talking about an international community or an amelioration of the security dilemma since it is only within the space of political community that questions about ethics can be raised. In other words, the binary distinctions of national-security discourse limit what can be said and how it can be discussed. Thus, critical-security studies is not only about broadening the agenda because, as mentioned earlier, this is possible with a realist framework. According to Ken Booth, critical-security is fundamentally different from
realism because its agenda derives from a radically different political theory and methodology that question both realism's constrained view of the political and its commitment to positivism. Criticalsecurity studies rejects conventional security theory's definition of politics based on the centrality of the state and its sovereignty. Arguing that the state is often part of the problem of insecurity rather than the solution, Booth claims that we should examine security from a bottom-up perspective that begins with individuals; however, critical-security studies should not ignore the state or the military dimensions
of world politics: What is being challenged is not the material manifestations of the world of traditional realism, but its moral and practical status, including its naturalization of historically created theories, its ideology of necessity and limited possibility, and its propagandist common sense about this being the best of all worlds. 40
27
Feminism Kritik
***Impacts*** ImpactsPatriarchy
Patriarchy makes all impacts inescapable. Tickner 92
(J. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center for International Studies at the University of Southern California, 1992. Gender in International Relations, p. 49-52)
Power-oriented statesmen have a vested interest vis--vis their domestic supporters in painting a picture of the world around them as threateningly anarchic; anarchic international systems are reproduced by individuals who believe no alternatives exist. Recognizing the gendered construction of this three-tiered world
picture, feminist perspectives on national security offer alternative conceptions. Assuming that these categories are mutually constitutive and mutually reinforcing of each other, we should heed Paul Fussells claim, in the epigraph to this chapter, that our conception of the possibilities of individual manhood must be redefined in theory and practice before war at the international systemic level can be regarded as avoidable. These gendered depictions of political man, the state, and the international system generate a national security discourse that privileges conflict and war and silences other ways of thinking about security; moving away from valorizing human characteristics that are associated with the risking of life, toward an affirmation of life-giving qualities, allows us to envisage alternative conceptions of national security. National Security Reconsidered. Certain critics of realism have begun to ask whether we can continue to rely on war as the ultimate instrument for the achievement of national security. In a world where nuclear conflict could result in the destruction of winners and losers alike (as well as the natural environment), realist prescriptions to maximize power could actually be counterproductive. In the absence of a viable defense, nuclear weapons make boundary protection impossible; thus the distinctions between domestic and international, soldiers and civilians, and protectors and protected are breaking down.61 In 1982 the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues warned that, after thirty-seven years, nuclear deterrence was becoming fragile because of a decreased sensitivity to dangers, the possibility of accidents in crisis situations, and new technologies that may be increasing the possibility of limited nuclear war.62 In the nuclear age, the fact that the security of states depends on the insecurity of their citizens has stretched the traditional concept of national security to its limit. Critics of realism argue that a more global vision of security is necessary. The extent to which realism has been able to justify its distinction between domestic order and international anarchy depends on its focus on the major actors in the international system. Internally, most Western states have been relatively peaceful since World War II, if peace is narrowly defined as the absence of military conflict. Thinking about security from a global perspective must take into account that 90 percent of the military conflicts of the 1970s and 1980s took place in the Third World; many were domestic, some international and some, particularly when the great powers were involved, blurred the distinction between the two.63 Security threats have traditionally been defined as threats to national boundaries, but since the end of the process of decolonialization, relatively few cross-border wars and changes in international boundaries have occurred, in spite of the large number of military conflicts. For people in the Third World, as well as in Eastern Europe and, more recently, in the states of the former Soviet Union, security threats have often been internal. Repression by regimes reacting against ethnic minorities or popular discontent creates a situation in which states can become threats to, rather than providers of, security. The militarization of much of the Third World, often with weapons supplied by great powers whose interests frequently coincide with keeping unpopular regimes in power, has led to the legitimation of states frequently depending on their recognition by the international community rather-than by their domestic populations. The Palme Report notes that a growing militarization of the Third World has drained resources that might otherwise be used for economic development. When we consider security from the perspective of the individual, we find that new thinking is beginning to provide us with definitions of security that are less state-centered and less militaristic. But little attention has been paid either to gender issues or to womens particular needs with respect to security or to their contributions toward its achievement. Feminist reformulations of the meaning of security are needed to draw attention to the extent to which gender hierarchies themselves are a source of domination and thus an obstacle to a truly comprehensive definition of security. I shall now turn to the issue of how women might define national security and to an analysis of security from a feminist perspective.
28
Feminism Kritik
ImpactsPatriarchy
Patriarchy is the root cause of war and is leading us to extinction Reardon 93
[Betty A. Reardon, Director of the Peace Education Program at Teachers College Columbia University, 1993, Women and Peace: Feminist Visions of Global Security] In an article entitled Naming the Cultural Forces That Push Us toward War (1983), Charlene Spretnak focused on some of the fundamental cultural factors that deeply influence ways of thinking about security. She argues that patriarchy encourages militarist tendencies. Since a major war now could easily bring on massive annihilation of almost unthinkable proportions, why are discussions in our national forums addressing the madness of the nuclear arms race limited to matters of hardware and statistics? A more comprehensive analysis is badly needed . . . A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of
dominance, not parity, which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to strut their stuff as we watch with increasing horror. Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are radically inappropriate for the nuclear age. To prove dominance and control, to distance ones character from that of women, to survive the toughest violent initiation, to shed the sacred blood of the hero, to collaborate with death in order to hold it at bayall of these patriarchal pressures on men have traditionally reached resolution in ritual fashion on the battlefield. But there is no longer any battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that if a
nuclear power were losing a crucial, large-scale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles because of some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend, instantly or eventually, to all living things, all the air, all the soil, all the water. If we believe that war is a necessary evil, that patriarchal assumptions are simply human nature, then we are locked into a lie, paralyzed. The ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust. The causes of recurrent warfare are not biological. Neither are they solely economic. They are also a result of patriarchal ways of thinking, which historically have generated considerable pressure for standing armies to be used. (Spretnak 1983)
29
Feminism Kritik
ImpactsMilitarism
Militarism leads to extinction; only intersectional feminist movements solve Dr. Pollard 03
(Irina Pollard, Ph.D. Dept Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Choose Between Cooperation and Annihilation: A Mental Mapping Project Towards a more Generously Directed Altruism, Sydney Australia, 2003, Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 13 44-48. http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/EJ132/ej132f.htm) The hostile actions of war are a deliberate attempt to destroy the ecology that sustains life and is, thus, appropriately categorized as 'ecocide'. Popular forms of ecocide are scorched-earth campaigns aided and abetted by bombing and military ground sweeps in order to completely deforest, depopulate and destroy the environment. Since such brutal actions cause long-term and often irreversible damage to ecosystems, militaristic insurgencies and counterinsurgencies are violations of right conduct at many levels, both within human communities, along boundaries of social and cultural difference, and within our broader biotic communities. International militarism and the deployment of scarce resources on sophisticated, or not so sophisticated, weaponry capable of escalating violence can no longer be tolerated despite awareness that warfare is the inevitable consequence of a multitude of humans forced by poverty, mismanagement, greed and population pressures, into overexploiting their natural resources. It is easy to see the cycle of how the resulting ecological poverty then becomes a primary cause of further aggression . Once war is established, the economy then becomes predatory by consuming its scarce resources to further the conflict, trapping its inhabitants in an increasing cycle of war-related debt and further expanding poverty. The one obvious unifying characteristic of all institutionalized and freewheeling conflicts is the lack of respect for human and environmental rights. War violates fundamental human decency especially when horrific atrocities are perpetrated under the banner of false justice and mock righteousness. If we do not
soon curb our high rates of ecologically unsustainable consumption defended through an ecologically disastrous militarism we, as a species, are destined for extinction. By pointlessly destroying the environment without acknowledgment or reciprocity is a losing evolutionary strategy. Let us remind
ourselves again that a mature species takes responsibility for the ecological, social, and personal ramifications of all our actions. In order for our differences to become enriching, we must appreciate and claim our intrinsic value within Nature and celebrate our difference with the larger diversity of life. In this context initiatives like Professor Darryl Macer's east-west dialogue is critical (see Eubios Ethics Institute's website). Importantly, recognizing and valuing other
expressions of human diversity that contributes constructively to the richness of the human and ecological fabric, whether cultural, social, religious or spiritual, can only stand us in good stead in overcoming our present environmental dilemma. The spiritual impulse towards meaning and value in friendships has to be
extended towards the whole of creation. Only this can spell the difference between a friendly environment and no environment for our descendants. International militarism in the form of war and preparations for war is the greatest ongoing threat and obstacle to sustainability and survival into the future. The rate of ecologically damaging change of the earth under human influences has accelerated to the point that humanity faces the possibility of
causing its own extinction and severely damaging the whole biosphere. By appropriating and fighting over all available resources for ourselves, we are witnessing the last desperate struggle for survival of the unique Quaternary fauna and flora developed over the last two million years of geological time, from the Pleistocene to the present. The Quaternary period was characterized by the flourishing of an astonishing diversity of
life, including the appearance of Homo sapiens. Therefore, warfare is a costly losing cooperative venture - poisoning our neighbour and wasting common commodities are not matters of privacy or free marketeering or national sovereignty; they are serious ethical offences against others that demand public regulations and prohibitions. The question of justice also means that resolving the problem of poverty is a critical part of any responsible solution to the problem of pollution, as the poor in both developed and developing nations typically are the most adversely affected and have the least options to avoid the toxic effects of pollution. A basic ethical issue involved here is responsibility to future generations, both human and other kind, that are endangered by human over-appropriation. Ecojustice implies the need to change our way of thinking by challenging inherited values and assumptions, particularly those that have supported ecologically damaging practices. We have to relearn acceptable limits of behavior, but since we are the cutting edge of Nature's experiment in consciousness and thoughtfulness, we can work out what needs to be done. We could follow Gaia's ethic by accepting that the wellbeing of each life form depends on the interdependent wellbeing of the whole. The challenge is to develop a diversity of adaptive
30
CNDI 2010 Feminism Kritik Shackelford/Lazarevic interrelationships at all levels of life, including symbiotic microorganisms. Scientific research is giving us the knowledge that, at every level, the biology of the ecosystem is shaped by long-term intimate associations with larger organisms such as animals and plants, and that their complexity is further reflected in their interactions with microorganisms. Valuing natural biodiversity in purely economic or monetary terms is an insult to the Biosphere; as is sickening militaristic behavior which should be outlawed. To establish a workable ethical consensus society must be willing to alter its view in the face of new information. It is a simple fact that nothing remains the same. Evolution is inevitable whether it be slow growth and change through natural evolutionary processes, or rapid through our intervention and technological applications deployed either positively or negatively. Emotional maturity tells us how to choose to be responsible while excuses keep us
stuck in the present quagmire - we can choose to be a lost cause or we can choose to adapt and become empowered. In a world where the unit of evolution is the group, biodiversity and cooperation is the evolutionary strategy for success. Just as biodiversity provides ecological stability so diversity of human ideas provides national stability
31
Feminism Kritik
ImpactsMilitarism
Patriarchy causes Militarism, but feminist governments can create a world of peace Cock, 92 (Jacklyn Cock, proffesor of sociology at University of Witwatersrand, South African Defence Review, Issue No. 6, 1992 ,http://www.iss.org.za/PUBS/ASR/SADR6/Cock.html) Militarism involves more than arms bearing and the practice of war. It has been defined as 'a set of attitudes and social practices which regards war and the preparation of war as a normal and desirable social activity. This is a broader definition than is common among scholars. It qualifies people other than John Wayne as militarists. But in an age when war threatens our survival it is as well to understand any behavior, however mild in appearance, which makes war seem either natural or desirable.' (Mann, 1987: 35) The role of women in military has been largely obscured and mystified by two competing perspectives - those of sexism and
feminism. Both analyses exclude women from war on the grounds that they are bearers of 'special qualities'. Sexism excludes women from the ranks of the military on the grounds of their physical inferiority and unsuitability for fighting. As the weaker sex women must be 'protected' and 'defended'. One variant of feminism similarly excludes women but on opposite grounds that of their innate nurturing qualities, their creativity and pacifism. Another variant of feminism excludes women on the grounds that men have a monopoly on power. The outcome of these perspectives is that war is understood as a totally male affair and the military as a patriarchal institution from which women are excluded and by whom
women are often victimized. The military is viewed as the last bastion of male power-war as it's last preserve Cock continues (92 ) Military training is a crucial agency of this socialisation. Men are socialised into a conception of masculinity that is violent. 'Military training is socialisation into masculinity carried to extremes.' (Roberts, 1984: 197). The notion of 'combat' is the fulcrum of this process. 'Combat' is the key dimension in the development of the masculinity\militarism nexus. Combat is presented as fundamental to the development of manhood and male superiority. (Enloe, 1983) Only in combat lies the
ultimate test of a man's masculinity. The image of manhood inculcated through combat training hinges on aggression and dominance; it involves an emotional disconnection and an impacted sexuality. (Eisenhart, 1983) Through combat the
man affirms his role as protector, and defender. In this sense the exclusion of women from combat roles is essential for maintaining the ideological structure of patriarchy. Cock concludes(92" "), Similarly Reardon has argued that militarism in general is expressive of a masculine ideology. Therefore, if women were included in the policy making process, feminine notions of defense and national security could bring about a more peaceful and less militarized world. Also it is suggested that the presence of women in combat units
blurs and decreases the harshness of military life. It perhaps lessens the brutalization of young men thrown into an all male society for months on end. One could thus argue for women soldiers as an agency of degendering the military and loosening the militarism/masculinity connection. The function of the military and combat as a masculine proving ground will be eroded if women are fully integrated into the military.
32
Feminism Kritik
***Alternative Solvency***
Alt SolvencyFem Perspectives

Including feminine perspectives is key to destroying the harmful portrayal of women in the status quo. Peterson 92
[V. Spike Peterson, Gendered States: Feminist (re)visions of International Relations Theory, 1992, http://www.questia.com/read/98189720?title=Gendered%20States%3a%20Feminist%20%28Re%29Visions%20of %20International%20Relations%20Theory#] Attempts to rectify this systematic exclusion of women constitute a second "moment" in the deconstructive project: correcting androcentric falsehoods by adding women and their experience to existing frameworks. This inclusion of
women significantly expands the range of knowledge by "asking new questions and generating new data." Focusing on women's lives entails considering new sources and re-evaluating the selectivity of traditional ones; diaries, quilt making, caretaking, domestic activities, and everyday practices more generally take on new significance. Documenting ubiquitous androcentrism and its occlusion of gender hierarchy tends to render women as victimsas relatively powerless within male-dominated systems. In contrast, "adding women" disrupts existing frameworks as the mapping of "female worlds" reveals the significance both of women's experience and of women themselves as actors in accommodation with and resistance to structures of domination. No longer "invisible," everyday practices and women's activitiesespecially when
differentiated by class, ethnicity, nationality, age, sexual orientation, or physical ability illuminate the complexity and contradictions attending gender and other social hierarchies.
33
Feminism Kritik
Alt SolvencyStructural Violence

Feminist analysis is key to understanding and including previously ignored instances of everyday violence into international relations theory. Shepherd 2008
feminist security studies scholarship also asks which violences are considered worthy of study and when these violences occur. Expanding the concept of violence that underpins feminist analysis, as outlined above, allows us to take seriously what Arthur Kleinman (2000) refers to as 'the violences of everyday life'. Beyond a narrow focus on war and state-based violence lies a plethora of everyday violences that feminist security studies seeks to address. In the field of security studies the broadening and deepening of the concept of security, such that it is no longer assumed to apply only to the sovereign state, has demonstrated the multiple insecurities experienced by individuals and social collectives (Booth, 2005, pp. 145). The development of the
In addition to questioning what violence is, how it is represented and with what effects, concept of 'human security' largely took place within the parameters of a wider disciplinary debate over the appropriate referent object for security studies (the individual, society, the state) and the types of threat to the referent object that would be recognised. In a move similar to Ken Booth's (1991) reformulation of security as emancipation, Roberts' quest for individual empowerment seeks to overcome the 'lite-legitimized disequilibrium' that results in the manifest insecurity of the majority of the world's population (Roberts, 2008, p. 185). As might be expected, the violences Roberts identifies are innumerable. In addition to the physical violences of 'infanticide, maternal mortality, intimate ("domestic", "honour" and "dowry") killings and lethal female genital mutilation; and avoidable deaths in children under five' (Roberts, 2008, p. 31), his analysis attacks the institutional structures of the dominant international financial institutions (pp. 11735) and the andrarchal and neoliberal discourses that sustain them (pp. 136 58). In short, Roberts' [the] answer to the all of them. However, while studies
question of which violences matter in global politics is quite simple: of human security, he argues, seek to provide the human with security, his reformulated analytic takes as its starting point human insecurity; that is, he starts with the threat(s) to the sovereign subject rather than the subject's ontological condition. Roberts suggests that this circumvents
the disciplinary definitional problem with human security identified by Roland Paris (2001), Edward Newman (2001; 2004) and others but I cannot see how this is the case, given that the answer to the question 'what is it that humans do to make the world a more dangerous and dysfunctional place?' (Roberts, 2008, p. 28) is also quite simple: we live in it. Thus Roberts' analytic seems to suffer the same lack of definitional clarity and therefore policy relevance that he ascribes to more conventional approaches; it is no easier to identify, quantify and ultimately reduce the threats experienced by coexisting human subjects than it is to provide those human subjects with security, if security can first be defined as freedom from fear or want. I do not espouse some construction of human nature (if such a thing were to exist) that assumes essential selfishness and a propensity for violence, nor do I assume that security is a zero-sum game, in that one person's security must always be at the expense of another's, but I recognise that even the most well-intentioned security policy can have unforeseen and sometimes disastrous effects. Sometimes, moreover, as Sjoberg and Gentry demonstrate, the
decision to perform acts of political violence that are a source of insecurity for the intended victims can be understood if not condoned.
34
Feminism Kritik
Alt SolvencyStructural Violence

Looking at international relations though a feminist perspective allows for a better understanding of the blindness surrounding every day violence Shepherd 2008
[Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART By drawing her readers' attention to the ways in which discourses of gender (ideas about how 'proper' men and women should behave) function, Enloe reminds us that adhering to ideals of masculinity and femininity is both productive of
violence and is a violence in itself, a violence against the empowered human subject. 'Ideas matter', she concludes, ideas about modernity, security, violence, threat, trust. 'Each of these ideas is fraught with blatant and subtle presumptions about masculinity and femininity. Ideas about both masculinity and femininity matter. This makes a feminist curiosity a necessity' (Enloe, 2007, p. 161). While conventional studies of IR and security may be willing to concede that ideas matter (see Finnemore and Sikkink, 2001), paying close attention to the work that gender does allows for a fuller understanding of why it is that particular violences fall outside the traditional parameters of study.
35
Feminism Kritik
Alt SolvencyCriticism
Critical approaches to orthodox IR is key to acknowledging the relevance of feminist understandings to power Shepherd 2008
Feminist security studies should not simply be seen as 'women doing security', or as 'adding women to IR/security studies', important as these contributions are. Through their theorising, the authors discussed here reconfigure what 'counts' as IR, challenging orthodox notions of who can 'do' IR and what 'doing' IR means. The practices of power needed to maintain dominant configurations of international relations are exposed, and critiquing the productive power of realism as a discourse is one way in which the authors do this. Sjoberg and
Gentry pick up on a recent theoretical shift in Anglo-American IR, from system-level analysis to a recognition that individuals matter. However, as they rightly point out, the individuals who are seen to matter are not gendered relational beings, but rather reminiscent of Hobbes' construction of the autonomous rational actor. '[T]he narrowness of the group that [such an approach] includes limits its effectiveness as an interpretive framework and reproduces the gender, class and race biases in system-level international relationship scholarship' (Sjoberg and Gentry 2008, p. 200, emphasis added). Without paying adequate attention to the construction of individuals as gendered beings, or to the reproduction of widely held ideas about masculine and feminine behaviours, Sjoberg and Gentry remind us that we will ultimately fail 'to see and deconstruct the increasingly subtle, complex and disguised ways in which gender pervades international relations and global politics' (2008, p. 225). In a similar vein, Roberts notes that 'human security is marginalised or rejected as inauthentic [because] it is not a reflection of realism's (male) agendas and priorities' (2008, p. 169). The 'agendas and priorities' identified by Roberts and acknowledged by Sjoberg and Gentry as being productive of particular biases in scholarship are not simply 'academic' matters, in the pejorative sense of the term. As Roberts argues, 'Power relationships of inequality happen because they are built that way by human determinism of security and what is required to maintain security (p. 171). Realism, as academic discourse and as policy guideline, has material effects. Although his analysis employs an unconventional definition of the term 'social construction' (seemingly interchangeable with 'human agency') and rests on a novel interpretation of the three foundational assumptions of realism (Roberts, 2008, pp. 16977), the central point that Roberts seeks to make in his conclusion is valid: 'it is a challenge to those who deny relationships between gender and security; between human agency (social construction) and lethal outcome' (p. 183). In sum, all three texts draw their readers to an inescapable, and for the conventional study of IR a devastating conclusion:
the dominance of neo-realism/realism and the state-based study of security that derives from this is potentially pathological, in that it is in part productive of the violences it seeks to ameliorate . I suggest that critical engagement with orthodox IR theory is necessary for the intellectual growth of the discipline, and considerable insight can be gained by acknowledging the relevance of feminist understandings of gender, power and theory. The young woman buying a T-shirt from a multinational clothing corporation with her first
pay cheque, the group of young men planning a stag weekend in Amsterdam, a group of students attending a demonstration against the bombing of Afghanistan studying these significant actions currently falls outside the boundaries of doing security studies in mainstream IR and I believe these boundaries need contesting. As Marysia Zalewski argues:
International politics is what we make it to be ... We need to rethink the discipline in ways that will disturb the existing boundaries of both that which we claim to be relevant in international politics and what we assume to be legitimate ways of constructing knowledge about the world (Zalewski 1996, p. 352,
emphasis in original).
36
Feminism Kritik
Alt SolvencyCrisis Based Politics

Criticism is key to un-veiling the facade of peace. Shepherd 2008
[Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART In this essay, I address each of these concerns in turn,
developing a critique of the war/peace dichotomy that is foundational to conventional approaches to IR through a review of three recent publications in the field of feminist
security studies. These texts are Cynthia Enloe's (2007) Globalization and Militarism, David Roberts' (2008) Human Insecurity, and Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women's Violence in Global Politics by Laura Sjoberg and Caron Gentry (2008). Drawing on the insights of these books, I ask first how violence is understood in global politics, with
specific reference to the gendered disciplinary blindnesses that frequently characterise mainstream approaches. Second, I demonstrate how a focus on war and peace can neglect to take into account the politics of everyday violence: the violences of the in-between times that international politics recognises neither as 'war' nor 'peace' and the violences inherent to times of peace that are overlooked in the study of war. Finally, I argue that feminist security studies offers an important corrective to the foundational assumptions of IR, which themselves can perpetuate the very instances of violence that they seek to redress. If we accept the core insights of feminist security studies the centrality of the human subject, the importance of particular configurations of masculinity and femininity, and the gendered conceptual framework that underpins the discipline of IR we are encouraged to envisage a rather different politics of the global.
37
Feminism Kritik
Alt SolvencyPatriarchy
The Alt solves- Feminism can overcome Patriarchy and thus all forms of domination Nhanenge 2007
To rid the world of nuclear weapons, poverty, racism, sexism and other isms of domination discriminations must end. As long as white males hold all the social, political and economic power, women, people of colour, poor people, children and nature will continue to be dominated while poverty and the military mentality will continue unabated. To solve the crises of poverty, violence and natural destruction very different technologies are needed. Wisdom demands that science and technology orientate themselves towards the organic, the gentle, the non-violent and the beautiful. Peace and harmony
simply cannot be built on the recklessness and violence of science and technology. Charlene Spretnak (Murphy 1997: 51) finds that the purpose of cultivating ecological wisdom is an antidote to the free-floating anxiety that modern society's blind faith in technology and progress along with militarism has created. The whole culture is free-floating from the lack of grounding in the natural world, the lack of sense of belonging and the lack of healthy relationship between males and females of the species. We are entangled in the patriarchal goal of dominating nature and the female. We
therefore need to develop new life styles compatible with the real needs of human nature, with the health of living nature and with the resources of the world. Human beings are alienated from nature and
therefore also from the ability to recognise measure and limitation. Nature knows when to stop. There is a measure in all natural things regarding size, speed and violence. As a result the system of nature tends to be self-balancing, self-adjusting and self-cleansing. Not so with technology or man that is dominated by technology. There are no self-limiting principles and no virtue of being self-adjusting. However, any activity that ignores self-limitation is of the devil. In nature and society it acts like a foreign body and it causes crises. Thus any one who bases his or her life on materialism, which includes permanent, limitless expansion in a finite environment, cannot last long. (Kelly 1990: 112- 114; Ekins 1992: 174: Schumacher 1993: 20, 120, 126-127). There is consequently an end to the patriarchal reductionist world-view. Its activities will only be rewarded with positive feedback until the subsystems begin to show signs of stress. At a certain moment its increased technological mastery, its domination of nature and society and the huge profit it generates will affect the social and ecological sub-systems. Then the feedback turns negative. This will lead to a process of decline in the system, since decay and collapse are the proper systemic behaviour under such circumstances. That is the moment the old instrumental yang is turning into a re- emergence of the subtle yin's intuitive consciousness to restore the balance. (Henderson 1978: 329, 400).
38
Feminism Kritik
Alt SolvencyPatriarchy
The Alt solves, feminism can adresss and overthrow the root cause of violence; patriarchy Youngs 04
(Gillian Young, 04, International Affairs 80, I, 75-87, Feminist International Relations: a contradiction in terms? Or: why women and gender are essential to understanding the world we live in, http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/GillianYoungsFeministIRContradictionOr.pdf)
Sovereignty is a core concept in International Relations because it defines the pre-eminent role of states as political actors, and by implication also defines political identity (citizenship) in state-centered terms, binding
authentic politics exclusively within territorially-bound communities. For feminist International Relations there are ways in which sovereignty can be regarded as a foundational problem in the masculinist distortions of the nature of politics and political agency. Masculinist dominance is institutionalized by the sovereignty contract' and the sexual contract of modern European state-making, which is simultaneouslyand not coincidentallythe making of rational man, the sovereign subject and political agency. In this historical context, policiesas concept and actionis rendered definitely masculine and political identity is gendered both conceptually (in RIIIIS of how we think about political agency, subjectivity and subject-ive relations ) and empirically (in terms of how we organise political activities, structures and objective relations)." The public over private (male over female) social hierarchy leads to the gendering of political agency and influence in profound ways. This is a problem when we think of internal state politics but it is amplified in international relations, the so-called realm of high politics, where women have had least presence and direct impact. Radical thinkers such as john Hoffman argue for the reconstruction of the political concept of sovereignty as emancipatory, for a sovereignty beyond the state. States are an expression of patriarchal power. Empirically, states are (mostly) run by men, defended by men and advance the interests of men . . .
Logically, state sovereignty is gendered by its assertion that leadership is monolithic, hierarchical and violent. These principles are all "masculinist" in character since the idea of concentrating power so that the few rule by force over the many is associated with the domination of men . Hoffman explores the
problematics and complexities of the characteristic of the state as the sole legitimate user of force in the interests of internal and external order, a legitimacy deriving in the liberal tradition from the social contract. This characteristic of the state and issues of violence associated with it is central to the concept of security in International Relations. Feminists have examined extensively the degree to which mainstream concepts of security in the Held have been traditionally constrained by
masculinist blinkers, failing to take account of security issues women confront daily that are associated with their unequal or oppressed conditions of existence in relation to men, for example domestic violence.
They also largely fail to take account of the specific ways in which women and children are affected by war, military occupation, militarization, (forced) migration, human trafficking, sexual and other forms of slavery and (forced) prostitution. Carolyn N Ordstrum has forcefully explained: It took years of studying war firsthand for me to learn that children constituted a major percentage of war deaths in the contemporary world. Behind the rhetoric of soldiers fighting soldiers that fuels military propaganda and popular accounts of war around the world, children are maimed, tortured, starved, forced to (fight, and killed in numbers that rival adult civilian casualties, and outnumber those of soldiers . . . As a society in general we are taught to not-see many issues violence and war , especially when it comes to children. If silence is
political, not-knowing is at the core of power and its abuses}6 The implication of feminist analysis of such areas
is that the mainstream tendency to ignore them is a form of political not-knowing. One of the most powerful, and perhaps controversial, aims of different kinds of feminist analysis in these areas is the opening up of consideration that different kinds of oppression, including in extreme forms as violence, may be interconnected. As Ann Tickner has explained: Whereas conventional security studies has tended to look at causes and consequences of wars
from a top-down, or structural, perspective, feminists have generally taken a bottom-up approach, analyzing the impact of war at the microlevel. By so doing, as well as adopting gender as a category of analysis, feminists believe they can tell us some-thing new about the causes of war that is missing from both conventional and critical perspectives.
39
Feminism Kritik
***Framework*** Framework
Even if they win Framework, we still win. They ignore problems that kill more people. Zalewski, 09
(Marysia Zalewski, Director of the Center for Gender Studies at the University of Aberdeen, From an interview on Unsettling IR, Masculinity, and Making IR Theory Interesting (again), http://www.theory-talks.org/2009/04/theorytalk-28.html) This is a typical IR question since it presupposes there is (or perhaps should be) a central issue that we could/should all agree on. Also I think theres a huge difference between a central challenge and a principal debate whereas the latter might be confined to the scholarly community, with little to do with what either the public or politicians think is a pressing issue, the former we might understand to be more related to what matters to ordinary people. As such these can be (often are) very different. (Do ordinary people spend much time arguing the difference between realism and neo-realism or constructivism and poststructuralism?) I really dont think that just because we are all supposedly dealing with the international sphere in IR, there should necessarily be a central issue or debate that we should agree on as being central. There is such a massively wide range of issues we might be concerned with a problem for me is that the things that tend to end up scoring highly on IRs priority list (biggest challenges) are the things that have tended to mirror the interests of major powers in the world whether thats the American government or Western powers more generally, which, by the way, are (surely not coincidentally!) still overwhelmingly dominated by
elite men. Even if war, conflict or really the incidence of violent deaths could be sort of agreed upon as the central issue in IR; why isnt IRs central concern poverty given it still produces the highest body count?
40
Feminism Kritik
***Affirmative*** USE FEM IR BAD CARDS FROM SOUTH KOREA FILE
41
Feminism Kritik
AffNeo-Liberalism Solves
Liberalization and Market Development have already increased gender equality more than the government ever could CATO policy report, 97
(Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace, CATO Policy Report, October 1997, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n5-3.html) Kate Xiao Zhou talked about "Market Development and Rural Women's Revolution in Contemporary China." Zhou, a native of China who is currently teaching at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, argued that liberalization in China has greatly
increased the economic bargaining power of women and has given them greater financial and social freedom. "Market development in the past several years has done more to reduce patriarchy in China than government action did in the previous four decades." Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the
Cato Institute, urged China to adopt a privately run defined-contribution retirement system similar to the one in Chile. The man who developed that system, Jos Piera, co-chairman of the Cato Project on Social Security Privatization, told the crowd that since Chile privatized its pension system in the early 1980s, it has experienced an average annual growth rate of 7 percent. After the conference, Piera met with the official in charge of developing China's pension system, who expressed great interest in Chile's successful move toward privatization, and gave six reasons why a private system for China would be preferable to a pay-as-you-go state-run system.
42
Feminism Kritik
Aff Essentialism
Associating women with peace reinforces harmful gender sterotypes. Tickner 2001
[Ann, professor at the School of International Relations USC. B.A. in History, University of London. M.A. in IR, Yale. PhD from Brandeis University, Why Women Cant Run the World: International Politics According to Francis Fukuyama, http://web.centre.edu/lorihm/tickner.pdf]
Most IR feminists would deny the assertion that women are morally superior to men. Indeed, many of them have claimed that the association of women with peace and moral superiority has a long history of keeping women out of power, going back to the debates about the merits of female suffrage in the early part of the century. The association of women with peace can play into unfortunate gender stereotypes that characterize men as active, women as passive; men as agents, women as victims; men as rational, women as emotional. Not only are these stereotypes damaging to women, particularly to their credibility as actors in matters of international politics and national security, but they are also damaging to peace. As a concept, peace will remain a soft issue, utopian and unrealistic, as long as it is associated with femininity and passivity.4 This entire debate about aggressive men and peaceful women frequently comes up when issues about women and world politics are on the table. Moreover, it detracts from what feminists consider to be more pressing agendas, such
as striving to uncover and understand the disadvantaged socioeconomic position of many of the worlds women and why women are so poorly represented among the worlds policymakers.
43
Feminism Kritik
AffRevolutions fail
Revolutions against the state actually increase subordination of women. Peterson 92
[V. Spike Peterson, Gendered States: Feminist (re)visions of International Relations Theory, 1992, http://www.questia.com/read/98189720?title=Gendered%20States%3a%20Feminist%20%28Re%29Visions%20of %20International%20Relations%20Theory#] Specifically, we need to examine: (1) the structure of the prerevolutionary society in terms of the status of women and the relationships among family, society, and the state; (2) the rhetorical and symbolic bases of legitimacy that develop in the revolutionary process; and (3) the symbolic and objective outcomes of the revolution. The structure of the prerevolutionary society should be analyzed with respect to two main points. One, the relative position of women with respect to men should be determined: Was gender a basis for discrimination under the old regime? In all prerevolutionary regimes up to the present day, gender has been a basis for discrimination. Gailey, like Peterson, argues that all states rest on a foundation consisting of gender hierarchy as well as class stratification, and that the "subordination of women ... emerges as an integral part of the emergence of ... the state." 68 If we accept this connection between the subordination of women and the social bases of states, all revolutions against state-based regimes have the potential to liberate women from men as well as to liberate men from one another but, because revolutions also result in the
strengthening of state institutions, the continued subordination of women after revolutionary transformation is structurally favored.
44
Feminism Kritik
AffPerm
Perm solves bestAttempts at rebellion outside the system fail Peterson 92
[V. Spike Peterson, Gendered States: Feminist (re)visions of International Relations Theory, 1992, http://www.questia.com/read/98189720?title=Gendered%20States%3a%20Feminist%20%28Re%29Visions%20of %20International%20Relations%20Theory#]
feminist critics of the present state system should beware. The very fact that the state creates, condenses, and focuses political power may make it the best friend, not the enemy, of feministsbecause the availability of real political power is essential to real democratic control. Not sufficient, I know, but essential. My basic premise is that political power can significantly disrupt patriarchal and class (which is to say, economic) power. It holds the potential, at least, for disrupting the patriarchal and economic oppression of those in the lower reaches of class, sex, and race hierarchies. It is
In the face of such pressures, I believe that indisputable that, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it has been the political power of states that has confronted the massive economic power privately constructed out of industrial processes and has imposed obligations on employers for the welfare of workers as well as providing additional social supports for the population at large. And the political tempering of economic power has been the most responsive to broad public needs in liberal democracies, where governments must respond roughly to the interests of voters. Specifically, I am proposing that a re-formed liberal state could well serve feminist purposes and values and, more specifically, that a reconceived liberal pluralism could serve to bring
presently dispossessed voices into political discourse and dispossessed people into political decisionmaking. Again, please note the words "re-formed" and "reconceived." The liberalism I am talking about is not the
version generally identified and rejected in feminist discussion. What follows is an argument about some of the feminist antiliberal charges and the sketching out of a different feminist liberalism as it might operate domestically and internationally.
45
Feminism Kritik
Aff Victimization Good

Victimhood mobilizes action through a sense of recognition and solidarity while also confirming the very humanity of persons involved Minow 93
(Martha, Prof of Law @ Harvard, August, 40 UCLA L. Rev. 1411, lexis)
Telling personal stories of pain can be therapeutic ;
personal stories can also help mobilize people with similar experiences through a sense of recognition and solidarity. n107 Telling stories of victimhood can also be essential for confirming the very humanity of those involved, and for persuading perpetrators and bystanders to acknowledge harms and to act differently. Individualized stories are essential to avoid the dehumanizing abstractions that allow people to forget or trivialize the suffering of others. n108 Zora Neale
Hurston wrote, "There is no agony like bearing an untold story inside you." n109 Surely that agony is most intense when the story is about you and your own pain. Yet there is a risk that emphasizing individual stories and stressing feelings can undermine critical evaluation and analysis of contradictory claims. N110]\
Recognizing individuals as both victims and more than victims can solve the dilemma of victimhood Levit 1996
(Nancy, Associate Professor at UMKC Law, April, 43 UCLA L. Rev. 1037, lexis)
The purpose of examining the various ways in which legal doctrines and the legal system disadvantage men is not to thrust men into victimhood. n75
Minow has cautioned about the dilemma of victimhood: On the one hand, failure to acknowledge victimization "countenances oppression." On the other hand, speaking in terms of victimization may promote passivity, helplessness, and blaming behavior on the part of victims. n76 As a partial resolution of the dilemma, Minow suggests "treating all participants as more than mere victims and more than mere
Professor Martha
perpetrators, recognizing the capacity of the most victimized for choice, redressing the structures of constraint, and treating responsibility not as blame but as the ability to respond." Victimhood is key to invoking moral responses to suffering while also supporting a greater sense of solidarity among sufferers Minow 1993
(Martha, Prof of Law @ Harvard, August, 40 UCLA L. Rev. 1411, lexis) It seems odd that anyone would emphasize their victimhood, yet there are many attractions to victim status. n5 Prime among them is sympathy. As one commentator put it: "There is an elemental moral requirement to respond to
innocent suffering. If we were not to respond to it and its claim upon us, we would be without conscience, and in some basic sense, not completely human." n6 Seeing oneself as a victim can also relieve a burdensome sense of responsi [*1414] bility or self-blame. n7 Victim status can support a sense of solidarity with others who have suffered in similar ways. n8
46

CNDI - Feminism Kritik-1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CNDI - Feminism Kritik-1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

Feminism Kritik 1NC

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

Feminism Kritik 1NC

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

Feminism Kritik 1NC

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

Feminism Kritik 1NC

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

Feminism Kritik 1NC

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

***2NC BLOCKS*** 2NC Link IR

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

2NC Link War

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

2NC Impact Calculus

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

A2: Cede the Political

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

A2: Cede the Political

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

LinksCrisis Based Politics

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

was that of parents needing to set limits for their children.

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

Alt SolvencyFem Perspectives

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

Alt SolvencyStructural Violence

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

Alt SolvencyStructural Violence

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

Alt SolvencyCrisis Based Politics

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

***Affirmative*** USE FEM IR BAD CARDS FROM SOUTH KOREA FILE

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

CNDI 2010 Shackelford/Lazarevic

Aff Victimization Good

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

2NC BLOCKS 2NC Link IR

Affirmative USE FEM IR BAD CARDS FROM SOUTH KOREA FILE