Fem IR K—UMich 2013
GJP Lab 2013
Audrey, Ryan, Sophie, Christine, Sonny, Colin, John, and Anja Beth
NEG
FW
Policy Bad
Emphasis on strict policymaking and empirics is antiproductive and prevents
consideration of power structures that deeply influence policy
Murphy, Research Professor; Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global Governance at the University of
Massachusetts, 96 (Craig N., “Seeing Women, Recognizing Gender, Recasting International Relations”, International Organization 50:3,
Summer 1996, JSTOR)//AS
Keeping debate open.Elshtain has argued that one thing, perhaps the main thing, that has kept mainstream
international relations from recognizing what can be learned from the experience of women has been
the field's desire for parsimony.67 Thus, for example, some scholars might argue that so-called women's issues
should be added to the field only in situations in which they are unavoidable-as in the case of Kennedy's recent
work. Because this work demonstrates that population growth may become a central issue of world politics, women's experience must be
taken into account. Other scholars would use the parsimony principle to limit the range of feminist voices that should be heeded. Robert
Keohane, for example, is quite willing to see many feminist critiques of the field as positive, but he
balks when dissident voices
challenge those research methods to which he is particularly committed. Thus, he argues for an alliance between
his own brand of neoliberal institutionalism and (some versions of) feminist standpoint theory.68 Yet, as MarysiaZalewski argues, this may
seem a bit like asking for David to ally with Goliath; it is a call for a premature closure of the critical analysis of mainstream international
relations and for an abdication of the skepticism that Janeway sees as one of the most important powers of the weak.69 It certainly can be
understood as an attempt to favor (some parts of) the mainstream by dividing and conquering the new opposition. Some feminists may see
deeper disadvantages to the proposed alliance as well. Elshtain's brilliant analysis of the roots of the liberal doctrine of the possibility of
progress in world affairs finds a troubling desire for cultural homogeneity within liberal internationalism.70 A world of peaceful republican
open economies, where ego-interest is believed to guide all action and where certain types of dominance (primarily economic) are considered
unproblem- atic, would not have room for the entire range of today's feminist voices. The feminists who would find the most support among
liberal international relations theorists might include those "standpoint" theorists who subscribe to an essentialist formula of women equals
peace equals good, a group whose ideas many other feminists see as part of the problem of both women's oppression and our limited
understanding of gender in international relations. As Whitworth points out, these and other liberal feminists have not concerned themselves
with most of the structural-economic sources of women's oppres- sion.71 It is not clear that Keohane's proposed alliance would have room for
the more critical feminists who have engaged the perspectives of those who are disadvantaged on dimensions other than gender. Yet, limiting
debate in this way was certainly not Keohane's central purpose. He was concerned, instead, with potential excesses of dissident tendencies,
just as Singer had been nearly a decade earlier in an article in which he embraced Carroll's preferred concept of power as competence but
disagreed with her critiques of the traditional idea of objectivity.72 Keohane put it this way: "In
our reluctance to impose our
own standards (a commendable characteristic if not carried to excess) we accept research that is conceptually
imprecise [and] methods far inferior to those available." He accepts the importance of focusing on 'power as the ability to
act in concert" and in fact sees this as the major contribution of feminist standpoint theorists to international relations. Keo- hane is skeptical,
however, of the contribution of the so-called feminist postmodernists whose, "essence appears to be a resistance to the conception of 'one
true story' and to 'a falsely unifying perspective' such as that of white men." This,
Keohane fears, is "a dead end" because
feminist postmodernism denies the possibility of "standards against which we can evaluate knowledge
claims."73 I am less sure. The postmodern feminists' profound skepticism about some current standards for judging truth, in
combination with their celebration of the diversity of multiple perspectives, can be understood as reinforcing one of the first standards against
which all knowledge claims should be assessed: their susceptibility to the widest possible rational unconstrained consensus.74 The feminist
postmodernists might be read as stressing simply that all rational beings when unconstrained by force or fraud are in a position to judge the
validity of others' statements, and that the extent of such consensus is one central measure of truth, as some theorists, such as
JiirgenHabermas, would argue.75 The urge to keep debate open emphasizes a different principle of science than those currently emphasized
Together with the principle of dynamic objectivity and the concern for
perspectives of the disadvantaged, this third methodological principle urges international relations to
be recast in order to emphasize comprehensiveness and the search for consensus over parsimony and
rigor. Certainly philosophers of science have not emphasized one of these two sets of methodological principles (parsimony and rigor versus
by some leaders within the field.
comprehensiveness and the search for consensus) over the other. Yet, it is also not clear to me that the explanation of the field's recent
preference for parsimony and rigor has much to do with its gender bias. Instead, it may have more to do with the origin of the scholarly field
as an adjunct to early twentieth-century democratic social movements such as Hobson's Union for the Democratic Control of Foreign Policy
and Balch's Union Against Militarism.76 The post-World War II rejection of the utopianism of such movements may have led to the unwarranted tendency to reject the methodological principles most preferred by their scholarly leaders. Moreover, "comprehensive" theories
capable of marshaling "the widest possible consensus" may have been less relevant to a major postwar preoccupation of the field (the special
problems of U.S. foreign policy particularly with regard to the Soviet Union) than were other theories with more simplicity and rigor-virtues
that were important to the key group of policymakers. Today, after the cold war, the
key audience of international relations
has again widened and as a result may find reason to recognize other methodological virtues as
significant
Their attempt to exclude the critique is itself a form of perpetuating status quo power
structures and domination
Runyan and Peterson, professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at the University of Cincinnati and Professor of
International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona 91 (Anne Sisson and V Spike, “The Radical Future
of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 16:1, Winter 1991, JSTOR)//AS
Feminists are not alone in directing critical attention to the state nor in targeting liberal mystifications of the state as "a neutral arbiter, which
mediates disinterestedly between different social groups."94 Recent historical-sociological studies of the state offer especially rich analyses of
the mutual constitution of state governance (centralized political authority), militarism (war-making and domestic social control), and
accumulation (extraction of goods and services).95 But
however much recent theorists have illuminated the coercive
and exploitative dynamics of states and the state system, their continued omission of women
produces inaccurate and inadequate accounts. It is simply not possible to understand how power
works in the world without explaining women's exclusion from the top of all economic, religious,
political, and military systems of power.96 This is neither an accident nor irrelevant; contemporary power
relations depend upon sustaining certain notions of masculinity and femininity, notions of what is expected in
regard to men's and women's lives.97 But the received understanding of politics pretends that women's exclusion
from power is not a political matter, that it is not in and of itself a fundamental and extensive form
of power inequality, that is, domination.
We must engage with alternative forms of knowledge production—their focus on
empirics erases already marginalized discourses
Nagar et al., Professor of Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies at the University of Minnesota 02 (Richa, Victoria Lawson, Linda
McDowell and Susan Hanson, “Locating Globalization: Feminist (Re)readings of the Subjects and Spaces of Globalization”, Economic Geogrpahy
78:3, July 2002, JSTOR)//AS
This proposition is linked to Hartsock's (2001) argument, reviewed in the first section, about the
strategic potential of starting
from the lives of those who are marginalized to understand the operation of global capitalism.
Grounded, place-based, collaborative research is part of reimagining and retheorizing globalization and
development. Appadurai (2000) argued for the significance of what he termed "grassroots globalization" on the basis that people in
peripheralized places articulate diverse readings and social mobilizations regarding globalization. These visions articulate
strategies and visions on behalf of the poor who strive for a democratic and autonomous standing
with respect to various forms of global power.Appadurai suggested that Western academic research needs
to engage seriously with alternative readings and strategies for engaging globalization, rather than
continue to produce the hegemony of Western social science research practices that center Western
academic norms of "scientific," often discipline-bounded, knowledge production within research universities.
These norms of citation, value freedom, andreplicability raise difficult questions for public intellectuals
in the periphery, and Appadurai asked if we can imagine ways to internationalize social science research in this context. In other words,
he proposed "a deeper consideration of the relationship between knowledge of globalization and the globalization of knowledge" (Appadurai
2000, 13). Appadurai
argued for engaging with scholars from other cultures to debate what counts as
new knowledge, what commitments of judgment and accountability should be central to critical studies on globalization. Using case
studies from the writings of Third World scholars and developing collaborative research on globalization may produce new kinds of knowledge
and pedagogy. Taking seriously the institutions, vocabularies, and horizons of globalization from below will require Western academics to step
back "from the obsessions and abstractions that constitute our own professional practice to seriously consider the problems of the global
everyday" (Appadurai 2000, 17-18). The inclusions we called for in the first section make explicit connections between political economy and
localized struggles around identity politics. We
argue for the importance of body, place, and transnational as
scales of an alternative, feminist analytic of globalization. On the basis of these propositions, we advocate
building richly grounded work that develops intricate understandings across a multiplicity of scales .
This work will involve collaborative case studies that tell different stories about globalization from the south and West and that do not
In this way, the research will work against the
erasures of marginalized peoples and places. In terms of methodological strategies, we are in sympathy with recent work
privilege a singular theorization of dominant Western capitalism.
in
anthropology and sociology that has developed an approach that has been variously termed multisited or global ethnography, which is
interested in analyzing the connections between and among places; in travel as well as dwelling; and in the flows of ideas, people, or money
(Burawoy et al. 2000; Clifford 1997; Kaplan 1996; Marcus 1998)
Unwillingness to discuss post-positivist critiques prevents truly understanding IR and
the danger of our binary modes of thinking
Peterson, Professor of International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona, 92 (V Spike,
“Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations”, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 21:2,
1992, http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Publications/VSP%20TransgBoundaries%20Millenn%201992.pdf)//AS
lf, as this discussion suggests, post-positivism is so important for international relations. why does engagement
in the third debate seem so limited and unproductive? The nature of the debate itself poses particular
problems because post-positivism raises challenges that cannot be addressed piecemeal but require
fundamental transformations in how we understand "˜reality'. Successful communication, in this ease
between centre and margin, either requires mutual understanding of terms and constructs, or successful translation that
enables such understanding - a requirement difficult to meet where the meaning of conventional terms and 'mutual understanding' is part of
what is in question. Not surprisingly, the
debate has been marked by failures of communication as centrists and
of familiarity with broader epistemological debates exacerbates a
tendency to perceive post-positivist arguments as incoherent or irrelevant. The scale and complexity
of what is at stake may invite disbelief ("˜the challenge is unintelligible or overstated`), disdain ("˜this
is irrelevant to the 'real' work of international relations'), and/or distrust (surrendering empirical and
evaluative grounds is too dangerous'). Aslong as marginal terrain is seen as incoherent, irrelevant or threatening, it is easier to
dissidents often talk past each other. Moreover, lack
remain - if that is where you begin - at the centre. However, faulty communication and resistance to critiques of positivism only partially explain
the limited dialogue.
Also significant is our failure to recognize, and therefore to examine, the extent to which our
thought and practice remain locked in binary patterns. For example.critiques of reason, objectivity and
foundational ontologies are frequently understood as emailing their opposites: irrationality,
subjectivity or relativism, and nihilism. But neither are these the only alternatives, nor are they the
alternatives articulated by most post-positivists.
Focus on policy change for feminist progress is inadequate
Squires, Professor of Political Theory and Dean of the Faculty Social Sciences and Law at the University of Bristol 04 (Judith, “Feminism
and Democracy”, Chapter 41 of The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology, Wiley Online Library)//AS
Meanwhile, a second development is extending our understanding of democratic representation in another direction. An
interest in
extra-parliamentary representation coincides with the emergence of complex forms of "˜governance'
that appear to challenge the model of representative government with its "˜simple, serial flows of
power between the represented and their representatives' (judge 1999). Gender scholars clearly draw our attention to the growing
complexity of representative practices in the context of multi-level governance, arguing that national representation
institutions have ceased to be the exclusive sites where the interests of women are being represented.
Given that state reconfiguration has rendered the policy-making process more complex with the involvement of many different actors at
different levels of governance, a
broadened version of representation is needed which takes into account
government performance, the institutionalized voice of women and the challenges of accountability
(Mackay 2008). Similarly, Celis et al. suggest that "˜the focus on policy change formulated and approved by
members of parliament limits substantive representation to one set of actors and a single site of
political representation' (Celis et al. 2008: 99). The need to address extra-parliamentary forms of representation has focused attention
on women's policy agencies, generating explorations of the impact of women's civil society organizations and democrats on the policy agenda
(Stetson and Mazur 1995; Outshoorn and Kantola 2007; Squires 2007a).
Both Key
Excluding feminism from politics re-entrenches oppression
McLaughlin ‘99 - Associate Professor with appointments in Media Studies and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Miami
University in Ohio.. She is co-editor of the journal Feminist Media Studies (Lisa, “Beyond ''Separate Spheres'': Feminism and the Cultural
Studies/Political Economy Debate” Journal of Communication Inquiry October 1 1999 Sage Journals 7/6/13)
This would suggest that we
need to reflect seriously on the gendering of thecultural studies/political
economy debate through allusions to feminist sites ofconflict. References to "the unhappy marriage" and "separate
spheres" indicate more than that scholars have borrowed a convenient framework forexpressing their
differences. They also point to the differences in the scholarlypopulation inhabiting each approach, with the greater number of
Westernfeminists having moved into the cultural studies "neighborhood."•2 As culturalstudies and political
economy have broken down into two sides of an "academic apartheid"• (Murdock 1995, 90), this has also created something of a"gender
apartheid."The
gendered metaphors of coupling and separation bothreflect and help to maintain the
separate spheres. Feminists-particularlywhite, First World feminists and, even more particularly, those in the UnitedStates-have
too often become segregated within the sphere associated withcultural studies. This places limits on
the political efficacy that feminism gainsthrough border crossing, as many feminists have kept a critical
distance fromthe important area of political economy, a place from which one may questionrelations
between culture and the experience of social class.One of my intentions is to trace the conflicts and configurations that
characterize the gendering of the cultural studies/political economy debate. My argument is that although we must recognize these conflicts as
legitimately motivated and in a way that provides context in which to understand feminists'inclination toward cultural studies, we must also
discern that feminists lose agreat deal in disregarding some of the more traditionally Marxist concerns ofthe political economy of culture.
Feminists deserve recognition for their powerful presence within the development of cultural studies
as well as for maintaining an ongoing critical stance as the foremost critics of cultural studies'excesses
and oversights (Williamson 1986; Modleski 1986, 1991; Morris1988). Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that
feminists helped to developan approach that often overcompensates for traditional Marxism's
determinism and neglect of experience by ignoring the structural constraints imposedby political and economic realities. In
neglecting issues of class relations andthe structural aspects of capitalism, we surrender an
understanding of the waysin which forms of patriarchy, women's lives, and cultural practices of all
kindsare incorporated into and structured by the capitalist mode of production,whether in the realm of wage
labor, the domestic and global economy, reproduction, private property, or commodification. Because understanding thematerial
conditions of women's lives demands attention to both global capital-ism and global heterogeneity,
the answer to the separate spheres problem cannot be to simply relocate from cultural studies to
political economy but, rather,to attempt a reconciliation at the site ofthe problem of representation. At a timewhen
transnational refers to both social movements and corporations, feminists need an approach that
retains cultural studies' awareness of "the politicsof representing the other"while foregrounding the
political-economic realitiesthat enable and deny access to the means of representation.
The critique does not reject empirics or reality but analyzes it relationally—critical to
understand power relations
Peterson, Professor of International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona, 92 (V Spike,
“Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations”, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 21:2,
1992, http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Publications/VSP%20TransgBoundaries%20Millenn%201992.pdf)//AS
It follows that a
critique of positivist empiricism is not necessarily a repudiation of empirical study . Rather
than rejecting systematic inquiry or empirical research, the post-positivist critique involves examining the boundaries
of our categories, frameworks and research questions, and asking how these came to be and how
they are related within, and to, the context of inquiry and its relations of power. Rather than assuming that the
researcher, as subject, examines an independently "˜given` reality of objects, post-positivism seeks to understand the
mutual and ongoing constitution of subject, object, and context. "˜Contextualization' captures much of what the post-
positivist critique advocates. While this may seem asimple claim, as
soon as we undertake the actual specification of
context, we are challenged by the scale and complexity of thinking relationally, rather than
dichotomously. Nor does the post-positivist rejection of "˜absolute objectivity' entail its opposite, "˜absolute reIativism'." Equating
the lack of absolute grounds with the impossibility of any grounds is an effect of binary - not postpositivist - thinking. Instead, repudiating the fact-value dichotomy forces us to see objectivity and subjectivity, reason and power,
knowledge and politics in relation, as interacting. Thus post-Positivism does not deny mapping or comparing; it denies that we do so by
reference to some fixed independent reality. lt
insists that all maps involve nonnative commitments, may be
contested, can be redrawn, and are never definitive.
The kritik transcends and defeats the affirmative’s framework of basic policy – rather
it applies the ethics of care into policymaking that opens up new and preferable ways
of thinking
Robinson ’11 – Carleton University, Canada (Fiona, “Stop Talking and Listen: Discourse Ethics and Feminist Care
Ethics in International Political Theory,” Millennium – Journal of International Studies, March 2011, vol. 39, no.3,
http://mil.sagepub.com/content/39/3/845)//SS
Indeed, taking
seriously the importance of practices of care to our everyday lives demands giving them
our political attention. However, the nature of care makes it unlike other goods, entitlements and
responsibilities that are distributed through political negotiation. For example, as Virginia Held argues, the values
of shared enjoyment or social responsibility or collective caring may well be worth promoting, but
these are values that cannot even be registered in calculations of maximising individual utility.50
Adequate political consideration of care in our lives requires cultivating new and different dialogic
skills, including listening skills. In fact, policy on care connects in fundamental ways with values and
norms and the organisation of society itself.51 To this end, it may require a rethinking of the nature
and substance of democracy.
Acknowledging the multiplicity of the feminist experience within educational spaces is
critical
Chowdhury, Associate Professor of Women's Studies at the University of Massachusetts, 09 (EloraHalim, “Locating Global Feminisms
Elsewhere: Braiding US Women of Color and Transnationa; Feminisms”, Cultural Dynamics 21:51, 2009, Sage Publications)//AS
My intent here is not necessarily to rehash an age-old discussion on women’s studies’ ‘growing pains’ or divisions between white and non-white
feminists or pedagogies. In fact, the pedagogical project of integrating international and women’s studies has been well documented in the
collection Encompassing Gender by Lay et al. (2002) as well as Twenty-First Century Feminist Classrooms by Macdonald and Sanchez-Casal
interested to illuminate the everyday interactions in women’s studies spaces and the
political economy of feminisms that validate structurally and institutionally a politics that embraces
pluralism, soft relativism, diversity management through harmonious coexistence over productive
engagement with conflict, inequality, and asymmetrical power relations. A number of educators, Paulo Freire
among them, have argued that education represents both a struggle for meaning and a struggle over power
relations (Mohanty, 2003). Academic institutions and education are sites where power and politics
reflecting unequal and asymmetrical relations among social groups are played out. Education is not merely
accumulation of knowledge that is bartered in the market for upward mobility, but there are critical issues at stake including
the recovery of alternative, oppositional knowledges and histories of domination, as well as struggles
of resistance and survival. Particularly in fi elds such as women’s studies, and ethnic studies, a definition of knowledge
that is grounded in social justice and self-determination has been historically central. Oppositional at
inception, these fi elds continuously run the risk of being assimilated and depoliticized in the academy. A
feminism that reproduces and espouses such assimilationist politics is complicit in the maintenance of
that which it claims to transform.
(2002). Rather, I am
Conventional international relations theory ignores women and fails to accurately
depict what motivates policymakers—analysis is key
Murphy, Research Professor; Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global Governance at the University of
Massachusetts, 96 (Craig N., “Seeing Women, Recognizing Gender, Recasting International Relations”, International Organization 50:3,
Summer 1996, JSTOR)//AS
In Bananas, Beaches, and Bases Enloe takes the analysis of women as actors in world politics one step further. Enloe argues that even
those who investigate the role of women's peace movements often limit themselves by using
conventional, state-centric definitions of international relations and of the actions that might
influence policymakers. Enloe considers women whose roles in world politics escape those
conventional definitions: diplomatic wives and the civilian women who serve military bases, those employed
in the rapidly growing export-oriented industrializing sectors of the newly industrializing countries that are touted by the economists and the
women who have served colonial
and neocolonial projects (and their male- dominated anti-imperial rivals) for more than four centuries. Banana-hatted Carmen
intergovernmental development agencies as the model for the entire Third World, and those
Miranda, the "Brazilian grocer's daughter who became a Hollywood star and a symbol of an American president's Latin American policy,"
becomes Enloe's archetype of the women whose significance in world affairs should not be overlooked.22 Enloe's book is deceptive. She
presents a sequence of engaging, often very funny, narratives, each of which has a serious (if very simple) point about one of the socially
constitutive powers of the powerless. The book has none of the detailed (and sometimes turgid) conceptual passages that other authors use to
engage the deepest debates in international and feminist theory. Yet, ulti- mately, Bananas, Beaches, and Bases demands
to be
treated as a work of theory-specifically, of methodology. Enloe urges analysts to stop assuming that women
are peripheral to international affairs just because they are not readily apparent. Instead, she wants
us to ask, "Where are the women?" In arguing that we should do so Enloe startsfrom the relatively
noncontroversial assumption that we will always be able to find an answer to the question. Yet, what really matters is her larger
claim that what will be learned by "finding the women" always will be significant
Discourse
The role of the ballot should be to listen to the language of feminist international relations – it’s a
prerequisite to the dialogue they try to create
Park-Kang ‘11- Political science doctoral candidate at Lund University (Sungju, “Utmost Listening: Feminist IR as a Foreign Language”
International Relations March 2011 Sage Journals)
Throughout the article, I
have tried to emphasise the significance of self-situating in IR. It would be worthwhile
empowers us to honestly engage with
intellectual journeys. It allows us to have an opportunity to sit and polish our own languages before
we listen and speak. It is something like a preliminary language course a non-native speaker student takes, before the actual academic
mentioning several more points in this last section. Most of all, self-situating
semesters begin. At the same time, it offers some limits of communication. First of all, self-situating might make one feel too exhausted to
engage with others. It
is such an intense process to politicise and contextualise oneself. Without being
aware of this intensity, one could be burnt out at some point. In a way, this kind of intensity or limit comes from ‘ambiguous
connection’. Molly Andrews shows how to work through this limit when she explores ‘what it meant to me to be an American’.62 Besides,
self-situating might be more or less trapped into self-indulgence. This danger, however, could be
managed if one takes the self as a relational concept, most notably from a feminist perspective. There is no such
thing as the very isolated self. More broadly, I would like to finish with a suggestion about how to form a new
theoretical orientation to IR dialogue based on the idea of IR as a foreign language. Firstly, we need to
recognise that there are different ‘IR vocabularies’ among different theories. Most of the key concepts – such
as state, sovereignty and power – are interpreted or used in a different context depending on
theories: realist, idealist, feminist and so on. Without recognising this contestedness, the dialogue cannot
continue. Secondly, we need to be aware that there are different ‘IR grammars’ among various theories.63 Just like
there are different grammatical orders in foreign languages, there are different preferential orders in IR theories. For example,
state comes before people in realist theory; relationality usually comes before universality in feminist
theory. If you are not aware of this difference, dialogue cannot proceed: ‘Researchers do not necessarily become
better listeners over time … we may become … increasingly embedded in the arguments we construct and less open to entertaining opposing
lenses of interpretation.’64 The
IR community is a world where different foreign languages (theories) are thriving. In
this community of ‘IRlects’, you would kill the dialogue unless you listen carefully first. If you wonder why, why not go
and see Momo?
Discursive focus is key – we cannot ignore the aff’stechnostrategic discourse.
Cohn, Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 1987 (Carol, “Sex and Death
in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4, Within and Without: Women,
Gender, and Theory. (Summer, 1987), pp.
687-718)//CS
My close encounter with nuclear strategic analysis started in the summer of 1984. l was one of forty-eight college teachers (one
often women) attending a summer workshop on nuclear weapons, nuclear strategic doctrine, and arms control, taught by
distinguished "defense intellectuals. " Defense intellectuals are men (and indeed, they are virtually all men) "who use the
concept of deterrence to explain why it is safe to have weapons of a kind and number it is not safe to use." They are civilians
who move in and out of government, working sometimes as administrative officials or consultants, sometimes at universities
and think tanks. Theyformulate what they call "rational" systems for dealing with the problems created by
nuclear weapons: how to manage the arms race; how to deter the use of nuclear weapons; how to
fight a nuclear war if deterrence fails. lt is their calculations that are used to explain the necessity of
having nuclear destructive capabilityat what George Kennan has called "levels of such grotesque dimensions as to defy
rational understanding, " At the same time, it is their reasoning that is used to explain why it is not safe to live without nuclear
weapons. ln short, they create the theory that informs and Iegitimates American nuclear strategic practice. For two weeks, I
listened to men engage in dispassionate discussion of nuclear war. I found myself aghast, but morbidly fascinated-not by
nuclear weaponry, or by images of nuclear destruction, but by the extraordinary abstraction and removal from what l knew as
reality that characterized the professional discourse. I became obsessed by the question, How can they think this way? At the
end of the summer program, when l was offered the opportunity to stay on at the university center on defense technology and
arms control (hereafter known as "the Center"), I jumped at the chance to find out how they could think "this" way. I spent the
next year of my life immersed in the world of defense intellectuals. As a participant observer, I attended lectures, listened to
arguments, conversed with defense analysts, and interviewed graduate students at the beginning, middle, and end of their
training. I learned their specialized language, and I tried to understand what they thought and how they thought. l sifted
through their logic forits internal inconsistencies and its unspoken assumptions. But as l learned their language, as l became
more and more engaged with their information and their arguments, l found that my own thinking was changing. Soon, I could
no longer cling to the comfort of studying an external and objectified "them." I had to confront a new question: How can l think
this way? How can any of us? Throughout my time in the world of strategic analysis, it was hard not to notice the
ubiquitous weight of gender, both in social relations and in the language itself; it is an almost entirely
male world(with the exception ofthe secretaries), and the language contains many rather arresting metaphors.
There is, of course, an important and growing body of feminist theory about gender and language! ln addition,
there is a rich and increasingly vast body of theoretical work exploring the gendered aspects of war and militarism,
which examines such issues as men's and women's different relations to militarism and pacifism, and the ways in
which gender ideology is used in the service of militarism. Some ofthe feminist work on gender and war is also part
of an emerging, powerful feminist critique of ideas of rationality as they have developed in Western culture' While
I am indebted to all of these bodies of work, my own project is most closely linked to the development of feminist
critiques of dominant Western concepts of reason. My goal is to discuss the nature of nuclear stragetic thinking; in
particular, my emphasis is on the role of its specialized language, a language that I call "technostrategic," I
have come to believe that this language both reflects and shapes the nature ofthe American nuclear
strategic project, that it plays a central role in allowing defense intellectuals to think and act as they
do, and that feminists who are concerned about nuclear weaponry and nuclear war must give careful
mention to the language we choose to us whom it allows us to communicate with and what it allows
us to think as well as say.
Different discourses are key to understand international relations.
Stone, Visiting Faculty Lecturer, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Arts, Jadavpur
University, Kolkata, India, 2002 (Leonard A.,“How Was It For You? The Oligarchic Structure of
International Relations and Feminist Theory,” Journal of International Women’s Studies Vol. 4 #1
November 2002, pages 67-68, 2002, http://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol4/iss1/5/)//SB
An emancipatory discourse on international politics, rather than a rationalising one, critically analyses
the conservative stance of foundational International Relations (IR)theories such as realism (the
politics of power) and international liberalism and inparticular their lack of theoretical focus on the
oligarchic structure of internationalrelations. With regard to the global, anti-democratic nature of the
prevailing system ofinternational relations, emancipatory discourses such as feminism, Marxism and
radical humanism differ, for example, on the fundamental global strategy of how to replace the
present (oligarchic) structure with a more democratic system; they differ over the fundamental
democratic units that are to be set in place. The proclivity of the world system of politics to incline
towards oligarchy rather than democracy remains of paramount importance in the radical humanist
perspective. Inpractice this means that a clique of states – The West (Britain, France, and the USA)along
with China and Russia – “lord it over”, politically, the other 180 or so nation-states(recognised by the
United Nations (UN)) which make up the formal world system ofstates.However, realist texts
strategically deploying the concepts of sovereignty (of thenation-state) and anarchy (epitomising the
world system in which a world government isabsent), on the contrary, argue from the point of view of
the “inevitability” of the contemporary world system where a small grouping of states hold sway.
Even a state’sexternal security is safeguarded by the anarchic nature of the world system of politics,
asthe realist argument runs, for it leaves the state with the liberty to defend its securityeither through
its own resources or by becoming a member of a strategic alliance.3 Thisconservative and pro-status
quo ideology of international relations runs counter tocriticisms of the oligarchic structure of
international relations which see a real potentialfor change; that is, for international democracy
whereby all states and their populationsare equal participants in a democratic world order.A more
radical humanist discourse critically examines the predatory global economic strategies of a small and
closed oligarchy of a handful of militarily and economically powerful states and proposes a twin track
remedy: democratisation of international relations at both the political and economic levels.However,
the theoretical cut-and-thrust of the radical humanist perspective is positioned at the level of the
political. Theoretically robust critiques of the international economic order on the other hand are
located more in the field of radical (under)development studies. Radical humanism nevertheless calls
for a global redistribution of wealth citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25,which
states that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health andwell-being of
individuals and their families, including food, clothing, housing and¶ medical care and necessary social
services.
Questioning
The current understanding of IR is manipulated by elites for the subjugation of
populations – questioning is key
Nef 95 - PhD, is currently professor of political studies and international development
at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada (Jorge, “Human Security and Mutual Vulnerability
An Exploration into the Global Political Economy of Development,” 1995,pg 76-77)//js
The predominant theories of international relations — whether conservative "realism" (power politics) or the
notion of "complex interdependency" (Keohane and Nye 1975) of the neoliberals and the Trilateralists — have not been able to
extricate themselves from a critical ethnocentrism. "Realism" was caught on an entangling East-West myopia,
where the South was just an arena for confrontation, prone to be "subverted" by the other side .
Complex interdependency (Spero 1977), while recognizing a North-South dimension in international relations puts too large an
emphasis on lofty terms such as mutuality, cooperation, global integration and market forces, trivializing the more dysfunctional,
asymmetrical and exploitative interactions among and within centres and peripheries. Despite its de-emphasising the instruments of
war, complex interdependence is extremely culture-bound and unidirectional. In this sense, the approach is based on the same
diffusionist premises of modernization theory (Stavenhagen, 1968). It is an ideology that serves the practical
economic and ideological interests of the globally integrated elites and provides justification for
the status quo: the existing international division of labour, the role of the GATT, the IMF, the
World Bank, the centrality of transnational corporations and the Group of Seven. So far global
problems have been analyzed from an exclusively American or Eurocentric, not a geocentric prism. Cultural messianism has
contributed in no small manner to maintain a condition of global underdevelopment and insecurity. However in the midst of the
current crisis, the established flow of information, ideas, science and worldviews is being shattered. There is a "window of
opportunity" to bring new voices and perspectives into the debate. This is not, as some cultural
supremacists suggest, "contamination," or "the end of civilization as we know it," but perhaps a chance for a cultural synthesis to
examine the crisis in a concerted and truly global way. It should be remembered, as is becoming increasingly clear to our
unemployed graduates, that living in a situation of underdevelopment is not synonymous with being underintelligent (Dwivedi et al.
1990). If there is a point to break the present cycle of self-reenforcing dysfunctions, this is in the area of cultural autopoiesis
(Maturana and Varela 1980). This modification in the chains of signification in the development discourse (Escobar, 1986) has the
potential to set the stage for a new vision of a truly global, although heterogeneous, civilization: a new universalism. The
trademark of this emerging renaissance, if it is to take place, will have to a pluricultural global
consciousness, rich in texture and diversity. In the shorter run, a fresh way of looking at the world could offer
the kind of analysis, and policy prescriptions, capable of breaking the present cycle of self-reenforcing
dysfunctions.
The aff’s epistemological certainty is represents the acceptance of a
technobureaucracy in which dissent is marginalized and silenced
Nef 95 - PhD, is currently professor of political studies and international development
at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada (Jorge, “Human Security and Mutual Vulnerability
An Exploration into the Global Political Economy of Development,” 1995,pg 76-77)//js
The fundamental connection between politics, on the one hand, and environmental, economic, social
and cultural security, is public policy. Politics involves policymaking, the outcome of which is the allocation of rewards
and deprivations among various publics. In this sense, the issues of participation and regulation are as
central to the question of "good governance" as are the issues of accumulation or enforcement.
Western political theory, since the 1970s has consistently abandoned a normative ideal based on participation,
democracy and the "input side" of politics favouring another teleology centred on order, stability and
governability (O'Brien 1968, Leys 1982). In this, mainstream political thinking has reflected an equally
significant shift in macroeconomic management from "input," demand-side economics, to
"output," supply side. The new political economy, exemplified by public choice theory, unlike its authoritariancapitalist predecessor, emphasises the role of the merchant over the prince, but like the early Huntingtonian (1967, 1968)
formulation, it also ignores and deconstructs the citizen. Politics, as in vulgar Marxism, is subordinated
to a
technobureaucracy which manages "objective," natural-like economic laws, laws that cannot be
legislated or debated but are dictated or interpreted by those who understand the arcane and
reified realm of the behaviour of capital One important characteristic of the dominant cultural mold is that
functional rationality prevails over substantial rationality (Mannheim 1962). Thus, procedural and quantifiable
correctness become the only valuable ethical standards against which to make decisions, judge behaviour or evaluate consequences.
In the last analysis, only those with the appropriate technical competence can judge; but they do so
within the narrow and specific confines of a never-questioned ideal model, teleology, discipline or
profession. Both the utopia (and the dystopia) which justify social action, substitute a surrogate instrumental operational code —
grounded on professional, efficiency related and quantifiable considerations — for a transcendental value system centred upon
effects on people. The substitution is rationalized on the basis of one premise: "what works is good."
In this context, categorical
imperatives cast in deontological terms, such as maximization, profit or
efficiency displace moral responsibility (Goulet 1973). What really happens to concrete and sentient people is replaced
by systemic or functional abstractions encased in lofty terms such as "order," "efficiency" and "profit."
Investigation of the masculine sphere of international relations is a prerequisite to
escaping domination
Youngs 04- Lecurer in the Centre for Mass Communication Research, University of Leicester (Gillian, “Feminist International
Relations: A Contradiction in Terms?”, International Affairs, Jan 2004, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3569295)//js
The persistence of the overriding maleness of international relations in practiceis part of the reason
for the continued resistance and lack of responsiveness tothe analytical relevance feminist
International Relations claims. In other words, it is to some extent not surprising that feminist
International Relations stands largely outside mainstream International Relations, because the
concerns of the former, gender and women, continue to appear to be subsidiary to high politics
and diplomacy. One has only to recall the limited attention to gender andwomen in the recent Afghanistan and Iraq crises to
illustrate this point.8 Sohow have feminists tackled this problem? Necessarily, but problematically, bycalling for a deeper level of
ontological revisionism. I say problematicallybecause, bearing in mind the limited success of the first kind discussed above,it can be
anticipated that this deeper kind is likely to be even more challeng-ing for those in the mainstream camp.The second level of
ontological revisionism required relates to critical understanding of why the appearance of international
relations as predominantly a sphere of male influence and action continues to seem
unproblematic from mainstream perspectives. This entails investigating masculinity itself: the
natureof its subject position-including as reflected in the collective realm of politics-and the frameworks and hierarchies that
structure its social relations, not only inrelation to women but also in relation to men configured as (feminized)
'others'because of racial, colonial and other factors, including sexuality. MarysiaZalewski and Jane Parpart
directly captured such an approach as 'the "man"question in international relations'.9 I would like to suggest that for those
scepticalabout feminist International Relations, Zalewski's introductory chapter, 'Fromthe "woman" question to the "man" question
in International Relations', offers animpressively transparent way in to its substantive terrain.?0 Reflecting criticallyon the editors'
learning process in preparing the volume and working with itscontributors, both men and women, Zalewski discusses the various
modifica-tions through which the title of the work had moved. These included atdifferent stages the terms 'women', 'masculinity' and
'feminism', finally endingwith 'the "man" question'-signalling once again, I suggest, tensions betweentheory and practice, the
difficulty of escaping the concrete dominance of the male subject position in the realm of
international relations.
Global society was founded on gender – it is key to question the role these binaries
play
Connell - Australian sociologist. She is currently University Professor at the University of Sydney 98(R.W., “Masculinities and
Globalization”, Men and Masculinities , Jul 1, 1998, SAGE)//js
Masculinities do not first exist and then come into contact with feminini- ties; they are produced together, in the process that
constitutes a gender order. Accordingly. to understand the masculinities on a world scale. we must first
have a concept of the globalization of gender. This is one of the most difficult points in current gender analysis
because the very conception is counterintuitive. We are so accustomed to thinking of gender as the attribute
of an individual. even as an unusually intimate attribute. that it requires a considerable wrench to think of
gender on the vast scale of global society. Most relevant discussions, such as the literature on women and
development, fudge the issue. They treat the entities that extend internationally (markets, corporations,
intergovernmental programs, etc.) as ungendered in principle—but affecting unequally gendered
recipients of aid in practice. because of bad policies. Such conceptions reproduce the familiar liberal-feminist
view of the state as in principle gender-neutral. though empirically dominated by men. But if we recognize that very large
scale institutions such as the state are themselves gendered, in quite precise and specifiable ways
(Connell 199%), and if we recognize that international relations, international trade, and global
markets are inherently an arena of gender formation and gender politics (Enloe I990). then we can
recognize the existence of a world gender order. The tenn can be defined as the structure of relationships that
interconnect the gender regimes of institutions. and the gender orders of local society. on a world scale. That is. however. only a
definition. The substantive questions remain: what is the shape of that structure, how tightly are its elements linked, how has it
arisen historically. what is its trajectory into the future? Current business and media talk about globalization pictures a homogenizing process sweeping across the world, driven by new technologies, producing vast unfettered global markets in which all
participate on equal terms. This is a misleading image. As Hirst and Thompson (1996) show, the global economy is highly unequal
and the current degree of homogenization is often overestimated. Multinational corporations based in the three major economic
powers (the United States, European Union, and Japan) are the major economic actors worldwide. The structure bears the marks of
its history. Modern global society was historically produced. as Wallerstein (1974) argued. by the economic
and political expansion of European states from the fifteenth century on and by the creation of
colonial empires.It is in this process that we find the roots of the modern world gender order.
Imperialism was. from the start, a gendered process.Its first phase. colonial conquest and
settlement. was carried out by gender-segregated forces. and it resulted in massive disruption of
indigenous gender orders. In its second phase, the stabilization of colonial societies. new gender
divisions of labor were produced in plantation economies and colonial cities, while gender
ideologies were linked with racial hierarchies and the cultural defense of empire. The third phase,
marked by political decolonization, economic neocolonialism, and the current growth of world
markets and structures of financial control, has seen gender divisions of labor remade on a
massive scale in the “global factory” (Fuentes and Ehrenreich 1983). as well as the spread of gendered violence
alongside Western military technology.
Epistemology First
Correct epistemology is a prerequisite to understanding security
Williams is Associate Professor of International Security at the University of Warwick,
UK, and currently Visiting Associate Professor in the Elliott School of International Affairs at the
George Washington University 08 (Paul, “Security Studies”,
http://hamdoucheriad.yolasite.com/resources/security%20studies.pdf)//js
Asking what security means raises issues about the philosophy of knowledge, especially those
concerning epistemology (howdo we knowthings?), ontology(what phenomena do we think make up the social world?)
and method (howwe should study the social world). If we accept the notion that security is an essentially
contested concept then, by definition, such debates cannot be definitively resolved in the
abstract. Instead some positions will become dominant and be enforced through the application of
power.With this in mind, security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values; especially those
which, if left unchecked,threaten the survival of a particular referent object in the near future. To beclear, although security and
survival are often related, they are not synonymous.Whereas survival is an existential condition, security involves the ability
topursue cherished political and social ambitions. Security is therefore best understood as what Ken Booth (2007) has
called, ‘survival-plus,’ ‘the “plus” being some freedom from life-determining threats, and therefore some
lifechoices’.Put in rather stark terms, it is possible to identify two prevalent philosophiesof security, each emerging from
fundamentally different starting points. Thefirst philosophy sees security as being virtually synonymous with the accumulation of
power. From this perspective, security is understood as a commodity (i.e. to be secure, actors must possess certain things such as
property,money, weapons, armies and so on). In particular, power is thought to be theroute to security: the more power
(especially military power) actors can accumulate, the more secure they will be.
K2 Policymaking
Challenging the foundational assumptions of discourse are key to coherent
policies
Shepherd - Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham 07(Laura, “Victims,
Perpetrators and Actors’ Revisited:1 Exploring the Potential for a Feminist Reconceptualisation of (International) Security and
(Gender) Violence”, BJPIR, 2007, CES)//js
In this article, I argue that a
feminist reconceptualisation of (international) security and (gender)
violence can be achieved through the operationalisation of a series of deconstructive analytical
strategies,6which begins with paying attention to theacademic literature that is, in part, product/productive of these discourses.
In thefollowing section, I discuss the implications of espousing a feminist poststructuralistpolitics. In the third substantive section, I
map out the logic of critique that enablesthe reconceptualisation of violence and security that I offer in my analysis. Thecritique is
conducted through reference to the literature that addresses these issues.I conclude that such a reconceptualisation, which
pays due analytical attention tothe ways in which discourses of (gender) violence and (international) securityfunction to inscribe
boundaries that constitute the horizons of possibility forthe configuration of subjectivity and political community, is both
necessary and possible. The foundational assumptions of every body of literature are often
implicit, or taken to be unproblematic. Each literature, in this case that which addresses‘violence against women’ and
that which addresses ‘national security’, speaks to aspecific manifestation of violence and is informed by a particular logic of gender
andsecurity. On its own terms, each literature is internally both coherent and consistent, although there
are significant differences between the ways in which this coherence and consistency is
constructed. In this section, I proceed as outlined inTable 1, exploring the literature on ‘violence against women’ and ‘national
security’to investigate the ways in which (gender) violence and (international) security areconceptualised within these works.Jill
Radford, Liz Kelly and Marianne Hester are prominent researchers concernedwith ‘violence against women’ and they situate their
work in a context of thedebates within wider feminist theorising, stating that ‘throughout the 1980s a seriesof separations occurred,
of women’s studies from feminism; of theoretical writingfrom women’s lived experiences; of knowledge creation from activism’
(Radfordet al. 1996, 8). Their implicit placement within these dualities is on the side of anactivist feminism concerned with ‘women’s
lived experiences’. Researching andwriting about ‘violence against women’ has a particular, albeit internally differentiated, politics
that differs in several key ways from researching and writing about‘gender violence’, and one aspect of this is the location articulated
by Radford, Kellyand Hester above.Researching ‘violence against women’ is an explicit challenge to the self-proclaimedobjectivist
and value-free research programmes of mainstream social science. Thiscan be understood as a political undertaking in two main
ways; research wasconducted ‘with the aim of achieving a description as well as a comprehensive understanding of the problem’
(Dobash and Dobash 1992, 283, emphasis added). Thesetwo aspects—the description and the understanding—were conceived as
separableand separate. It is vital to note that the academic study of ‘violence against women’claims as its intellectual heritage
critically important activity and activism in communities throughout the UK and the US. ‘Starting at the grass roots level,
feministsnamed its existence ... and began to put into place an underground network ofshelters and safe houses for women. Only
then did significant numbers of mentalhealth professionals, social science researchers ... and policy makers begin to notice’(Bograd
1988, 11).Research that focuses on ‘violence against women’ posits women as coherent andstable subjects whose life experiences can
be ameliorated by appropriate policypractice. This approach identifies materially determined gendered individuals as aresult of its
empirical approach to the study of politics and social life. The notion of sovereignty is central here, and provides
an important link to the literature on international security. The subject constructed through the
discourse of ‘violence against women’ is assumed sovereign, the ‘women’ affected by violence
have sovereign rights over their own material forms and should not therefore be subjected to
violence. Moreover, this sovereignty is pre-constituted and taken to bean empirical ‘reality’. In a similar manner, the assumed
sovereignty of the state isthe foundational truth claim of literature on ‘national security’, which I discuss inthe following
paragraphs.Both internal and external sovereignty are central to the conception of the statethat informs conventional IR security
literature, and the logical corollary of thisconception constructs the state system as anarchic. Realist IR theory ‘sees’ the stateas its
object of analysis and therefore ‘[s]tates are the principle referent objects ofsecurity because they are both the framework of order
and the highest sources ofgoverning authority’ (Buzan 1991, 22). Within both classical (or ‘political’) realismand neo-realism (or
‘structural realism’), the state is represented as a unitary actor.10Both variants proceed according to the assumption that all human
existence isbounded by states, according to the assertion that states are the primary object of analysis. If, as Kenneth
Waltz claims, ‘[s]tatesmen and military leaders are responsible for the security of their states ... no one at all is responsible for
humanity’(Waltz 1959, 416), then states are further assumed to be the object to whichsecurity policy and practice refers and humans
can only be secured to the extentthat they are citizens of a given state.
Emancipation
The feminist struggle liberates the “other” giving it a social and political voice
Calloni 3(Maria, “Feminism, Politics, Theories and Science: Which New Link?”, European Journal of Women's Studies,
2/1/03,http://ejw.sagepub.com/content/10/1/87)//js
Q: We have talked about gender, body and subjectivity, and the connectionbetween politics, theory and praxis at the global level. Yet
theories of rationality,ordinary language, experience and knowledge are concepts belonging to thetradition of modernity. Yet
feminism has reconceptualized in a very revolutionaryway traditional concepts, criticizing
metaphysics, politics and theoreticaldeterminations. Therefore, feminism has radicalized epistemological issues
in agendered perception of reality, subjectivity, human relations, environment andanimals. However, even though feminism has
introduced a revolution in knowledgetheory, hasn’t it become impossible to indicate homogeneity among feministscholars,
researchers or schools of thought?Braidotti: It is a very complicated question. We can only start to sketch outthe answer. I can try to
narrate it in the following way, even though wecan employ different narratives. Feminism emancipated itself
from‘woman’ as the classical, metaphysical ‘other’. It happened sometimebetween the 1960s and 1970s. Yet
there is a fundamental, I would say,epistemological distinction between ‘woman’ and the
feminist subject.Some women are feminist subjects, others are not. This
epistemologicalevolution of a feminist subject is really the mark of modern feminism, orrather of the
second wave of feminism as opposed to the suffragettes, whoclaimed the right to vote for women. In a sense, when women
liberatedthemselves, they also liberated themselves from classical femininity.Therefore, you can ask: ‘What is the feminist subject of
the year 2000?’ Oryou could ask: ‘What was the feminist subject in 1968?’ ‘Was it women?’Yet women said: ‘Trematetremate le
streghe son tornate’(‘tremble, tremble, thewitches are coming back’). What came back was the ‘streghe’ (witches) not‘women’. They
did not want to be precisely ‘women’. Therefore, there isan epistemological and political distinction, which
some people wouldcall a ‘spiritual’ distinction, between femininity, the ‘other’ of the
classicalsubject and a feminist subject, who wants to act, to have a social andpolitical impact, to
make thus a difference in society. You can use the samestory to say that postmodernity marks the return of the ‘other’
asmodernity. The native, the ethnic ‘others’ return with a vengeance, buttheir return splits the entire
fabric of subjectivity. They don’t just returnsaying: ‘Hey, here we are: put us in!’ Their return
cracks the frame of whatused to be considered as the subject, claiming for a redistribution of
thewhole. I would narrate the issue of women and feminism in this way. Ithink that it was a very positive crisis
because it forced the subject – inparticular the white and male one – to look at himself. The
crisis is a crisisof the centre not of the periphery: the others are doing quite well! It is thecentre
that needs to interrogate itself. And what has happened, particularlyin southern European feminism, is the
questioning of differentframeworks concerning difference, not only in anthropomorphic terms,but also in
terms of animal. Yet the centre is still unable to accept it. Thispolitical subject stands in splendid isolation,
completely ignorant of hisown crisis. I think that the crisis is the crisis of this specific kind of
politicalsubject, while the other political subjects are active, are well. The crisis isat the centre
and it’s the dead heart of the centre that doesn’t have a clueabout what to do with him. So I would
put the question back to you:‘What do you think the political subject of the 21st century is? And whatshould he do?’ Look at the Left,
at its inability to act as such. Look at the‘debacle’ of the Left throughout Europe, some Left we have. So, the crisisis not of the ‘other’.
It is just the crisis of the ‘same’ . . .
Links
L: Science/Objectivity
Absolute knowledge claims—particularly science claims—are underpinned by
gendered notions of objectivity that devalue women
Peterson, Professor of International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona, 92 (V Spike,
“Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations”, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 21:2,
1992, http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Publications/VSP%20TransgBoundaries%20Millenn%201992.pdf)//AS
In this third development, feminists joined other post-positivists inmetatheoretical re-examinations of political. ontological and
epistemologicalcommitments. The understanding that androcentric
discourse excluded women'sexperience, that a
universal notion of "˜woman' denied differences among women,and that "˜adding women' did not
lead to equality, were further illuminated bypost-positivist insights. But post-positivism was particularly significant
forfeminists in that it permitted a theorization of positivism, instrumental reason,and science itself as
gendered. Feminists argued that if knowledge claims arenecessarily grounded in lived experience, not some
transcendent reality, then elitemale experience cannot be used to ground claims about human social reality;
todo so distorts our knowledge of that reality. Finally, they exposed the distortionsof androcentrism in
privileging ways of knowing that are partial because they arealso derived exclusively from male
experience. as that experience is constructedunder patriarchal relations."•Emphasizing that the issue is not simply the relative
absence of women inscience, Evelyn Fox Keller has documented the persistence and power of thetendency to associate masculinity
with objectivity, science, and asexuality. The"˜asexual' aspect is consistent with privileging masculine science over femalenature, the former
being associated with disembodied rationality, and the latterbeing associated with embodied passion and its sexual connotations.
Havingdivided the world into the knower - the mind or subject - and the knowable - nature or the object - scientific ideology further specifies
the relation `between knower and known [as] one of distance and separation`." Objectivity thenpresupposes a scientific mind and modes of
knowing rigidly set apart fromnature. Like rationality, however, objectivity is less a property one is born with than an acquired skill, part of the
learning process of delineating subject and object. Feminist
theories of gender formation suggest linkages between
male gender- identity formation, based on extreme separation, individuation, autonomy, and
objectification, and "˜a set of cultural values which simultaneously elevates what is defined as
scientific and what is defined as mascuIine`."2 An important consequence of associating masculinity
with objectivity and science, both of which carry much prestige, is a powerful and pervasive
devaluation of femininity, subjectivity and affect. Keller argues that these associations result, simultaneously, in extra validation of a
distorted, overly objectivist scientific methodology and a devaluation of "˜what is called feminine - be it a
branch of knowledge, a way of thinking, or woman herself."
L: Econ/Development
Economic development policies are profoundly influenced by conception of gender—
critical analysis of the impact of gender is essential for policy
Peterson, Professor of International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona, 92 (V Spike,
“Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations”, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 21:2,
1992, http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Publications/VSP%20TransgBoundaries%20Millenn%201992.pdf)//AS
.. " The feminist critique in international relations is parallel to the post-positivist critique in several ways. First,
feminist critiques of
science.whereandrocentrism has been the target of rigorous critique, demand our attention. Going beyond
the post-positivist critique of subject-object and fact-va|ue dichotomies.feminists have located essentialized gender "˜difference` at the core of
positivism and objectivism. They argue that the
"˜sovereign rational subject' privileged in positivist accounts is a
fiction premised on elite male experience and masculinity. Whether as objective knower or autonomous political agent,
this "˜sovereign man' cannot represent "˜woman', epistemologically or politically ."• Second, "˜real
world' events are not adequately addressed by androcentric accounts that render women and gender
relations invisible. On the contrary.the centrality of gender is revealed by rapidly shifting relations between women and men, and
between masculinity and femininity in today’s world. Specifically.gender issues are visible in the following: the
interacting local, national, and global effects of women's liberation movements; the position of
women in contemporary social movements (as revolutionaries, peace activists and environmental leaders); the shifting
divisions of labour as women worldwide increase their participation in wage labour; the global feminization of poverty; the
significance of gender in the design and implementation of economic development policies ; the
importance of reproductive issues and population planning; and the small but steady increases in women's participation in formal politics. The
United Nations Decade for Women (1976-1985), the declaration of equal rights for women and the convention on the elimination of sex
discrimination have focused attention on gender inequality as a global issue. While the influence of gender in world affairs is not new,
systemic data and shifting gender boundaries expose the pervasiveness of gender structuring and
suggest the salience of gender-sensitive analyses. lt is no longer adequate, and was never accurate, to
treat gender as irrelevant to our knowledge of world politics. Third. feminism is particularly relevant to
international relations in thc context of the current post-positivist movement, since feminist scholarship offers unique and significant
contributions to the third debate. These are generated in part by feminism`s transdisciplinary and critical
orientations, and in part by its particular theoretical developments in response to post-positivism. Less bounded by any narrow
disciplinary lens, feminists examine insights from diverse locations. situate them in larger
transdisciplinary contexts, and weave new understandings out of these multiple threads.
Violence against and oppression of women is inherent in economic development
policies, particularly in the “Third World”
Runyan and Peterson, professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at the University of Cincinnati and Professor of
International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona 91 (Anne Sisson and V Spike, “The Radical Future
of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 16:1, Winter 1991, JSTOR)//AS
Feminist critiques of Third World development assumptions, theories, and practices began within the
confines of feminist empiricism in the form of Ester Boserup's germinal work, Woman's Role in Economic Development4* As Jane
Jaquette argues in her 1982 review article in World Politics, Boserup's work is firmly within the liberal positivist tradition of describing the
distorting aspects of the discrimination against women in development planning and calling for the equal
participation of women in the development process as is. There is little attempt to redefine power or economic development,"43 which might
lead to questioning the strategy of "integrating women" into the project of modernization, which, presumably, would operate far more
effectively and beneficially if it were stripped of its sexism. It was a significant finding that whatever
"benefits" might accrue
from modernization, men certainly received them disproportionally over women. Moreover, it brought
women and their responsibility for meeting basic needs to the attention of United Nations, national, and nongovernmental development
agencies, which began funding, albeit minimally, women's development projects in the face of feminist claims about the inequity and
inefficiency of keeping women impoverishedand marginally productive Unfortunately, the liberal feminist empiricist strategy of
"integrating women into the development process" proved problematic in a number of areas. As Anne
Marie Goetz points out, integration
actually meant "separation" in the form of continued marginalization
and ghettoization for women who are locked into "women's projects," where they have no say or any effect on
overall national and international development planning.44 Feminist standpoint theories on development, which arose out of and responded
to the insufficiencies of the liberal empiricist strategy and the further deterioration in women's economic condition as modernization
intensified, have taken several tacks. Cultural feminists, or what Jaquette calls "female sphere theorists," have advocated advancing a more
gynocentric notion of development, which not only valorizes women's reproductive labor, but also privileges it as the model for redesigning
development to meet basic needs and achieve economic justice. "Female values" of care and community, it is argued, are more "functional for
survival"45 as they are more attuned to a development process that is neither harmful to people, especially women and children, nor harmful
were
development organized along more holistic and less instrumentalist lines, then women would become
central to and major actors in social, political, and economic decisionmaking. Socialist feminists, on the other
to the planet. Although this perspective is implicated in keeping women in marginalized "women's projects," it suggests that
hand, have argued that women will remain marginalized in national economies and the international political economy as long as they are kept
responsible for reproductive work. As Lynne Segal points out, the maintenance of the private sphere where women are to perform their
Women's
central economic role can be masked by ideas about women's separate sphere, which suggest
women's apparent unimportance in the economic relations of capitalism. It is women's servicing of
men and children in the home which allows for their greater exploitation in the workforce, thus
maintaining existing capitalist hierarchies of labour. Women's domestic lives are crucial to the maintenance of male
undervalued reproductive work serves men, the state, and capitalism, whether in current capitalist or socialist societies.
dominance. But women's subordinate economic position in the labour market is equally crucial to the maintenance of men's power in the
home.46 Maria Mies also argues that it is in the interest of both capitalist and socialist states to keep women marginalized in informal and
formal economic systems. The growth-oriented modernization strategy of industrialization demands a "dual" economy, which consists of a
modern, capital-intensive, socialized, "formar sector with waged labour as the dominant production relation, and a "subsidiary" labourintensive, non socialized ("private"), technologically backward "informal sector," where not only the bulk of subsistence for the masses, but
Because women have come to occupy the
bulk of the informal sector upon which the top-heavy, expensive, and male-dominated formal sector
depends, it is also in the interests of states and ubig men" who control them to ensure that women
are largely excluded from economic and political power in the formal sector and that "'little men1 are 'bought
also commodities for export to capitalist and socialist countries are produced.47
over' by the relative power they are given in their families."48 This is particularly evident in the case of Third World women working in
multinational corporation free trade or export processing zones, usually performing microchip and computer assembly for defenserelated
industries. According to Annette Fuentes and Barbara Ehrenreich, this is considered "women's work" because it requires the cheap and pliable
labor of unorganized women. If women workers do break through the isolation, fragmentation, and manipulation imposed on them by their
foreign employers and begin to organize, international agencies, national governments, male workers, and "family discipline" often act to
return them to subservience.49 Thus, as Mies points out, the
ideology of male supremacy, which justifies violence
against women in the home, and the practice of coercing and restricting women's labor in the
workplace is increasingly necessary to the capital accumulation process inherent to modern state
building. In other words, capitalism has to use, to strengthen, or even to invent, patriarchal men-women
relations if it wants to maintain its accumulation model. If all women in the world had become "free" wage earners,
"free" subjects, the extraction of surplus would, to say the least, be severely hampered. This is what women as housewives, workers, peasants,
prostitutes, from the Third and the First World countries, have in common.
American engagement is the result of a hierarchical political system that
legitimizes gendered violence
Tickner 98 - a feminist international relations (IR) theorist. She is a distinguished scholar in residence at the School of
International Services, American University, Washington DC, which she recently joined after fifteen years as a Professor of
International Relations at at the University of Southern California, author of several books
(J. Ann, “Continuing the Conversation”, International Studies Quarterly, March 1998, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600826)//js
For example, in her analysis of the Gulf War, Cynthia Enloe (1993:161-200)moves
from the personal to the
international in her discussion of Filipino maids in prewar Kuwait as crucial players in reducing
global tensions generated by the politics of international debt. Looking at the crisis from the perspectives of
its leastsignificant participants, her micro analysis of the voices of women from the U.S. andthe Gulf offers a "bottom-up" or "insideout" analysis of the politics of the war; sheconcludes by arguing that we cannot make sense of this war, or of world order issuesmore
generally, without considering the politics of gender.Inspired by Enloe's work, Katharine Moon's (1997) interviews of
Korean prosti- tutes serving American soldiers tell how these women were drawn into the
process of foreign policy implementation at the highest level. She notes that a statist definition of
national security is irrelevant to these women's lives and that Korea's dependent external
relationship with the United States abetted its authoritarian control internally at the grass-roots
level. Both these studies look for the general inthe particular and rely on interpretive strategies and micro analyses to tell
ussomething new and constitutive about war. I am not denying that research on thedemocratic peace is telling us something
important about international relations.But, given their methodological preferences, which exist for reasons I outlined
inmy article, it is more likely that most IR feminists would choose an Enloe/Moon research strategy
rather than the one Keohane proposes.To conclude, Keohane ends his comments with the claim that we will only"understand" each
other if IR scholars are open to the important questions thatfeminists raise, and if feminists are willing to formulate their hypotheses
in ways thatare testable-with evidence (Keohane, 1998:197). For reasons emphasized both inmy article and in this response, it
appears that Keohane is asking feminists to domore of the moving on his continua. It is less consequential to broaden
one's research agenda to include new questions-such as the operation of military brothels or the
hiring practices of Japanese multinational corporations in the U.S.,and treat them in conventional
comparative ways-than it is for feminists to give up epistemological positions which they believe are
better suited to uncovering oppres- sive gender hierarchies supporting such practices. Feminists are not averse
to goodevidence; however, the evidence they bring to IR is frequently seen as irrelevant toits disciplinary concerns. Having offered a
choice of methodological positions(Keohane, 1998:195), Keohane concludes by asking feminists to join an American"science" of
which Marchand, from her European perspective, seemingly disap-proves. Broadening our theoretical, epistemological, and
ontological parameters,and respecting difference, which both Keohane and Marchand call for in differentways, is especially difficult.
It cannot be achieved without an understanding of, andrespect for, knowledge traditions now on the margins, or outside of the
socialsciences, traditions many feminists believe are more suited to answering the kindsof questions they ask about international
politics
Current economic frameworks neglect women’s contributions and present a skewed
picture of reality
Harcourt, professor of Rural Development, Environment and Population Studies at Erasmus University Rotterdam 94 (Wendy, “The
Globalisation of the Economy: An International Gender Perspective”, Focus on Gender 2:3, October 1994, JSTOR)//AS
Men have been the dominant group which has determined the shape and direction of society's technoeconomic order (Mitter 1993, 103). Traditional economic analysis ignores reproductive roles, while
economic policy defines the majority of women not as major contributors to the economy but as
disposable cheap labour, offering different (less remunerable) skills from men, and adaptable to part-time, casual, and temporary
work. Economists who incorporate a gender analysis to their work assert that women's greater
exploitation in the global capitalist system, and their higher labour burden in the home, are due to their lack of
power. Women typically lack access to institutions which decide economic policy, produce economic
statistics, and promote techno- logical innovation. Finally, women's role in reproduction (bearing and caring for children, and
caring for other family members) limits their formal employment possibilities, and this reproductive work is
absent from economic statistics.Feminist economists (Picchio 1994, Elson 1993, Folbre 1993, Tickner 1992) propose a genderaware economic analysis where women's reproductive activities are recognised as being as important as production, since they, too, form a
contribution to the economy. Feminists argue that the
assumption of neo-liberal economists, that 'man' is
competitive and individualist, could not be made if women's experiences of work were taken into
account.Placing reproduction on a par with production means revaluing child-bearing and care-giving
roles. This would redefine economic goals towards an ethic of care and responsibility, and away
from the excessive focus on the ever- expanding production of commodities. This view is beginning to have an
impact on development policy.3 The awareness by development institutions that 'women's work is not infinitely elastic', and that there is a
breaking point where women cannot continue to sustain the development process through their reproductive work, 'acknowledges the fact
that the relationship between production and reproduction is not only a women's problem but the fundamental problem of the system...in
the North as well as in the South' (Picchio, 1994,8). Picchio argues that the role of carer which women take on in most societies cannot
mechanically adjust to the global restructuring and subsequent changes occurring in regional and national production markets. She warns
persistentmarginalisation of gender issues by economic theory has to be addressed not by
adding in a gender variable or recognising women as social agents, but by changing the whole
analytical framework usod by economists. She argues that this framework 'is incapable of
recognising structural relationships and social conflicts and ...systematically hides the costs of social
production of male and female labour' (Picchio, 1994, 16).
that the
Economic policies bolster male domination of the public sphere – this ensures women are confined to
the home
Youngs 4 – Professor of Digital Economy @ U of Wales (Gillian, “Feminist International Relations: a
contradiction in terms? Or: why women and gender are essential to understanding the world ‘we’ live
in”, 2004,
http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/GillianYoungsFeministIRCont
radictionOr.pdf, RSpec)
Let us for simplicity’s sake take the masculinist nature of states as referring to the historical problem of
politics as male-defined and male-dominated,15 and the problem of masculine subjectivity as a constrained and particularistic
articulation of political agency at the individual level. While mainstream International Relations has assessed at length
the implications of its gendered realities,16 expressed through the ‘public over private’ hierarchy
(sexual contract) that has traditionally framed politics (and economics) as predominantly public
spheres of male influence and identification, and the home, family and social reproduction as
predominantly private spheres of female influence
Modern economics and state is inherently male dominated – this precludes women’s contributions in
politics
Youngs 4 – Professor of Digital Economy @ U of Wales (Gillian, “Feminist International Relations: a
contradiction in terms? Or: why women and gender are essential to understanding the world ‘we’ live
in”, 2004,
http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/GillianYoungsFeministIRCont
radictionOr.pdf, RSpec)
In broad terms, feminist International Relations has expanded, and built on, the work of feminist political
and economic theory to examine the masculinist framing of politics and economics and associated
institutions, most notably the state and its key military and governmental components, as well as the discourses through which these
institutions operate and are reproduced over time. In the course of this work, feminist has highlighted three major related
phenomena:
 The state and market, in theory and practice, are gendered by masculinist assumptions and
structures.
 The dominant conceptualization of political and economic agency in male-dominated terms
ignores both women’s realities and their active contributions to political and economic life.

Lack of attention to the analytical category of gender obscures and the interrelated social construction of male and female identities.
Discourses of globalization and integration create a capitalist myopia that marginalizes
women
Nagar et al., Professor of Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies at the University of Minnesota 02 (Richa, Victoria Lawson, Linda
McDowell and Susan Hanson, “Locating Globalization: Feminist (Re)readings of the Subjects and Spaces of Globalization”, Economic Geogrpahy
78:3, July 2002, JSTOR)//AS
We argue, along with Roberts (2001) and Gibson-Graham (1996), that research
and discourses on globalization are
peculiarly masculinist in that they serve to construct the spaces, scales, and subjects of globalization
in particular ways. Specifically, discourses of global capitalism continue to position women, minorities,
the poor, and southern places in ways that constitute globalization as dominant. Images of passive
women and places (frequently southern, but also deindustrialized places in the north) are constructed and
simultaneously serve to construct discourses of globalization as capitalist, as Western-centric, and as
the only possible future for the "global economy."The result is "capitalist myopia," by which
researchers assume that global capitalism is all encompassing and they cannot see, or consider
salient, other noncapitalist, nonpublic spheres and actors.
L: Heg
Hegemony is a form of masculinity that seeks to oppress and dominate
Tickner 92 - a feminist international relations (IR) theorist. She is a distinguished scholar in residence at the School of
International Services, American University, Washington DC, which she recently joined after fifteen years as a Professor of
International Relations at at the University of Southern California, author of several books
(J. Ann, “Feminist Perspectives on Achieving GlobalSecurity”,Gender in InternationalRelations, 1992,
http://www.ces.uc.pt/ficheiros2/files/Short.pdf)//js
Masculinity and politics have a long and close association. Characteristics associated with
"manliness," such as toughness, courage, power, independence, and even physical strength, have,
throughout history,been those most valued in the conduct of politics, particularly international
politics. Frequently,manliness has also been associated with violence and the use of force, a type of
behavior that, when conducted in the international arena, has been valorized and applauded in
the name of defending one's country.This celebration of male power, particularly the glorification of the male warrior,
produces more of agender dichotomy than exists in reality for, as R. W. Connell points out, this stereotypical image ofmasculinity
does not fit most men. Connell suggests that what he calls "hegemonic masculinity," a type of culturally
dominant masculinity that he distinguishes from other subordinated masculinities, is a socially
constructed cultural ideal that, while it does not correspond to the actual personality of themajority of men, sustains
patriarchal authority and legitimizes a patriarchal political and social orderMasculinity and politics have a long and close
association. Characteristics associated with "manliness,"such as toughness, courage, power, independence, and even
physical strength, have, throughout history,been
those most valued in the conduct of politics, particularly
international politics. Frequently,manliness has also been associated with violence and the use of force, a type of behavior
that, whenconducted in the international arena, has been valorized and applauded in the name of defending one'scountry. This
celebration of male power, particularly the glorification of the male warrior, produces more of a
gender dichotomy than exists in reality for, as R. W. Connell points out, this stereotypical image ofmasculinity does
not fit most men. Connell suggests that what he calls "hegemonic masculinity," a typeof culturally dominant masculinity
that he distinguishes from other subordinated masculinities, is asocially constructed cultural ideal that, while it does not correspond
to the actual personality of themajority of men, sustains patriarchal authority and legitimizes a patriarchal political
and social order
Focusing on hegemony reflects and strengthens the masculinity component of
international relations – leads to lack of agency
True ’5 – Lecturer in International Politics, University of Auckland, New Zealand (Jacqui, Theories of International
Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 221-222, http://gendocs.ru/docs/35/34939/conv_1/file1.pdf)//SS
Analytical feminism deconstructs the theoretical framework of¶ International Relations, revealing the gender bias that pervades key¶ concepts
and inhibits an accurate and comprehensive understanding of¶ international relations. The feminist concept of gender refers to the¶
asymmetrical social constructs of masculinity and femininity as opposed¶ to ostensibly ‘biological’ male–female differences (although feminist¶
Jacqui True 221postmodernists contend that both sex and gender are socially constructed¶ categories, see Butler 1990; Gatens 1991). The
hegemonic Western¶ brand of masculinity is associated with autonomy, sovereignty, the¶ capacity for
reason and objectivity and universalism, whereas the dominant notion of femininity is associated with
the absence or lack of these¶ characteristics. For example, the routine practices of militaries replicate¶
these hegemonic gender identities by training soldiers both to protect¶ ‘womenchildren’ through
killing and to suppress (feminine) emotions¶ associated with bodily pain and caring. Military training, in
Barbara¶ Roberts’ (1984) words is ‘socialization into masculinity carried to the¶ extremes’. A common assumption is that gender identities are
natural or¶ ‘human nature’ and not subject to social constitution or human agency.¶ When this assumption about gender is applied to other
social and political phenomena, however, it has political effects in terms of reproducing¶ the status quo or existing power relations. As Joan
Scott (1988: 48) has¶ stated, ‘the
binary opposition and the social process of gender relationships [have] both
become part of the meaning of power itself’ and, ‘to¶ question or alter any aspect of it, threatens the
entire system’.
Hegemony involves masculine aversion to emotion and subjects the debate to rational
state authority
True ’5 – Lecturer in International Politics, University of Auckland, New Zealand (Jacqui, Theories of International
Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 221-222, http://gendocs.ru/docs/35/34939/conv_1/file1.pdf)//SS
International Relations’ key concepts are neither natural nor gender-neutral: they are derived from a
social and political context where¶ masculine hegemony has been institutionalized. Feminist scholars
argue¶ that notions of power, sovereignty, autonomy, anarchy, security and¶ the levels of analysis
typology in International Relations are inseparable¶ from the gender division of public and private
spheres institutionalized¶ within and across states. These concepts are identified specifically with¶ masculinity and men’s
experiences and knowledge derived from an¶ exclusive, male-dominated public sphere. Theorizing, as Burchill and¶Linklater state in the
Introduction to this volume, (Chapter 1) is ‘the¶ process by which we give meaning to an allegedly objectified world “out¶ there” ’ . A feminist
analysis reveals International Relations’ conceptual¶ framework as but one, partial attempt to make sense of world politics. ¶The
discursive separation of domestic and international politics,¶ together with the neo-realist aversion to
domestic explanations for interstate relations, obscures the prior gendered public–private division¶
within states and masculine aversion to the latter’s association with¶ emotion, subjectivity,
reproduction, the body, femininity and women.¶ Both mainstream and critical theories of world politics overlook this¶
private sphere because it is submerged within domestic politics and state¶ forms (Walker 1992; Sylvester 1994a). The ontology of
mainstream¶ International Relations theory conceives the private sphere like the international sphere
as natural realms of disorder. The lower being, represented¶ by women, the body and the anarchical
system, must be subordinated to¶ the higher being, represented by men, the rational mind and state¶
authority. Jean Elshtain (1992) insists that the realist narrative of¶ International Relations, in particular, pivots on this public–private¶
division and its essentialist construction of femininity and masculinity as¶ the respective cause of disorder and bringer of order.¶ For
feminist analysts, the independence of domestic politics from¶ international politics and the
separation of public from private spheres¶ cannot be the basis for a disciplinary boundary, since
anarchy outside¶ typically supports gender hierarchy at home and vice versa. Throughout¶ modern history, for
example, women have been told that they will¶ receive equality with men, after the war, after liberation, after the¶ national economy has been
rebuilt and so on: but after all of these¶ ‘outside’ forces have been conquered, the commonplace demand is for¶ things to go back to normal,
and women to a subordinate place. As¶ Cynthia Enloe (1989: 131) has observed ‘states depend upon particular¶ constructions of the domestic
and private spheres in order to foster¶smooth[er] relationships at the public/international level’.
Hegemony follows a pattern of dominance and masculinity
Bevan and Mackenzie ’12 – *University of Wellington, New Zealand AND **University of Sydney, Australia
(Marianne and Megan H., “‘Cowboy’ Policing versus ‘the Softer Stuff,’” International Journal of Feminist Politics,
December 10, 2012)//SS
Within the shift to focusing on the plurality of masculinities, there has been a concern in ensuring that
gender is still conceptualized as ‘a system of power, not just a set of stereotypes or observable
differences between women and men’ (Brod and Kaufman, 1990: 4). To address this concern, Carrington et al. (1985) developed
the theory of hegemonic and subordinate masculinities which situates masculinities within the wider gender relations framework.¶It has
been shown that there are dominant patterns of hegemonic masculinity that are associated with
‘practices, discourses and institutions’ linked with male power (Zalewski and Parpart 2008: 11). This hegemonic
masculinity is ideological in nature, which means that it is an easily identified, idealized model, but
not an accurate description of the personalities of most men. However, those individuals who align
themselves most closely to the hegemo- nic model are most likely to receive the benefits of the power
with which it is associated (Connell 1987, 2005; Hooper 2001; Kronsell 2005). Conversely, characteristics or traits that do not
converge with the hegemonic model are less able to be associated with power as they are ‘symbolically assimilated to femininity’ (Connell
2005: 31).¶Connell’s
concept of hegemonic and subordinate masculinity has been uti- lized to understand
how certain forms of masculinity can be institutionalized within organizations (Cockburn 1991; Barrett 2001;
Martin 2001; Higate 2003b; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). This
work built on feminist theories of masculinism,
which have paid attention to the ways in which gender dichotomies and the privileging of
characteristics associated with masculinity become embedded in particular institutions and disciplines
as organizing principles (Peterson and Runyan 1993; Peterson and True 1998).
L: Imperialism
Imperialism results in a binary between the dominant colonizers and the
submissive colonialists
Connell - Australian sociologist. She is currently University Professor at the University of Sydney 98(R.W., “Masculinities and
Globalization”,Men and Masculinities,Jul 1, 1998, SAGE)//js
The imperial social order created a hierarchy of masculinities. as it created a hierarchy of communities and
races. The colonizers distinguished “more manly” from “less manly" groups among their subjects. In British India, for instance,
Bengali men were supposed effeminate while Pathans and Sikhs were regarded as strong and warlike. Similar distinctions were
made in South Africa between Hottentots and Zulus, in North America between Iroquois.Sioux, and Cheyenne on one side, and
southern and southwwtern tribes on the other. At the same time. the emerging imagery of gender difference in
European culture provided general symbols of superiority and inferiority. Within the imperial
“poetics of war" (MacDonald 1994). the conqueror was virile, while the colonized were dirty.
sexualized. and effeminate or childlike. In many colonial situations. indigenous men were called
“boys" by the colonizers (e.g.. in Zimbabwe; see Shire 1994). Sinha’s (1995) interesting study of the language of political
controversy in India in the 1880s and 1890s shows how the images of “manly Englishman" and “effeminate Bengali” were deployed
to uphold colonial privilege and contain movements for change. In the late nineteenth century, racial barriers in colonial societies
were hardening rather than weakening, and gender ideology tended to fuse with racism in fonns that the
twentieth century has never untangled.
L: Realism
Realism is an ideal propagated by western colonial powers that seek to dominate
and control
Tickner 92 - a feminist international relations (IR) theorist. She is a distinguished scholar in residence at the School of
International Services, American University, Washington DC, which she recently joined after fifteen years as a Professor of
International Relations at at the University of Southern California, author of several books
(J. Ann, “Feminist Perspectives on Achieving GlobalSecurity”,Gender in InternationalRelations, 1992,
http://www.ces.uc.pt/ficheiros2/files/Short.pdf)//js
A more fundamental challenge to realism came from scholars influenced by the Marxist tradition.
Motivated by a different agenda, one that emphasizes issues of equality and justice rather than issues of
order and control, scholars using a variety of more radical approaches attempted to move the field away
from its excessively Western focus toward a consideration of those marginalized areas of the world
system that had been subject to Western colonization. When it became evident, in the 1970s, that promises of
prosperity and the elimination of poverty in these newly independent states were not being fulfilled, these scholars
turned their attention to the world economy, the workings of which, they believed, served to perpetuate the unevenness of
development between and within states. Many of them claimed that a structural condition known as
dependency locked these states on the peripheries of the world system into a detrimental
relationship with the centers of political and economic power, denying them the possibility of
autonomous development. 20 Marxists emphasized class divisions that exist in, and derive from, the world market and
that cut across state boundaries. Peace researchers began to use the term structural violence to denote a
condition whereby those on the margins of the international system were condemned to a
shorter life expectancy through the uneven allocation of the resources of global capitalism. 21 The
introduction of competing theories and approaches and the injection of these new issues and actors into the subject matter of
international relations were accompanied by a shift to a more normative approach to the field. For example, the world order
perspective asked how humanity could significantly reduce the likelihood of international violence and create minimally acceptable
conditions of worldwide economic well-being, social justice, ecological stability, and democratic participation in decision-making
processes. 22 World order scholars questioned whether the state was an adequate instrument for
solving the multiplicity of problems on the international agenda. Militarized
states can be a threat to the security
of their own populations; economic inequality, poverty, and constraints on resources were seen as the results of the
workings of global capitalism and thus beyond the control of individual states. State boundaries cannot be protected
against environmental pollution, an issue that can be addressed only by international collective action. World order
scholars rejected realist claims of objectivity and positivist conceptions in the international relations discipline; adopting a
specifically normative stance, they have postulated possible alternate futures that could offer the promise of equality and justice and
investigated how these alternative futures could be achieved
L: Competitiveness
Rhetoric of competitiveness is the new imperialism—sustained by patriarchy
Pietilä, former Secretary-General of the Finnish UN Association 93 (Hilkka, “Patriarchy as a State of War”, presented in the IPRA 25th
Anniversary Conference in Gronningen, 1993)//AS
Now the emphasis is on industry, economy and companies, which have grown rapidly in size and strength in the 1980's.
Now it is no more an issue of military-industrial companies only but the major companies in general. They have taken power in
industrialized market economy countries and established their international power system, which goes far
beyond governments. This power structure is totally in the hands of a very small elitist minority of men . But
within their strong hierarchical structures they employ millions of men and women, who have no other choice than to serve humbly and
obediently the dominators and interests of the companies, as if "for such they were born and by such they will continue to be identified and
find meaning". Patriarchy
has taken the lead directly instead of through the military system! The institutions of
democratic power can hardly hide any more that real power has slipped away from their hands. Patriarchy wages the war directly
also. The battle over the markets, the sources of raw materials and energy, the hegemony over
technology, patents and property rights, over the creative intellectuals is the third world war fought
everywhere. The images and ideals have changed correspondingly. The new name for patriotism is international
competitiveness. The heroes are those who sacrifice all their time, strength, intelligence, families, often their health and even their life
for the success of the company,i.e. for the growing output and profit year by year. And the victims are the people, men,
women, children as usual in the war, and also culture, beauty and estethics of the cities, countryside villages, historical places,
the whole material and spiritual cultural heritage of humanity, which is not productive and profitable. But now the victim is also the
Mother Earth, which is raped, humiliated and exploited beyond the limits of recovery and sustainability.
One of the lessons of the Gulf war was that there is no demarcation line between economic and military warfare,
that the military means are just other means of pursuing economic war - as it was by definition the case in the
Persian Gulf. Neither is economic warfare - so called interdependence and economic competition - a peaceful alternative for direct violence
between the states.
L: Free Trade
Free trade and economic development policies ignore women’s role in their
communities and are more exploitative than beneficial
Harcourt, professor of Rural Development, Environment and Population Studies at Erasmus University Rotterdam 94 (Wendy, “The
Globalisation of the Economy: An International Gender Perspective”, Focus on Gender 2:3, October 1994, JSTOR)//AS
This article argues that 'free
trade', which guarantees the free movement of goods and capital, may have allowed for an
acceleration of economic growth and economic interdependence among market economies in developed countries, but this
has happened at the expense of an economic crisis in countries which have not benefited from such
uneven growth. This has had a particularly acute impact on poor women, who are marginalised in the
world economy. Although it is important to remember that different women's experiences are 'the outcome of different sets of
interactions among patriarchal, class, racial, ethical, and spatial relations' (Pearson 1986, 93), gender is a critical determinant in
the degree and manner in which economic and other forces affect different groups.lThe effects of
deregulation are particularly acute in countries of the East and South. In general, while Central and Eastern
European countries are struggling with the impact of a radical economic and political transition, the less-developed countries of
the South are burdened by debt, depletion in resources caused by poverty, inequality and
environmental problems, and 'aid fatigue' after 40 years of 'development' initiatives.The current
trends which are restructuring industry and employment towards service sectors, casual, and part Focus on Gender Vol 2, No. 3, October 1994 time and out work, might appear to be beneficial to women. But this article
will argue that because traditional economics ignore the importance of women's work in the home,
community, and informal sectors, economic development policies are rarely structured to encompass
women's socio-economic reality and are more usually exploitative than beneficial.
International free market engagement perpetuates hegemonic hypermasculinity
Acker 4 – Professor of Sociology @ U of Oregon, Ph.D Sociology @ U of Oregon (Joan, “Gender,
Capitalism, and Globalization”, 2004, Critical Sociology [SAGE Journals], Volume 30, Number 1, RSpec)
In today’s organizing for globalization, we can see the emergence of a hegemonic hypermasculinity that
is aggressive, ruthless, competitive, and adversarial. Think of Rupert Murdoch (Reed 1996), Phil Knight (Strasser and
Beklund 1993), or Bill Gates. Gates, who represents a younger generation than Murdoch and Knight, may seem to be more gently aggressive
and more socially responsible than the other two examples, with his contributions to good causes around the globe. However, his actions made
public in the anti-trust lawsuits against Microsoft seem to still exhibit the ruthlessness, competitiveness
and adversarialness of hyper-masculinity. This masculinity is supported and reinforced by the ethos of
the free market, competition, and a ‘win or die’ environment. This is the masculine image of those who
organize and lead the drive to global control and the opening of markets to international competition.
Masculinities embedded in collective practices are part of the context within which certain men make
the organizational decisions that drive and shape what is called “globalization” and the “new economy.”
We can speculate that how these men see themselves, what actions and choices they feel compelled to make and they think are legitimate,
how they and the world around them define desirable masculinity, enter into that decision-making. Decisions
made at the very top
reaches of (masculine) corporate power have consequences that are experienced as inevitable
economic forces or disembodied social trends. At the same time, they symbolize and enact varying
hegemonic masculinities (Connell 1998)
L: Globalization
Globalization is a method for male-dominated society to assert control over the
economic space
Bergeron 01 – associate professor of women's studies and social sciences and director of the Women’s and Gender Studies
Program at University of Michigan, She serves on the editorial board of the International Feminist Journal of Politics (Suzanne,
“Political Economy Discourses of Globalization and Feminist Politics”, Signs, Summer 2001,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175354)//js
While recognizing the changing role of the state in the context of globalization, the tendency
among feminist political economists writing onstructural adjustment, particularly those who are engaged in debates withinthe
discipline of economics, is to continue to theorize the nation-state as women's primary source of
resistance to the negative aspects of globalization. For example, the 1995 World Development special issue on
"Gender,Adjustment and Macroeconomics" attempts to reclaim the state as the pro-tector of women and other vulnerable citizens,
emphasizing the role thatnational policy can play by instituting national restrictions on internationalcapital, social safety nets, fairpay laws, and health and safety regulations(see Cagatay, Elson, and Grown 1995). It should be noted work in this area
does not see the state as being able to do anything it wants in this con- text - for example, such work
often cautions against pursuing policies thatare "overdesigned," as these may scare international capital away (Tzan-natos 1995;
Walters 1995). Nonetheless, the underlying assumption here is that national economic policy is the most
effective and the best hope for women's resistance against the negative aspects of globalization
(see alsoCommonwealth Secretariat 1989; Collier 1994). Such conceptualizationsare not limited to the academic writings of feminist
economists but havealso made their way into other arenas. For example, the Beijing Platformfor Action's overarching emphasis on
the role that nation-states must playto protect women from the negative consequences of globalization con-tains themThese
writings reflect many of the features of the national-management approach to globalization. The
goal is to reassert whatever control is pos- sible over national economic space, through the use of expert
knowledgesof economic modeling and policy making at the national level, and to makefeminist concerns a central part of that
process. These writings conceive ofsubjects as having national interests associated with the relative success ofnational economic
goals and policies. For example, the agency of collective national subjectivity would be the force that
could impose regulations on foreign capital, in an attempt to protect "its" female workers from
the in- ternational division of labor. Of course, given the gender biases inherentin current economic policy institutions
and processes, the deployment of this agency into the policy realm, feminists rightly insist, is
incumbent on making policy more gender aware (Elson 1991; Budlender 2000). Still,the nearly exclusive emphasis
on the nation-state as the primary site ofwomen's resistance to global economic forces has limited the range of po-tential options
that can be meaningfully discussed in the feminist econom-ics literature.
Globalization removes humanity from consideration—monitors and controls bodies
Mountz and Hyndman, associate professor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs and Professor and Director, Centre for
Refugee Studies at York University respectively 06 (Alison and Jennifer, “Feminist Approaches to the Global Intimate”, Women’s Studies
Quarterly 41:1/2, Spring/Summer 2006, JSTOR)//AS
In a word, the
politics, processes, and patterns of globalization are intimate. They may be represented as
a free-floating discourse about the spaces of capital flows and macroprocesses of economic
integration vis- a-vis communication and transportation technologies (Dicken 1998), but such
representations are partial. Global migration, for example, is rarely discussed as an outcome of or
contribution to this increasing global interdependency. So where are the people? They appear belatedly as messy
bodies that spoil the smooth surfaces of roving global capital. If technology is a social process, as Dicken
argues, so too is globalization. It produces and is produced by racialized, gendered, sexualized difference in specific ways. Just as much "contemporary political geography describes a 'world without people' or at least a world of
abstract, disem- bodied political subjects" (Staeheli and Kofman 2004, 5), so too global- ization discourse is conveniently
depopulated in most renderings. We seek a corrective to some of these absences. Feminists have extensively researched global
processes, including the gendered divisions of labor and identities produced by international capital to serve its interests (Marchand and
Runyan 2000), as well as the gendered effects of structural adjustment programs (Lawson 1999). But intimacy is not only encapsulated by "the
everyday" often foregrounded by feminist methodologies. The
intimate involves a proximity that ren- ders tangible
the intimacies and economies of the body. Forced pregnan- cy tests required by some maquiladora
employers of female workers are a telling illustration of the ways in which the body is literally
monitored by and connected to the global factory. These accounts are important precisely because
they elucidate silences in the political economy litera- ture. They do not, however, challenge the very categories of
scale - local, global, nation, and state - that overlap and bleed into one another, rendering the global intimate. It is to scale that we briefly turn.
Transnational business invisibly institutionalizes violence through masculine hegemony
Acker 4 – Professor of Sociology @ U of Oregon, Ph.D Sociology @ U of Oregon (Joan, “Gender,
Capitalism, and Globalization”, 2004, Critical Sociology [SAGE Journals], Volume 30, Number 1, RSpec)
Transnational business masculinity, although it may involve the pleasures of domination, does not need to be openly
violent because the means of violence are institutionalized in seemingly neutral, rational business
practices (Hearn and Parkin 2002). The violence of leaving people without resources for survival through
downsizing or moving production from one lowwage locale to another lower-wage locale is simply
business necessity. Conceptualized through accounting and strategic planning, no human bodies appear
on the books, thus such violences are accomplished as gender neutral and abstracted from actual
human consequences. This is another way that corporate non-responsibility and its gendered
consequences are embedded in ordinary practices.
L: Immigration (can also be general)
Concepts of statehood and national identity are rooted in exclusion of women—
particularly immigrants
Silvey, Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado Boulder, 04 (Rachel, “Power, difference and mobility: feminist advances in
migration studies”, Progress in Human Geography 28:4, 2004, Sage Publications)//AS
Take the national scale. Neoclassical
theorists view the nation as an objective scale, and understand national
economic conditions as the key forces prompting and inhibiting international migration (Massey et al.,
1993). Feminists ask additional questions about the nation and migration, most centrally the question 'Whose
nation?' As Yeoh and Huang (1999) argue, the national scale is produced through Rachel Silvey 493 social and
political processes that privilege particular identities and exclude others as national subjects . They
critically examine the ways that the nation is founded on notions of citizenship that both materially and
symbolically exclude specific women, in the case of their research migrant female domestic
workers.Yeoh and Huang (1999: 1164) write: By virtue of being a woman, a foreigner, a domestic, and a menial, not only is
the [migrant] maid in Singaporesignificantly excluded from the material spaces in the public sphere
but also her physical invisibility signals the lack of a foothold on the metaphorical spaces opened up in
recent public discourse on potentially more inclusive notions of citizenship and civil society . In focusing on
these issues, they illustrate the ways in which the nation is constructed in conjunction with gendered migration, as
well as the ways in which this particular view of the nation contributes to the marginalization of migrant women who work as domestics in
Singapore. They underscore the socially constructed and exclusionary operation of the concept of the national scale, both as it applies to
migration research and as it operates in the lives of migrants (see also Huang and Yeoh, 1996). Two further examples illustrate feminist
contributions to rethinking the national scale in migration studies. First, Radcliffe (1990) examines the ways in which national
identity is
fortified through specific practices of incorporation and marginalization directed at migrant women
who work as domestic servants in urban Peru. She details the processes that mark rural-urban migrant
women as different from the privileged norm in terms of ethnicity and degrees of modernity. She explores
the ways in which the migrant women who cook, clean and care for children in homes of wealthier Peruvian urbanites are important
to imagining the nation in that their difference is used to symbolize the class, ethnic and gender
relations central to Peruvian nationhood. Secondly, Ruth Fincher (1997) addresses the ways in which Australian immigration
policy discriminates along the lines of gender, age and ethnicity, and explores the ways that these crosscutting
differences shape migration experiences of different groups. While none of these feminist contributions to thinking
about the nation are primarily aimed at conversations with migration researchers, each of them deals with migration. Each of them also shows
that the
processes of constructing the nation, and the meanings of the national scale, are connected to
the politics of gender and difference as they play out in migration processes.
L: Trafficking/Humanitarian
Victimization rhetoric employed by humanitarian border efforts justifies violent
exercises of power in the name of morality
Williams, Doctoral Candidate in Geography at Clark University, 11 (Jill, “Protection as subjection”, City: analysis of urban trends, culture,
theory, policy, action 15:3-4, June-August 2011, Taylor and Francis)//AS
I n the aftermath of September 11, 2001, US
military intervention abroad was repeatedly justified in the name of
‘liberating women’. Narratives of vulnerable Afghani and Iraqi women abused by their uncivilized
countrymen and in need of rescue by the hyper-masculinized US military abounded as the War on
Terror became synonymous with the war to save ‘brown’ women (Abu-Lughod, 2002; Scott, 2002; Eisenstein, 2004,
2007; Cohler, 2006; Stabile and Kumar, 2005). This mobilization of what Ann Russo (2006) terms ‘imperial feminism’ served to dehistoricize and decontextualize female oppression failing to examine the role transnational processes
of racism, colonialism and economic exploitation have played in producing oppressive gender
relations, while also serving to establish a set of false binaries: oppressed Afghani/Iraqi woman vs.
liberated American woman, uncivilized/backward Arab nation vs. modern/civilized USA. As Laila Abu-Lughod (2002) discusses,
these false binaries diverted attention away from explorations of the complex historical and political
interconnections that produce current realities around the world. Furthermore, in defining military intervention as
the solution to the oppression of women these narratives failed to acknowledge the complex ways in which militarization often creates a
climate of insecurity and violence for women (Enloe, 2000, 2007). While feminist scholars have clearly illustrated how racist and sexist tropes
have been instrumental in justifying US military intervention abroad, these analyses
have left unexamined a key focus of
post-9/11 national security efforts—domestic border enforcement. According to James Ziglar, INS commissioner in
2002, 9/11 put border security issues at the top of the migration agenda (US Senate, 2002, p. 29), in turn, justifying unprecedented fiscal and
human resource allocation to getting operational control of national borders. In response, this paper aims to bring
together feminist
discussions of gendered and racialized discourses as they relate to post-9/11 processes of
militarization and examinations of US –Mexico border enforcement efforts. In particular, I turn attention to a
relatively unexamined aspect of border enforcement policy and discourse—statebased ‘humanitarian’
efforts aimed at reducing unauthorized migrant deaths associated with unauthorized migration, efforts that
necessitate the discursive transformation of unauthorized migrants from ‘potential terrorist threats’
and ‘criminals’ into ‘vulnerable victims’ in need of rescue. I draw on feminist and postcolonial theory to examine the role
gender and race play in producing politically powerful and legible discourses of rescue and vulnerability and draw into question a contingent
politics of life predicated on ideologies of gender, race and nation. In doing so, I bring a feminist postcolonial analytic framework to
understandings of US –Mexico border enforcement efforts in order to query how gendered
and racialized rescue narratives
are key to justifying violent state projects that re-assert hegemonic power relations in the post-9/11 world.
Humanitarian aid and efforts to “protect” victims are profoundly gendered—they
exclude groups based on identity and support masculine savior complexes
Williams, Doctoral Candidate in Geography at Clark University, 11 (Jill, “Protection as subjection”, City: analysis of urban trends, culture,
theory, policy, action 15:3-4, June-August 2011, Taylor and Francis)//AS
Similarly, feminist examinations of the politics of humanitarian interventions have illustrated that humanitarian
interventions are
also gendered. For example, Carpenter (2003) shows how gendered ideologies 416 CITY VOL. 15, NOS. 3–4 Downloaded by
[University of Michigan] at 12:26 09 July 2013 influenced humanitarian operations in the Balkans in the 1990s.
Beliefs of inherent female vulnerability (particularly sexual vulnerability) resulted in the systematic privileging
of women (as well as children) for evacuation despite the reality that men were more likely to be targeted
for genocide. Furthermore, legal scholar Anne Orford (2008) draws on feminist and postcolonial theory to understand international
humanitarian law itself as gendered and colonial through its construction of vulnerable populations in
need of rescue by Western nations. An examination of gender ideologies—belief systems that define particular roles,
responsibilities and characteristics as feminine or masculine and which privilege the masculine over the feminine—illuminates how beliefs
of masculine virility and strength and feminine vulnerability and weakness inform political processes
in ways that justify both state action and inaction, and reproduce unequal power relations within and
across national boundaries. In a similar fashion, Miriam Ticktin’s work (2008) examines the complex ways in which border controls
and discourses of violence against immigrant women are intertwined in the French context. Ticktin (2008) illustrates that colonial relations
(both legal and symbolic) continue to inform the way in which immigrant women and the violence experienced by them is understood and
addressed and how these processes are intimately tied to exclusionary immigration policies. For example, she shows how efforts
to
address violence against women serve to exclude certain immigrant populations from the nation-state
through the ‘saving of a few select women’ (Ticktin, 2008, p. 866). Furthermore, in examining the successes and failures of
groups working to end violence against women, Ticktin shows how being able to couch claims in colonial discourses is key
to political legibility and subsequent success. In doing so, she points to the central paradox of transnational discourses on
violence against women: ‘while they allow women to name and struggle against violence, they can also serve to perpetuate such violence as
part of larger nationalist and imperial projects’ (Ticktin, 2008, p. 865). This
diverse group of feminist and postcolonial
scholars illustrates that rather than being peripheral to geopolitical relations, gendered discourses and
ideologies both shape and justify state action and inaction, in turn, unevenly influencing the material
realities of women and men. Therefore, as Dalby (1994) argues, inquiry into the gendered assumptions that
underpin geopolitical relations and reasoning can provide insight into how particular populations are
made vulnerable by these processes. In the remainder of this paper, I bring a postcolonial feminist framework to bear upon
understandings of contemporary US–Mexico border enforcement efforts so that we can better understand the complex and
contradictory ways in which gender and race mediate efforts to ‘protect’ and ‘rescue’ in the US–
Mexico borderlands and, in doing so, justify continued border militarization in the name of ‘saving’
the ‘vulnerable’.
Border control and humanitarian aid employs victimization rhetoric that removes the
agency of migrants and genders patrol as masculinized saviors
Williams, Doctoral Candidate in Geography at Clark University, 11 (Jill, “Protection as subjection”, City: analysis of urban trends, culture,
theory, policy, action 15:3-4, June-August 2011, Taylor and Francis)//AS
The adoption and implementation of state
based humanitarian interventions within the context of US border
enforcement necessitates the discursive transformation of unauthorized migrants from criminal
threats/potential terrorists into vulnerable victims worthy of US state intervention. A discursive reading of
CBP and Border Patrol policies, statements, and institutional videos and publications illustrates that this transformation is made
possible through the mobilization and reproduction of colonial narratives of female/feminine
vulnerability, masculine foreign danger and white masculine US civility—a contemporary rendition of
the imperialist narrative GayatriSpivak (1988) termed ‘white men saving brown women from brown
men’. ‘Human smugglers’ are framed as uncivilized foreigners whose only concern is profit rather than
the life or safety of the migrants they guide. Migrants, in turn, become vulnerable victims lacking any
agency who must be saved by chivalrous Border Patrol agents who risk their own lives for the
‘common good’. CBP and Border Patrol policies and statements, which inform media accounts of migration tragedies and the positions
politicians take when arguing for and developing immigration legislation, place the blame for migrant deaths on ‘callous human smugglers’
whose greed, combined with ‘uncontrollable’ environmental conditions, produces the humanitarian tragedy in the border region. US CBP press
releases reporting migrant rescues make this framing particularly clear. In press releases released between 2005 and 2010 reporting migrant
rescues, guides
(i.e. coyotes, human smugglers) are continuously framed as selfish, money-driven
criminals willing to sacrifice the lives of migrants at any moment. For example: . ‘For smugglers, money is paramount;
it has more value than human life or safety’, said Paul Morris director of field operations (US CBP, 2009). . ‘Smugglers continue to show
disregard for life by leading individuals through harsh areas, often abandoning them in the desert’ (US CBP, 2010b). . ‘It was the dedication and
commitment of our agents that resulted in the rescue of these individuals placed in harms way by smugglers who have no regard for human
lives’, stated Rio Grande Valley Sector Chief Patrol Agent Lynne M. Underdown. ‘As warmer weather approaches, smugglers fueled by greed
placed these lives in a situation that could have ended tragically. We are proud of the expertise of our agents for saving lives’ (US CBP, 2007b). .
‘Despite the obvious heat dangers, smugglers carelessly put lives at risk in their attempts to profit from illegal activity’, stated Assistant Chief
Patrol Agent Raleigh Leonard. ‘These unfortunate incidents are a reminder that the Sonoran Desert is a harsh and unforgiving environment’ (US
CBP, 2010c). 420 CITY VOL. 15, NOS. 3–4 Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 12:26 09 July 2013 As these excerpts illustrate, ‘callous
human smugglers’—who have no regard for human life and are only interested in profit—are consistently framed as those solely responsible
for migrant deaths, strategically
invisibilizing the relationship between US state policies and unauthorized
migrant deaths. As previously mentioned, the official policies of the US Border Patrol strategically aim to push
migrants into more rugged and dangerous terrain as a means of deterring unauthorized entry (see also,
Magan˜ a, 2008). Thus, the
‘humanitarian crisis’ in the border region is the outcome of US state policies as
much as the result of profit-seeking ‘human smugglers’. However, in framing migrant mortality within
the context of human trafficking, the US state takes on the role of legitimate savior and the ‘solution’
to migrant deaths becomes increased (not decreased) border militarization. As Border Patrol Commissioner Bonner
stated at the launching of Operation Desert Safeguard: ‘The loss of life along our border and in the West Desert Corridor is deplorable and
unacceptable. One of the best ways to protect lives is to better secure our border. With Operation Desert Safeguard, we will dramatically
reduce the number of people attempting to illegally enter the United States through the Sonoran Desert area, and by so doing, we will be able
to dramatically reduce the number of people who die attempting to cross that desert.’ (CBP, 2003) While this logic fails to acknowledge the role
border enforcement efforts have played in causing unauthorized migrant deaths, it
also fails to acknowledge that efforts by
US CBP and the US Border Patrol to reduce unauthorized migrant deaths have continuously failed.
Unauthorized migrant mortality rates increased from 1.1/10,000 to 5.5/10,000 between 2000 and 2008 despite state ‘humanitarian’ efforts and
reduced migration flows (Nun˜ez-Neto, 2008). It remains clear that global economic structures continue to compel migrants to risk, and often
lose, their lives as they attempt to reach the USA and state policies that do not take into account the transnational effects of economic
destabilization and restructuring are bound to fail (Bejarano, 2007). Furthermore, it is important to note the marginalized position guides (i.e.
coyotes) play in complex smuggling networks and how they are often pushed into that form of employment by global economic processes and
inequalities. As Luis Alberto Urrea writes of one particular guide (i.e. coyote) in his book The Devil’s Highway that chronicles a 2001 tragedy in
which 14 migrants died while traversing the border in southwestern Arizona: ‘The guı´a at that time was a twenty-five-yearold former Mexican
field worker named Alfredo Alvarez Coronado. He was paid by “an organization” that gave him the cut-rate salary of three hundred dollars per
load ... Alfredo Alvarez said he earned so little in Mexico—a hundred pesos a day (about ten dollars)—that the pollero work was a windfall. One
walk, one month’s salary.’ (2004, p. 69) As this quotation illustrates, coyotes hold a marginalized position in the political economy of assisted
human migration making only a small portion of the full amount paid by migrants and holding the difficult and dangerous job of accompanying
migrants through the desert. In framing ‘human smugglers’ as rational (i.e. callous) economic actors whose sole aim is to make an efficient
profit despite what this means for the migrants they guide, discourses of
state-based humanitarian interventions
obscure the complex factors and economic structures that push young men into this line of work and
provide a demand for their services.Guides are dehumanized as any motivations they may have
beyond sheer profit seeking, as well as any concern they may show for the migrants they guide, are disregarded. As a joint report by
the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties and Mexico’s National Commission of Human Rights (Jimenez, 2009) discusses, rather than
WILLIAMS: PROTECTION AS SUBJECTION 421 Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 12:26 09 July 2013 callous and abusive, many migrants
report great satisfaction with guides: ‘Migrants interviewed by several researchers expressed overwhelming satisfaction and success in reaching
their destination when guided by smugglers, with only a very small number reporting dissatisfaction or abuse. Together migrants and smugglers
move to overcome risks. The crossers strategy is simply: “[T]o go as fast as far as they can to try to avoid being caught by the heat, by fatigue or
by the men in green.”’ (Jimenez, 2009, p. 25) US state policies have necessitated the use of formalized human smuggling networks by migrants
(Cornelius, 2001), in turn, creating a necessary bond between coyote and migrant in their combined effort to avoid detection, apprehension
and deportation. This is not to deny that in some cases coyotes are perpetrators of violence inflicted upon migrants, particularly female
migrants who are known to experience high rates of sexual assaults during migration journeys (Falco´ n, 2001, 2007), but rather to
problematize simplistic framings of coyotes as uncivilized foreigners bent on making a quick profit at all costs. In
mobilizing coyotes as
the scapegoats for migrant deaths, state discourses of humanitarian intervention strategically divert
attention from the very state policies that have pushed migrants and coyotes alike into more deadly
terrain and make effective solutions to ending migrant deaths unlikely. Within state discourses of humanitarian
intervention, migrants hold the role of vulnerable feminized victims who have been duped by human smugglers. State discourses
feminize migrants both literally and symbolically. Migrant women are systematically over-represented
in US Border Patrol press releases detailing rescue attempts, while migrants, regardless of gender, are
framed as helpless victims in need of protection by the hyper-masculinized US Border Patrol. This
simplistic framing of migrants as helpless victims, and the associated framing of human smugglers as callous criminals, erases the complex
political–economic and social structures that fuel unauthorized migration. Assuming that migrants only engage in unauthorized migration
because they are unknowing, fails to acknowledge that many migrants are aware of the dangers of migration yet choose to do it because they
see it as their only or best option (Jimenez, 2009). Extensive interview research conducted by Valdez-Suiter et al. (2007) in Mexican sending
communities reported that 91% of women and 81% of men responded that crossing into the USA without legal documents is very dangerous.
This suggests that migrants choose to engage in unauthorized migration despite knowing of the dangers involved. For many migrants
participation in processes of unauthorized migration is a survival strategy—a constrained choice—necessitated by complex global inequalities,
it is not a naive decision.8 Recognizing
migrant agency is key to identifying the complex factors—including
global economic processes and state policies—that result in migrant deaths in the border region. As
Nandita Sharma’s critique of anti-trafficking discourses illustrates, it is important to recognize the (constrained) agency of unauthorized
migrants because it is only in doing so that ‘we can come to understand how processes of capitalist globalization and the consequent effects of
dislocation and dispersal shape the mobility of illegalized migrants’ (2005, p. 88). Rather
than assuming that migrants are
‘vulnerable’, we must query how global economic processes and state policies produce unauthorized
migrants as marginal members in the global economy who must make difficult, and sometimes
deadly, choices.
L: Radical Humanism
Radical humanism is skewed – it overlooks the private sphere of domesticity.
Stone, Visiting Faculty Lecturer, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Arts, Jadavpur
University, Kolkata, India, 2002 (Leonard A.,“How Was It For You? The Oligarchic Structure of
International Relations and Feminist Theory,” Journal of International Women’s Studies Vol. 4 #1
November 2002, pages 67-68, 2002, http://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol4/iss1/5/)//SB
Like mainstream IR theories, the discourse of radical humanism overlooks the private sphere of the
family household because it is submerged within the “domestic analogy” itself. Notwithstanding this
“blind side”, a major theoretical fissure remains betweenfeminist and radical humanist theorising on
world politics.From one feminist standpoint, the traditional generic units of analyses underpinning
radical humanism’s analysis of world politics - nation-states in the context of aninternational system –
are seen as gendered social constructions which take specifically masculine ways of being and
knowing in the world as universal. A particular focus on the gendered agency of the state in IR
exposes the patriarchal logic of the radical humanist approach, and in particular its conception of
women’s agency which fails to recognise its diversity, which is absolutely essential to, but politically
repressed in radical humanistdiscourse. Feminist standpoints on the state also generate a theoretical
difference withradical humanism. Feminist theory in IR views sovereign relations with other states,
aswell as man’s relation to woman inside states, as defining the internal constitution ofsovereign man
and sovereign state. Masculinist domination is integral to and institutionalised within the statesystem. Radical humanism has yet to seriously engagewith these criticisms.And yet obvious points of
congruence remain evident as both theories opposefoundational “givens” in the field of IR – anarchy
and sovereignty – and both search for models of human agency emanating from marginalised
positions including women, the colonised, and people of colour’s resistance. Unlike radical humanists,
however, anumber of feminist scholars of IR16 continue to analyse the “gender-specificity” of
theconstitutive (socially constructed) concepts (power, rationality, security and sovereigntythat
underpin the levels of analysis in IR and in realist theory in particular. Radicalhumanists on the other
hand remain locked in non-gender analyses of anti-democratic,core (rich) – periphery (poor) power
configurations.Feminist theory opposes the gendered, oligarchic structure of international relations,
and just as radical humanism uses key concepts such as “power” and “rationality” as building blocks
of explanation for a theory of international relations, there is nothinginherent in the terms themselves
which suggest, according to Ann Tickner, that feministtheory may not use them as building blocks. Both
feminist theory and radical humanismIR theory simply reject their narrow and exclusionary meanings in
mainstream IR theoryand practice. But radical humanism’s radicalism ends abruptly here. With an
underdetermined focus on women’s struggles and rights it belies a skewed theoretical stance. It needs
to accommodate feminist theorising on gender systems, which is typicallyand surprisingly relegated to
a sub-text within radical humanism’s grand narrative.
L: Care
The association of women with care entrenches gendered norms.
Tungohan, PhD Candidate in Political Science and the Collaborative Program in Women and Gender
Studies at the University of Toronto, 2012 (Ethel, “Reconceptualizing Motherhood, Reconceptualizing
Resistance,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 15, no. 1, page 43-44, July 24, 2012,
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfjp20#.UeL3542cdqU)//SB
Seeing that gendered expectations affect female labour migrants, whose maternal ‘caring’
responsibilities are different from male migrants’ ‘breadwinning’ duties in that they were asked to be
the primary caregivers even while abroad, the weight of parental obligations created higher
expectations for my respondents to sustain family relationships. The entrenchment of gender roles can
be seen by looking at how daily caregiving responsibilities in migrant families are transferred not to
fathers, who are left behind in the country, but to other female members of the household, or to local
women hired to work as caregivers (Hondagneu-Sotelo and Avila 1997; Parrenas 2005). The women I
interviewed, who either hired nannies or asked female relatives to be caregivers, justified these
arrangements by asserting the inherent superiority of female care, thus illustrating the pervasiveness of
maternalist ideology. My respondents described female caregivers as being more ‘nurturing’ and more
‘affectionate’, though those women whose children were being cared for by a paid caregiver
expressed some unease regarding the financial transaction lying at the heart of their arrangements.
One woman felt the irony of hiring a caregiver while being employed as a caregiver herself, which has led
her to question maternalist ideology. She asserted that her experiences in Canada, juxtaposed with her
interactions with ‘competent’ male caregivers in Canadian nursing homes, led her to believe that
perhaps providing caregivers with sufficient financial compensation for their labour was more important
than gender identity in ensuring competent caregiving. When asked whether generous financial
compensation motivated her to do her job well as a caregiver, she said yes. Such insights, however, were
in the minority. My respondents’ participation in global care chains shows the ubiquity of ideals on
‘female’ nurturing. Men, in contrast, are deemed ‘distant’ Men, in contrast, are deemed ‘distant’ and
‘unreliable’. Although the husbands of seven respondents also work abroad, the inability of these
fathers to assume an active role in child rearing because of physical distance was irrelevant; like the
remaining respondents, whose husbands were in the Philippines, these women believed that female
care was superior. Notwithstanding the fact that one-third of my respondents were separated from their
husbands, one of whom had lost contact with his family, both separated and married women disputed
the legitimacy of men’s caregiving abilities, showing that maternalist ideology persisted across various
marital and family statuses. While there are examples of migrant men who contest gender scripts by
remaining involved with their households (Nobles 2011), my respondents adhered to gendered
divisions of labour and argued that caregiving is the purview of women, implicitly showing how
gender socialization and reproduction is reduced to a ‘feminine act’. Consequently, they affirmed the
findings of gender care chain scholars (Hondagneu-Sotelo and Avila 1997; Parrenas 2005) who discuss
how labour migration reifies the gendered nature of caregiving. Adherence to gender scripts can also be
witnessed when looking at migrant women’s decisions to go abroad and the way they show maternal
love through financial support. Migrant mothers may show their care through their financial
contributions to the household, in some cases ‘paradoxically resulting in the way mother–child ties are
reduced to commodity-based relations with love shown through material goods’. This then allows
them to transgress gender expectations by occupying the ‘breadwinning’ role of the family (Moors
2003). All of my respondents had careers prior to migrating, and agreed that earning money and being
their families’ primary providers heightened feelings of independence and self-worth.
L: Democracy
Democracy promotion is a tool of the state used to promote nuclear family ideals that
make women into property
Runyan and Peterson, professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at the University of Cincinnati and Professor of
International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona 91 (Anne Sisson and V Spike, “The Radical Future
of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 16:1, Winter 1991, JSTOR)//AS
Feminist theorists of the state have documented the connection between ("democratic") state
formation (expanding political participation for propertied males) and the "emergence of a relatively
nuclearized household/family unit" (constraining political participation for women as a class).127 That is,
"the family" - and women's subordination within it - does not precede but is historically constituted
by consolida- dons of state power. States institutionalize patriarchal households simultaneously as the basis for citizenship claims
and as the basic socioeconomic unit (facilitating labor mobilization, resource extraction, conscription for military and public works service,
regulation of property - including women - and legal control more generally). Thus, although
patriarchal customs precede
state formation, it is with the state that patriarchal relations are institutionalized - the exploitation of
women as a sexual class is here backed by the coercive power of the state.128 We here review the interweaving changes imposed by state
formation and their implications for gender hierarchy. All of the following interact in establishing and "naturalizing" this patriarchal oppression.
As noted above, in the conflict between reproduction of the kin community and emerging class relations, women's dual capacity (for
productive and reproductive labor) is abstracted from their multifaceted identities in kin group relations; women
lose kin claims to
property, become transmitters of property, and are treated as property themselves. The
establishment of relatively nuclear, household/family units under individual patriarchal control renders
women more vulnerable to and dependent upon fathers and husbands, while weakening their access
to countervailing power and support from larger kin networks. "What was once the realm of total social reproduction" in kin communities129 is shunted into individual household structures and assigned to women; male abdication of responsibility for this
socially necessary labor is hereby institutionalized and additionally legitimized by reference to separate, gender-differentiated spheres.
Democracy is far from free—marginalizes swaths of population and commits violence
against women
Caprioli, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota at Duluth 04 (Mary, “Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative
Methodology: A Critical Analysis”, International Studies Review 6:2, June 2004, JSTOR)//AS
It is true that often-used
measures tend to be biased by the worldviews of the scholars who constructed
them, and that those worldviews may or may not include considerations of gender. By largely ignoring feminist
empiricist scholarship, how- ever, conventional feminists are missing an opportunity to make an important contribution to IR scholarship in
helping identify and critique the gendered as- sumptions that can affect measurement and the interpretation of results. For il- lustrative
purposes in highlighting the importance of being precise in our definitions and measurements, let
us examine the democratic
peace thesis and the role of definitions. Feminists should join Ido Oren (1995) in debating how democracy
should be defined. Is the concept of democracy normative or a de- scription of the type of government found in the dominant states of
our sys- tem-those that cannot be characterized as autocratic or totalitarian? Or, perhaps, democracy should be based on political rights.
Spencer Weart(1994:302), for ex- ample,
labels a state a democracy "if the body of citizens with political rights
in- cludes at least two-thirds of the adult males." Notwithstanding the one-third of adult males who
are disenfranchised, this definition completely excludes women from the analysis. Feminists might also
wish to question the following assumption: "Democratic norms have become deeply entrenched,
since many states have been democracies for long periods and principles such as true universal
suffrage have been put into practice" (Maoz and Russett 1993:627). What exactly is true universal suffrage,
and what are democratic norms if they exclude women's social, economic, and political equality (see
Caprioli forthcoming-b)? Equally shocking is the statement that "in a democracy, the government rarely
needs to use force to resolve conflicts; order can be maintained without violent suppression" (Maoz and Russett 1993:630). Yet,
de- mocracies routinely overlook social violence and often this violence is against women (Broadbent
1993; Thomas 1993; Moon 1997; Caprioli 2003). By refusing to recognize quantitative methodologies as valid, feminists fail to offer a much
needed critique and reconceptualization of current IR research such as that just described. Feminists, in essence, are, then, not in a position to
take advantage of the opportunity to directly engage the broader community of IR scholars.
L: Capitalism/Neolib
Capitalism perpetuates the exclusion of women from male dominated fields like international
relations
Salleh 9 – Professor in Department of Political Economy @ University of Sydney, Ph.D Law, Ethics and
Public Affairs @ Griffith, MA Sociology @ Australian National University, BA Psychology @ University of
Tasmania (Ariel, “Sighting Animals through the Lens of Hegemonic Masculinity”, Capitalism Nature
Socialism, 2009, Vol. 20, No. 1, 130-134, RSpec)
Of course, templates for masculinity and femininity vary across time and space, but in today’s rapidly globalizing corporate
monoculture, it is the dominant sex-gender tradition that needs political attention. The rise of
capitalism and the industrial division of labor exacerbated existing gender differences by setting up men and
women with competing employments, social trajectories, and value constellations. Understanding this socio-economics is
necessary to account for contemporary sex-gender differences, but it is not a sufficient explanation. Kheel
complements the structural analysis with material from the psychological literature, particularly the fraught nature/nurture debate. And in
passing, she does a valuable service in demonstrating how Carol Gilligan’s important work on an “ethics of care” versus an “ethics of justice”
has been repeatedly misconstrued by an impatient academic readership.6 Kheel elaborates: “... in the postEnlightenment Western tradition,
care has been relegated to the realm of personal relations, distinct from the ‘more important’ public sphere which is the province of moral
justice is owed to individual rights holders who earn “the wages” of respect, whereas
care, traditionally associated with women, is outside of the moral economy. Care is perceived—and diminished—
theory.”7 By this view,
as a “natural capacity.”
Capitalism sexually divides labor and excludes women – this leads to female exploitation and sex
trafficking
Ruiz 4 – BA International Studies and Geography @ California State University, Ph.D Geography @ U of
Washington, M.A. Geography @ U of Washington (Tricia, “Feminist Theory and International Relations:
The Feminist Challenge to Realism and Liberalism”, latest date cited is 2004,
http://www.csustan.edu/honors/documents/journals/soundings/Ruiz.pdf, RSpec)
This suggests that the capitalist structure is a patriarchal one, effectively marginalizing the participation
and contributions of women in the economy, since much of their work is reflected in unpaid illegal or
domestic settings that are not included in economic assessments. Indeed, liberalist institutions such as
the WTO and multinational corporations have tended to create free trade agreements that weaken
state protections on labor rights 19 and public social funds, which has served to negatively affect the
large proportion of women in the labor force. This in turn camouflages issues of female exploitation,
such as the gendered division of labor and the increase in sex trafficking worldwide
Hegemonic masculinity is invisibly rooted in the neoliberal economics of the plan
Elias 9 – Ph.D Politics and International Studies @ U of Warwick, M.A. International Political Economy @
U of Warwick, BA Politics and Modern History @ U of Manchester, Research Fellow @ Griffith U
(Juanita, “Hegemonic Masculinity and Globalization: ‘Transnational Business Masculinities’ and Beyond”,
2009,
http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/33048/;jsessionid=AF004816F86BB4B66
3B21981AA0CD656?sequence=1, RSpec)
The emphasis on hegemonic masculinity brings important gendered issues to the forefront of
contemporary discussions of globalization. Perhaps most significantly, these writings draw attention to how
gender identities are thoroughly implicated in processes associated with neoliberal globalization.
Globalization and global politics are not gender-free but are rooted in the privileging of certain forms of
masculinity within what Connell terms a ‘world gender order’ (Connell, 2005a, pp.xxii). Thus whilst ‘most studies of globalization have little
or nothing to say about gender’ (Connell, 2005a, pp. xxi), Masculinity Studies scholars make visible the gendered character,
for example,
of the rhetorically gender-neutral neoliberal market agenda in global politics, diplomacy, international institutions
and economic policy-making. Such writings therefore clearly complement the emphasis in Feminist International Relations (IR) on the
ways in which both the theory and practice of global politics are thoroughly masculinized (Tickner, 1991; Whitworth,
1997).Making masculinity visible within the politics and processes associated with contemporary globalization matters because it forces those
of us who wish to develop a more critical understanding of globalization to understand how gender frames the world in which we live.
However, making masculinity visible is inevitably a difficult task. As Kimmel (1997) argues, masculinity has assumed the
banality of the unstated norm; not requiring comment, let alone explanation. Indeed, its invisibility be speaks its privilege.
The neoliberal model is founded on a hegemonic form of masculinity
Connell - Australian sociologist. She is currently University Professor at the University of Sydney 98(R.W., “Masculinities and
Globalization”,Men and Masculinities,Jul 1, 1998, SAGE)//js
The neoliberal agenda has little to say, explicitly, about gender: it speaks a gender-neutral language of
“markets." “individuals." and “choice." But the world in which neoliberalism is ascendant is still a
gendered world, and neoliberalism has an implicit gender politics. The “individual“ of ncoliberal
theory has in general the attributes and interests of a male entrepreneur. the attack on the welfare state
generally weakens the position of women. while the increasingly unregulated power of transnational
corporations places strategic power in the hands of particular groups of men. It is not surprising, then. that the
installation of capitalism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has been accompanied by a reassertion of dominating
mascu- linities and. in some situations, a sharp worsening in the social position of women.We might propose, then, that the
hegemonic form of masculinity in the current world gender order is the masculinity associated
with those who control its dominant institutions: the business executives who operate in global markets. and the
political executives who interact (and in many contexts. merge) with them. I will call this transnational business
masculin- ity. This is not readily available for ethnographic study, but we can get some clues to its character from its reflections
in management literature, business journalism, and corporate self-promotion, and from studies of local business elites (e.g.,
Donaldson I997). As a first approximation, I would suggest this is a masculinity marked by increasing
egocentrism, very conditional loyalties (even to the corporation), and a declining sense of responsibility for others
(except for purposes of image making). Gee. Hull. and Lankshear (1996). studying recent manage- ment textbooks. note the peculiar
construction of the executive in “fast capitalism" as a person with no permanent commitments, except (in efiect) to the idea of
accumulation itself. Transnational business masculinity is characterized by a limited technical rationality (management theory),
which is increasingly separate from science. Transnational business masculinity differs from traditional bourgeois masculinity by its
increasingly libertarian sexuality. with a growing tendency to commodify relations with women. Hotels catering to businessmen in
most parts of the world now routinely offer pornographic videos. and in some parts of the world. there is a well-developed
prostitution industry catering for international businessmen. Transnational business masculinity does not re-
quire bodily force, since the patriarchal dividend on which it rests is accu- mulated by impersonal,
institutional means. But corporations increasingly use the exemplary bodies of elite sportsmen as a marketing tool (note the
phenomenal growth of corporate "sponsorship” of sport in the last genera- tion) and indirectly as a means of legitimation for the
whole gender order.
The aff’s neoliberal application of economics posits an androcentric view of politics
and discourse
True ’5 – Lecturer in International Politics, University of Auckland, New Zealand (Jacqui, Theories of International
Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 224, http://gendocs.ru/docs/35/34939/conv_1/file1.pdf)//SS
Feminist theorists interpret the state as the centralized, main organizer¶ of gendered power, working
in part through the manipulation of public¶ and private spheres (Connell 1990). It is not a ‘coherent
identity subordinate to the gaze of a single interpretative centre’ as in neo-realist¶ theories (Ashley
1988: 230). This notion reflects, rather, an idealized¶ model of hegemonic masculinity and the
patriarchal foundations of the¶ state form . International Relations feminists argue that the state manipulates gender
identities for its own internal unity and external legitimacy. Men are socialized to identify with constructions of
masculinity¶ which emphasize autonomy, male superiority, fraternity, strength, public¶ protector roles
and ultimately the bearing of arms. Women, on the other¶ hand, are taught to defer, as wives and daughters, to the protection
and¶ stronger will of men, while providing the private emotional, economic¶ and social support systems for men’s war activities. Moreover,
feminist¶ analysts view states as implicated in a range of forms of violence against¶ women.
For instance, the liberal state
supports violence against women¶ through its stance of non-intervention in the private sphe re, and
its legal¶ definition of rape from a male standpoint, which assumes that the¶ absence of overt coercion
implies female consent despite the context of¶ gendered power relations (Pateman 1989; Peterson
1992: 46–7).
L: Environment
US approaches to the environment are gendered and hierarchical—cannot solve
without feminist analysis
Dobscha, Associate Editor, Qualitative Methods and Critical Theory, European Journal of Marketing 93 (Susan, “Women and the
Environment: Applying Ecofeminism to Environmentally-Related Consumption”, Advances in Consumer Research 20, 1993,
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7417)//AS
Eighteen years ago, well
before the current environmental movement emerged, feminist theologian Rosemary Ruether
cautioned women to look with suspicion on the symbolic role that women would be asked to play in
an ecological crisis as portrayed by the dominant (patriarchal) culture's perspective: Any effort to reconcile such a
male with "nature," which does not restructure the psychology and social patterns which make nature "alien," will tend to shape
women, the patriarchal symbol of "nature," (emphasis added) into romanticized servitude to a male-defined alienation. Women
will again be asked to be the "natural" wood-nymph and earth mother and to create places of escape from the destructive patterns of the
dominant culture. Ruether's statement illustrates several elements that comprise ecofeminism. First, nature
has been conceived by
the dominant culture as "alien" and separate from humans. This human/nature separation is what
feminists call a dualism which is when two concepts are separated and used for analysis. Feminists add the idea that when two
concepts such as nature and humans are separated, hierarchy forms and one is given a higher status
than another. In this case, humans dominate nature. Second, Ruether's quote suggests that women and nature
have traditionally been aligned in terms of symbols and terminology. The popular media has demonstrated this by
popularizing the slogan "Love your mother earth." Other examples that engender nature are "raping the
land," and "virgin resources." Third, women are already very visible in local grassroots movements and other political activist
groups centered on changing policy and rampant consumerism in order to save the environment. Thus, women have already begun to play that
major role in the environmental movement that Ruether prophesied. One such role is that of environmentally-conscious consumer. The
primary belief of ecofeminism is that the domination
of women (as studied in traditional feminism) parallels the domination
of nature and that this mutual domination has led to environmental destruction by the controlling
patriarchal society. Within feminism, a locus of scholars believe that a historical, symbolic, and theoretical connection exists between
the domination of nature and women. This philosophy is based on four principles (Warren 1990): 1) there are vital connections between the
oppression of nature and women, 2) understanding
these connections is necessary to understanding the two
veins of oppression, 3) feminist theory must include an ecological perspective, and 4) ecological
problems must include a feminist perspective.
Attempts to change consumption patterns and use technological fixes only perpetuate
a destructive, patriarchal view of the environment
Dobscha, Associate Editor, Qualitative Methods and Critical Theory, European Journal of Marketing 93 (Susan, “Women and the
Environment: Applying Ecofeminism to Environmentally-Related Consumption”, Advances in Consumer Research 20, 1993,
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7417)//AS
In order to maintain a strong research and political agenda in the area of environmentally-related consumption, a
new approach to
research is needed. This approach will overcome the weaknesses of past research by: 1) placing less emphasis on rational
plans to change behavior that will "fix" the planet, 2) placing more value on the passionate and emotional aspects of
consumers' connection with the earth, 3) emphasizing the interdependency of nature and humans, and
4) allowing for a more contextual and deeper analysis of the behaviors that comprise environmentally-related consumption. "Fix it" Ideology
The first critique is based on the "fix
it" ideology. It is assumed that humans can "fix" the environment; nature is
viewed as a force that can be harnessed or controlled and somehow humans are separate from nature,
thereby, creating a human/nature dualism. The separation of humans and nature allows humans to do things to
the environment that they would not do if they conceived of nature as being part of entire system of
which humans were one part. Ecofeminism criticizes the use of dualisms in analysis (Plumwood 1991). More formally
stated, a dualism is a disjunctive pair [of concepts] in which the disjuncts are seen as oppositional (rather than complementary) and exclusive
(rather than inclusive) and which place higher value (status, prestige) on one disjunct rather than the other (Warren 1990, p. 128). Dualisms
such as human/nature foster a value-hierarchical mode of thinking that in turns gives rise to
domination. Feminist philosophy has derided the use of dualisms for categorization in all realms and ecofeminists have specifically chosen
to focus on the human/nature dualism as the source of human oppression of nature. The human/nature dualism is the primary object of
criticism in ecofeminism because of the manner in which humans and nature are separated and in opposition with each other. This
dualism implies that humans are superior to nature and can thus dominate and control it. A recent
commercial for a Time/Life Video series provides disturbing evidence for the idea that humans are superior to nature. It shows animals "in the
wild" (meaning their natural habitat) "violently killing their prey" (hunting for survival). The commercial then warns the viewer that some
scenes may be unsuitable for young viewers and ends with the disturbing statement: "See why we call them animals". Animals killing other
animals in order to survive is a "violent" act. Yet, is it more violent than when humans kill other humans for a pair of tennis shoes?
Currently, the "just fix it" mentality prevails. Traditional ERC research reflected this principle when researchers focused on
behavior modification (making the house more energy efficient, using less electricity when cooking, etc.). In tune with this behavior
modification agenda, American companies
are rushing to produce products that will be deemed
environmentally safe or friendly by consumers. Yet, focusing on consuming differently (in terms of switching
"good" products for "bad") does not solve the problem of overconsumption, which is the core problem of which
buying hazardous products is a symptom. By providing products that help "fix" the environment, American firms have redirected the focus of
the environmental movement away from their own wasteful manufacturing processes. As one consumer put it: "It [should] be up to the
manufacturers to reduce packaging and pollution... The average person can only do so much (Reitman 1992)."
L: War
The aff’s focus on war perpetuates male dominance and excludes women
Tickner 92 – Professor of International Relations @ USC Ph.D Political Science @ Brandeis, M.A.
International Relations @ Yale, B.A. History @ University of London (J. Ann, “Gender in International
Relations”, PDF, http://www.ces.uc.pt/ficheiros2/files/Short.pdf, RSpec)
With is focus on the “high” politics of war and the Realpolitik, the traditional Western academic discipline
of international relations privileges issues that grow out of men’s experiences; we are socialized into
believing that war and power politics are spheres of activity with which men have a special affinity and
that their voices in describing and prescribing for this world are therefore likely to be more authentic.
The roles traditionally ascribe to women—in reproduction, in households, and even in the economy—
are generally considered irrelevant to the traditional construction of the field. Ignoring women’s
experiences contributes not only to their exclusion but also to a process of self-selection that results
in an overwhelmingly male population in both the foreign policy world and in the academic field of
international relations. This selection process begins with the way we are taught to think about world politics; if women’s
experiences were to be included, a radical redefinition of the field would have to take place.
L: Oil
Expanding Oil creates a patriarchy of a government
Ross, ’06 – Professor at UCLA Department of Political Science (Michael, “Oil and
Patriarchy”, August 2006)//CC
The production of oil has a harmful effect on the economic and political status of women. Oil
production reduces the participation of women in the labor force by crowding out the economic
sectors that tend to employ women. Since fewer women work outside the home, they are less able to
organize politically, less likely to lobby for expanded rights, and less likely to gain representation in
government. As a result, oil-producing states are left withatypically strong patriarchal institutions.This
argument is supported by global data on oil production and female work patterns, female political
representation, and public opinion about gender relations. The link between oil production and female
status has implications for our understanding of Islam and the Middle East, modernization theory, and
the economic and political ailments of resource-rich states.
L: Tourism
Neocolonial and sexualizing images are embedded in tourism promotion
Pettman, Professor and Director of the Centre for Women's Studies at the Australian National University 97 (Jan Jindy, “Body Politics:
International Sex Tourism”, Third World Quarterly 18:1, 3/97, JSTOR)//AS
Now tourist brochures, airline advertisements, and hosting
states' enticements regularly feature a new Orientalism
in constructing both tourist destination states and their women. Receiving states are feminised, and
along with women are aligned with nature, receptivity, and sexual allure and danger.23 These images
collude provocatively with colonial representations, though this time they may be called up and sold by ex-colonised or
Third World men and states, too. Tourism offers adventure, escape, something different. Tourist sites specialise
in staged authenticity, and appeal to tourist, often presumed male, fantasies.24 In the process, particular kinds
of bodies are represented, constructed, circulated, sold. The Southeast Asian woman becomes a body,
not a voice; not a subject, but subjected, available for men's gaze or purchase. She is sexualised, and perhaps a
comfort too; more skilled in pleasuring men than the tourist's own group women are. The latter may be seen as feminist infected, and
'Culture' is deployed to justify the use made of 'other' women's bodies, to excuse
abuses, including flouting any notion of age of consent and using child prostitutes. Poverty, too, is used in a
functional explanation of the sale or purchase, helping out those who have no other option, and
whose earnings are presumed (rightly, often) to be providing a modicum of income for impoverished
families. In the process, bodies are displayed and put into performance. The bodies of the sex tourist are not so evident, though when they
therefore difficult.
are made visible, it is often also in stereotypic form, as the aging, ugly white male predator, as en-masse besuited Japanese businessmen, as
the macho US military man.
L: General
International politics is based on a hegemonic masculinity that values violence and
force
Tickner, distinguished scholar in residence at the School of International Services at American University92 (J. Ann, “Gender in
International Relations Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security”, Columbia Press, 1992,
http://www.ces.uc.pt/ficheiros2/files/Short.pdf)//AS
Masculinity and politics have a long and close association. Characteristics associated with "manliness,"
such as toughness, courage, power, independence, and even physical strength, have, throughout history, been those
most valued in the conduct of politics, particularly international politics. Frequently, manliness has also been
associated with violence and the use of force, a type of behavior that, when conducted in the
international arena, has been valorized and applauded in the name of defending one's country. This
celebration of male power, particularly the glorification of the male warrior , produces more of a gender
dichotomy than exists in reality for, as R. W. Connell points out, this stereotypical image of masculinity does not fit
most men. Connell suggests that what he calls "hegemonic masculinity," a type of culturally dominant masculinity that he
distinguishes from other subordinated masculinities, is a socially constructed cultural ideal that, while it does not correspond
to the actual personality of the majority of men, sustains patriarchal authority and legitimizes a patriarchal political
and social orderHegemonic masculinity is sustained through its opposition to various subordinated and
devalued masculinities, such as homosexuality, and, more important, through its relation to various devalued femininities. Socially
constructed gender differences are based on socially sanctioned, unequal relationships between men and women that reinforce compliance
with men's stated superiority. Nowhere
in the public realm are these stereotypical gender images more
apparent than in the realm of international politics, where the characteristics associated with hegemonic
masculinity are projected onto the behavior of states whose success as international actors is measured in
terms of their power capabilities and capacity for self-help and autonomy.
The conditions in Latin America are prime for gender inequality.
Barrig, Peruvian feminist journalist and researcher and founder of Women for Democracy, 2006
(Maruja, “Latin American Feminism: Gains, Losses and Hard Times,” Dispatches from Latin America: On
the Frontlines Against Neoliberalism, pages 49-50)//SB
Latin American feminism of the 1970s and 19805 putforward two sets of demands: equal rights for
women andeconomic redistribution. On the one hand, Latin Americanfeminists threw themselves into
the struggle for new institutionaland legal frameworks that would put women's rights on the
samefooting 35 universal human rights, which until recently wereseen as implicitly male prerogatives.
But at the same time, acutelyaware of the wide gulf between the rich and poor, these feminists
demanded urgent action to improve the miserable living conditions of millions of women in their
countries. Thoseawareconditions, they knew, swelled the number of maternal deaths, illiterate
women, women eking out a living in the informal sector and single mothers. More recently, the fabric
that united all feminists has at times been ripped as feminists developed the specialized skills and
strategies needed to pursue one or the other set of demands. The connection between the struggles
for legal and economic rights grew more tenuous just as the gap widened between both of those
battles and the rapid transformations of Latin American states. These political changes produced a
pernicious acceptance of the limits of government, its restricted regulatory role and the sovereignty of
the market. Thus in the Andean region, celebrated victories such as the creation of government
institutions to serve women and quota laws to increase their political participation have become
frayed at the edges by the persistent reality of inequality among women. Continuing poverty among
indigenous, shantytown and peasant women presents a daunting challenge. While the new millennium
has excited some women with its promises, it has passed over thousands of others, relegating them to
daily-life conditions typical to the end of the nineteenth century. In the years since Beijing, tensions
have emerged between the advances of women in achieving legal equality and the persistent social and
economic inequality in our countries. The convulsive political situations in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and
Colombia, coupled with the continuing lack of stable legal systems in Nicaragua, El Salvador and
Guatemala, make the institutional foundations of the Latin America state shaky, civil rights precarious
and social participation largely a myth. How do we, given these conditions, first put in place and then
maintain the principles of legal equality for women? And how do we, in an economic model
characterized by a growing concentration of wealth and little sharing of benefits, find that minimum
threshold required for exercise of women’s rights?
L: State
The state is inherently patriarchal as it resorts to war in order to maintain
hegemony
Youngs 04- Lecurer in the Centre for Mass Communication Research, University of Leicester (Gillian, “Feminist International
Relations: A Contradiction in Terms?”, International Affairs, Jan 2004, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3569295)//js
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-centred
terms, binding 'authentic politics exclusively within territorially-bound communities'.20 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
institutionalised by the 'sovereignty contract' and the 'sexual contract' of modern European
state-making, which issimultaneously-and not coincidentally-the making of rational man, the
sovereign subject and political agency. In this historical context, politics-as concept and action-is rendered definitely
masculine and political identity is gendered both conceptually (in terms of how we think about political agency, subjectivity and
subject-ive relations) and empirically (in terms of how we organise political activities, structures and object-ive relations).2' 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'.22 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.'23 Hoffinan explores the problematics and complexities of the
characteristic of the state as the sole legitimate user of force in the interests of maintaining 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 field 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.25 Carolyn Nordstrum 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 surrounding violence and war, especially when it comes to children. If silence is
political, not-knowing is at the core of power and its abuses.
International relations are inherently gendered – their understanding of IR are
not grounded in objective truths
Steans 98 – Senior Lecturer in International Relations Theory, Director of the Graduate School for the University of
Birmingham (Jill, “Gender and International Relations, An Introduction,” 1998, page 3-5)//js
The second major aim of this book is to demonstrate how insights
drawn from feminist scholarship, in both
International Relations and other fields of study, can be used to challenge conventional or orthodox
approaches to the discipline. Feminists have long pointed out that key concepts and ideas in social and political theory
contain gender bias.” In the last ten years, feminist scholars have demonstrated that International Relations is also a profoundly
gendered ideology or discourse.“ Feminist critiques of International Relations have concentrated particularly on realist and neorealist traditions of thought, and this concern with real- ism/neo-realism as the ‘orthodoxy’ in International Relations is reflected in
this book. Feminist critiques have demonstrated how realism as a dominant theory of International
Relations is not grounded in eternal truths about the real world. There is no ofiective social and
political reality ‘out there’. Our ‘reality’ is constituted by intersulykctive understanding of a
complex social and political world. The construction of meaning also involves the use of imagery and symbolism. Power
is profoundly implicated in the construction of knowledge and the categories and concepts which are employed to construct our
‘reality’. Feminist critiques are particularly powerful because by exposing the gender bias in key
concepts in realism and highlighting the profoundly gen- dered imagery and symbolism
employed in realist texts, they ad- dress the politics of knowledge construction in concrete ways.
Feminist critiques also encourage critical reflection upon the claims. The third debate in
International‘ Relations has raised questions about the social and political dynamics involved in the construction of knowledge.
Somewhat belatedly perhaps, Interna- tional Relations scholars have begun to think through the impli- cations of the insight that
understanding and explaining international relations does not simply involve identifying the structures and processes which will be
the object of study, but also reflecting critically upon what can be said to constitute knowledge of the world. In the realist/neo-realist
orthodoxy the state is fre- quently taken to be the main actor in International Relations. Furthermore, knowledge about the
world is constructed from the ‘point of view’ of the state as actor. To challenge the orthodoxy in
International Relations is, therefore, to challenge the notion that the state is the subiect of
knowledge. The third debate has addressed the consequences of the domi- nance of realism in terms of how the field of
International Rela- tions has been mapped out conceptually. That is, of how categories for ‘understanding’ and ‘explaining’
international re- lations have been constructed and how this has served to delimit the scope of the ‘legitimate’ field of study. The
influence of crit- ical theories, in a broad sense,9 has encouraged a transgressing of the
boundaries between academic disciplines. This development has encouraged some International Relations scholars
to draw upon insights developed in other fields of study, including the insights derived from feminist scholarship. In some respects,
therefore, contemporary feminist theorists working in Interna- tional Relations, while having their own distinctive agendas, share
some common ground with other critical theorists. Concentrating specifically on gender in the context of contemporary
theoretical debates in International Relations has
the additional attraction of serving to introduce some
issues in ways which ground the discussions in concrete concerns and easily
understandable issues.
difficult and complex
Heterosexism is inherent in state-building—inextricable from notions of entitlement
and power over women
Peterson, Professor of International Relations at the University of Arizona 99( V. Spike, “Sexing Political Identities / Nationalism as
Heterosexism”, International Feminist Journal of Politics 1:1, June 1999,
http://webhome.idirect.com/~yu176197/CF/articles/Sexing%20Political%20Identities-Nationalism%20as%20Heterosexism.pdf)//AS
Whereas heterosexuality refers to sex/affective relations between people of the ‘opposite’ sex, heterosexism
refers to the
institutionalization and normalization of heterosexuality and the corollary exclusion of nonheterosexual identities and practices.9 For analytical simplicity, I make reference to inter- active dimensions of heterosexism: as
conceptual system, gender identities, sex/affective relations, and social institutions. Briefly here, and elsewhere at length, I argue that the
conjuncture of heterosexist ideology and practice is inextricable from the centralization of political
authority/coercive power that we refer to as state-making.10 The argument is expanded in the discussion of gendered
nationalism that follows. Heterosexist ideology involves a symbolic order/intersubjective meaning system of
hierarchical dichotomies that codify sex as male–female biological difference, gender as masculine–
feminine subjectivity, and sexuality as heterosexual–homosexual identifycation.11 Heterosexism is
‘naturalized’ through multiple discourses, especially western political theory and religious dogma, and by reification of the (patriarchal) ‘family’
as ‘pre-political’ – as ‘natural’ and non-contractual. The
binary of male–female difference is exemplified and well documented
in all collective meaning systems where the
hierarchical dichotomy of gender is foundational to symbolic ordering and discursive practice. This symbolic
ordering produces the binary of male– female bodies as well as a binary of masculine–feminine identities. The conceptual ordering
of masculine over feminine is inextricable from political ordering imposed in state-making and
reproduced through masculinist discourse (political theory, religious dogma) that legitimizes the
state’s hier- archical relations. Insofar as (hegemonic) masculinity is constituted as reason, order, and
control, masculine domination is reproduced through conceptual systems that privilege male
entitlement – to authority, power, property, nature. Central to this ideology is male entitlement to
women’s sexuality, bodies, and labor.
in western metaphysics (hence, political theory/practice) but evident
Notions of nation-states are male-dominated and embody a politics of “not-seeing”
towards women’s suffering and violence against them
Youngs, Professor of Digital Economy and Academic Director of the Institute of Advanced Broadcasting at the University of Wales 04
(Gillian, “Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender Are Essential to Understanding the World
'We' Live in”, International Affairs 80:1, 1/04, JSTOR)//AS
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'.22 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.'23 Hoffinan
explores the problematics and complexities of the characteristic of the state as the sole legitimate user of force in the interests of maintaining
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 field 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.25 Carolyn Nordstrum has forcefully explained: It
internal and external order, a legitimacy deriving in the liberal tradition from the social contract.24
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 surrounding violence and war, especially when it comes
to children. If silence is political, not-knowing is at the core of power and its abuses.26 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 oppres- sion, 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. 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.27
L: Technostrategic Discourse
Technostrategic discourse segregates emotion and destructive power – this becomes
problematic.
Cohn, Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 1987 (Carol, “Sex and Death
in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4, Within and Without: Women,
Gender, and Theory. (Summer, 1987), pp.
687-718)//CS
Entering the world of defense intellectuals was a bizarre experience-bizarre because it is a world where
men spend their days calmly and matter-of-factly discussing nuclear weapons, nuclear strategy, and
nuclear war.The discussions are carefully and intricately reasoned, occurring seemingly without any
sense of horror, urgency, or moral outrage-in fact, there seems to be no graphic reality behind the
words, as they speak of "firststrikes," "counterforce exchanges," and "limited nuclear war," or as
theydebate the comparative values of a "minimum deterrent posture" versus a"nuclear war-fighting
capability."Yet what is striking about the men themselves is not, as the content oftheir conversations
might suggest, their cold-bloodedness. Rather, it isthat they are a group of men unusually endowed with
charm, humor,intelligence, concern, and decency. Reader, l liked them. At least, I likedmany of them.
The attempt to understand how such men could contributeto an endeavor that I see as so
fundamentally destructive became a continuing obsession for me, a lens through which l came to
examine all of myexperiences in their world.ln this early stage, l was gripped by the extraordinary
language used todiscuss nuclear war. What hit me first was the elaborate use of abstraction and
euphemism, of words so bland that they never forced the speaker or enabled the listener to touch the
realities of nuclear holocaust that lay behind the words.Anyone who has seen pictures of Hiroshima
bomb victims or tried to imagine the pain of hundreds of glass shards blasted into flesh may find it
perverse beyond imagination to hear a class of nuclear devices matter-oh lastly referred to as "clean
bombs," "Clean bombs" are nuclear devices thatare largely fusion rather than fission and that therefore
release a higherquantity of energy, not as radiation, hut as blast, as destructive explosivepowers"Clean
bombs" may provide the perfect metaphor for the language ofdefense analysts and arms controllers.
This language has enormous destructive power, but without emotional fallout, without the emotional
fallout that would result if it were clear one was talking about plans for mass murder, mangled
bodies, and unspeakable human suffering. Defense analysts talk about "countervalue attacks" rather than
about incinerating cities. Human death, in nuclear parlance, is most often referred to as "collateral damage"; or, as
one defense analyst said wryly, "The Air Force doesn’t target people, it targets shoe factories."" Some phrases
carry this cleaning-up to the point of invertlng meaning. The MX missile will carry ten warheads, each with the
explosure power of 300-475 kilotons of TNT: one missile the bearer of destruction approximately 250-400 times
that of the Hiroshima bombing,"• Ronald Reagan has dubbed the MX missile "the Peacekeeper," While this
renaming was the object of considerable scorn in the community of defense analysts, these very same analysts
refer to the MX as a "damage limitation weapon." These phrases, only a few of the hundreds that could be
discussed, exemplify the astounding chasm between image and reality that characterizes technostrategic
language. They also hint at the terrifying way in which the existence of nuclear devices has distorted our
perceptions and redefined the world. "Clean bombs"• tells us that radiation Is the only "dirty" part of killing
people. To take this one step further, such phrases can even scam healthful/curative/corrective. So that we not
only have "clean bomb" but also "surgically clean strikes" ("counterforce" attacks that can purportedly "take out"i.e., accurately destroy-an opponents’ weapons or command centers without musing significant injury no anything
else). The image of excision of the offending weapon is unspeakably ludicrous when the surgical tool is not a
delicately controlled scalpel but a nuclear warhead. And somehow it seems to be forgotten that even scalpels spill
blood."
Technostrategic discourse is dominated by phallic worship.
Cohn, Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 1987 (Carol, “Sex and Death
in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4, Within and Without: Women,
Gender, and Theory. (Summer, 1987), pp.
687-718)//CS
Feminists have often suggested that an important aspect of the arms race is phalllcworship, that
"missile envy" is a significant motivating force in the nuclear build-up. "l have always found this an
uncomfortably reductionistexplanation and hoped that my research at the Center would yield a
morecomplex analysis. But still, I was curious about the extent to which I mightfind a sexual subtext in
the defense professionals' discourse. l was notprepared for what l found,I think l had naively imagined
myself as a feminist spy in the house ofdeath--that l would need to sneak around and eavesdrop on
what men saidin unguarded moments, using all my subtlety and cunning to unearthwhatever sexual
imagery might be underneath how they thought andspoke. l had naively believed that these men, at
least in public, wouldappear to be aware of feminist critiques. lf they had not changed theirlanguage, I
thought that at least at some point in a long talk about "penetration aids," someone would suddenly
look up, slightly embarrassed to becaught in such blatant confirmation of feminist analyses of What’s
Going on Here. Of course, I was wrong. There was no evidence that any feminist critiques had ever
reached the ears, much less the minds, of these men.American military dependence on nuclear
weapons was explained as"irresistible, because you get more bang for the buck." Another
lecturersolemnly and scientifically announced "to disarm is to get rid of all yourstuff."• (this may, in
turn, explain why they see serious tall: of nucleardisarmament as perfectly resistible, not to mention
foolish. lf disarmamentis emasculation, how could any real man even consider it?) A professor’s
explanation of why the MX missile is to be placed in the silos of the newest Minuteman missiles,
instead of replacing the older, less accurate ones, was "because they're in the nicest hole-you're not
going to take the nicest missile you have and put it in a crummy hole." Other lectures were filled with
discussion of vertical erector launchers, thrust-no-weight ratios, soft lay downs, deep penetration, and
the comparative advantages of protracted versus spasm attacks-or what one military adviser to the
NationalSecurity Council has called "releasing 70 to 80 percent of our megatonnagein one orgasmic
whump."" There was serious concern about the need to harden our missiles and the need to "face it,
the Russians are a little harder than we. Disbelieving glances would occasionally pass between meand
my one ally in the summer program, another woman, but no one elseseemed to notice.If the imagery is
transparent, its significance may be less so. Thetemptation ls to draw some conclusions about the
defense intellectualsthemselves-about what they are really talking about, or their motivations;but the
temptation is worth resisting. Individual motivations cannot necessarily be read directly from imagery,
the imagery itself does not originate inthese particular individuals but in a broader cultural
context.Sexual imagery has, of course, been a part of the world of warfare sincelong before nuclear
weapons were even a gleam in a physicist’s eye. The history of the atomic bomb project itself is rife
with avert images of competitive male sexuality, as is the discourse of the early nuclear physicists,
strategists, and SAC commanders." Both the military itself and the arms manufacturers are constantly
exploiting the phallic imagery and promise of sexual domination that their weapons so conveniently
suggest.A quick glance at the publications that constitute some of the research¶ sources for defense
intellectuals makes the depth and pervasiveness of theimagery evident.
The practice of petting missiles is an assertion of domination.
Cohn, Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 1987 (Carol, “Sex and Death
in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4, Within and Without: Women,
Gender, and Theory. (Summer, 1987), pp.
687-718)//CS
During the summer program, a group of us visited the New LondonNavy base where nuclear submarines
are homeported and the GeneralDynamics Electric Boat boatyards where a new Trident submarine was
being constructed. At one point during the trip we took a tour of a nuclearpowered submarine. When
we reached the part of the sub where themissiles are housed, the officer accompanying us turned with a
grin andasked if we wanted to stick our hands through a hole to "pat the missile."Pat the missile?The
image reappeared the next week, when a lecturer scornfullydeclared that the only real reason for
deploying cruise and Pershing llmissiles in Western Europe was "so that our allies can pat them."
Somemonths later, another group of us went to be briefed at NORAD (the North¶ American Aerospace
Defense Command). On the way back, our planewent to refuel at Offut Air Force Base, the Strategic Air
Command headquarters near Omaha, Nebraska. When word leaked out that our landingwould be
delayed because the new B-1 bomber was in the area, the planebecame charged with a tangible
excitement that built as we flew in ourholding pattern, people craning their necks to try to catch a
glimpse of theB-1 in the skies, and climaxed as we touched down on the runway andhurtled past it.
Later, when l returned to the Center I encountered a manwho, unable to go on the trip, said to me
enviously, "I hear you got to pat a B-1." What is all this "patting"•? What are men doing when they
"pat" these high tech phalluses? Petting is an assertion of intimacy, sexual possession, and
affectionate domination. The thrill and pleasure of "patting the missile" is the proximity of all that
phallic power, the possibility of vicariously appropriating it as one's own.But if the predilection for
patting phallic objects indicates something ofthe homoerotic excitement suggested by the language, it
also has anotherside. For patting is not only an act of sexual intimacy. lt is also what one does to babies,
small children, the pet dog. One pats that which is small, cute, and harmless-not terrifyingly
destructive. Pat it, and its lethality disappears. Much of the sexual imagery l heard was rife with the
sort of ambiguitysuggested by "patting the missiles." The imagery can be construed as a deadly serious
display of the connections between masculine sexuality and the Arms race. At the same lime, it can
also be heard as a way of minimizing the seriousness of militarist endeavors, of denying their deadly
consequences. A former Pentagon target analyst, in telling me why he thoughtplans for "limited nuclear
war" were ridiculous, Said, "Look, you gottaunderstand that it`s a pissing contest-you gotta expect them
to use everything they've got." What does this image say? Most obviously, that this isall about
competition for manhood, and thus there is tremendous danger,But at the same time, the image
diminishes the contest and its outcomes,by representing it as an act of boyish mischief.
Nuclear discourse is gendered - the aff uses patriarchal analogies.
Cohn, Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 1987 (Carol, “Sex and Death
in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4, Within and Without: Women,
Gender, and Theory. (Summer, 1987), pp.
687-718)//CS
"Virginity" also made frequent, arresting, appearances in nuclear discourse.ln the summer program,
one professor spoke of lndia's explosion ofa nuclear bomb as "losing her virginity"; the question of how
the UnitedStates should react was posed as whether or not we should "throw heraway." lt is a
complicated use of metaphor, initiation into the nuclear world involves being delivered, losing one's
innocence, knowing sin, all wrapped up into one. Although the manly United States is no virgin, and
proud of it, the double standard raises its head in the question of whether or not a woman is still
worth anything to a man once she has lost her virginity.New Zealand`s refusal to allow nuclear-armed
or nuclear-poweredworships into its ports prompted similar reflections on virginity. A goodexample is
provided by Retired US. Air Fame General Ross Milton's angrycolumn in Air Force Magazine, entitled,
"Nuclear Virginity." His tone isthat of a man whose advances have been spurned. He is contemptuous of
the woman's protestation that she wants to remain pure, innocent of nuclear weapons; her moral
reluctance is a quaint and ridiculous throwback. But beyond contempt, he also feels outraged-after
all, this is a woman we have paid for, who still will not come across. He suggests that we withdraw our
goods and services and then we will see just how long she tries to hold onto her virtue." The
patriarchal bargain could not be laidout more clearly.Another striking metaphor of patriarchal power
came early in thesummer program, when one of the faculty was giving a lecture on deterrence. To give
us a concrete example from outside the world of militarystrategy, he described having a seventeenyear-old son of whose TV-watching habits he disapproves. He deals with the situation by threatening to
break his son's arm if he turn on the TV again. "That`s deterrence!"he said triumphantly.What is so
striking about this analogy is that at first it seems soinappropriate. 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 wehave been taught to view it, it is nonetheless extremely revealing
aboutU.S. nuclear deterrence as an operational, rather than rhetorical or declaratory policy. What it
suggests is the speciousness of the defensiverhetoric that surrounds deterrence-of the idea that we line
an implacableenemy and that we stockpile nuclear weapons only in an attempt to defendourselves.
Instead, what we see is the drive to superior power as a means toexercise one's will and a readiness to
threaten the disproportionate use offorce in order to achieve one`s own ends. There is no question here
ofrecognizing competing but legitimate needs, no desire no negotiate, discuss, or compromise, and
most important, no necessity for that recognitionor 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
ofcountries other than the United States, our NATO allies, or the USSR wasin a lecture on nuclear
proliferation. The point was made that youngercountries simply could not be trusted to know what was
good for them, norwere they yet fully responsible, so nuclear weapons in their hands wouldbe much
more dangerous than in ours. The metaphor used was that ofparents needing to set limits for their
children.
Nuclear discourse treats ultimate destruction as male rebirth.
Cohn, Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 1987 (Carol, “Sex and Death
in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4, Within and Without: Women,
Gender, and Theory. (Summer, 1987), pp.
687-718)//CS
There is one set of domestic images that demands separate attention images that suggest men`s
desire to appropriate from women the power of giving life and that conflate creation and destruction.
The bomb project is rife with images of male birth." ln December 1942, Ernest Lawrence’s telegram to
the physicists at Chicago read, "Congratulations to the newparents. Can hardly wait to see the new
arrival. " At Los Alamos, the atombomb was referred to as "Oppenheiruerk baby," One of the
physicistsworking at Los Alamos, Richard Feynman, writes that when he wastemporarily on leave after
his wife`s death, he received a telegram saying,"The baby is expected on such and such a day. " At
Lawrence Livermore,the hydrogen bomb was referred to as “Teller's baby," although those whowanted
to disparage Edward Teller`s contribution claimed he was not thebomb's father but its mother. They
claimed that Stanislaw Ulam was thereal father; he had the all important idea and inseminated Teller
with it.Teller only "carried it" after that."•Forty years later, this idea of male birth and its accompanying
belittling of maternity-the denial of women's role in the process of creation and the reduction of
"motherhood" to the provision of nurturance (apparentlyTeller did not need to provide an egg, only a
womb)-seems thoroughly incorporated into the nuclear mentality, as I learned on a subsequent visitto
U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs One of the briefings Iattended included discussion of a new
satellite system, the not yet "on line"MILSTAR system."• The officer doing the briefing gave an excited
recitation of its technical capabilities and then an explanation of the new Unified Space Commander’s
role in the system, Self-effacingly he said, "We`ll do themotherhood role-telemetry, tracking, and
control-the maintenance." In light of the imagery of male birth, the extraordinary names given to the
bombs that reduced Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ash and rubble- "Little Boy" and "Fat Man"-at last
become intelligible. These ultimate destroyers were the progeny of the atomic scientists-and
emphatically not just any progeny but male progeny. ln early tests, before they werecertain that the
bombs would work, the scientists expressed their concern by saying that they hoped the baby was a
boy, not a girl-that is, not adud."• General Grove's triumphant cable to Secretary of War Henry Stimson
at the Potsdam conference, informing him that the first atomic bombtest was successful read, after
decoding: "Doctor has just returned mostenthusiastic and confident that the little boy is as husky as his
big brother.The light in his eyes discernible from here to Highhold and I could haveheard his screams
from here to my farm.” Stimson, in tum, informedChurchill by writing him a note that read, "Babies
satisfactorily born. "" lnI952, Teller's exultant telegram to Los Alamos announcing the successfultest of
the hydrogen bomb, "Mike," at Eniwetok Atoll in the MarshallIslands, read, "It's a boy."•" The nuclear
scientists gave birth to male progeny with the ultimate power of violent domination over female
Nature. The defense intellectuals' project is the creation of abstract formulations to control the forces
the scientists created-and to participate thereby in their world-creating/destroying power,The entire
history of the bomb project, in fact, seems permeated withimagery that confounds man's overwhelming
technological power to destroy nature with the power to create-imagery that inverts men's destruction
and asserts in its place the power to create new life and a new world. lt converts men's destruction
into their rebirth.
Technostrategic discourse is structurally problematic – it removes the speaker from
the position of the victim.
Cohn, Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 1987 (Carol, “Sex and Death
in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4, Within and Without: Women,
Gender, and Theory. (Summer, 1987), pp.
687-718)//CS
There are no ways to describe the phenomena represented in the firstwith the language of the second.
Learning to speak the language of defenseanalysts is not a conscious, cold-blooded decision to ignore
the effects ofnuclear weapons on real live human beings, to ignore the sensory, theemotional
experience, the human impact. It is simply learning a newlanguage, but by the time you are through, the
content of what you can talkabout is monumentally different, as is the perspective from which
youspeak.In the example above, the differences in the two descriptions of a"nuclear environment" stem
partly from a difference in the vividness of thewords themselves-the words of the first intensely
immediate and evocative, the words of the second abstract and distancing. The passages alsodiffer in
their content; the first describes the effects of a nuclear blast onhuman beings, the second describes the
impact of a nuclear blast ontechnical systems designed to assure the "command and control" of
nuclearweapons. Both of these differences may stem from the difference of perspective: the speaker in
the first is a victim of nuclear weapons, the speaker in the second is a user. The speaker in the first is
using words to try to name and contain the horror of human suffering all around her; the speaker in
the second is using words to ensure the possibility of launching the next nuclear
attack.Technostrategic language can be used only to articulate the perspective of the users of nuclear
weapons, not that of the victims." Thus, speaking the expert language not only offers distance, a
feeling of control, and an alternative focus for one's energies; it also offers escape-escape from
thinking of oneself as a victim of nuclear war. I do not meanthis on the level of individual
consciousness; it is not that defense analystssomehow convince themselves that they would not he
among the victims ofnuclear war, should it occur, But I do mean it in terms of the structuralposition the
speakers of the language occupy and the perspective they getfrom that position. Structurally, speaking
technostrategic language removes them from the position of victim and puts them in the position of
the planner, the user, the actor. From that position, there is neither need nor way to see oneself as a
victim; no matter what one deeply knows or believes about the likelihood of nuclear war, and no
matter what sort of terror or despair the knowledge of nuclear war's reality might inspire, the
speakersof technostrategic language are positionally allowed, even forced, to escapethat awareness, to
escape viewing nuclear war from the position of thevictim, by virtue of their linguistic stance as users,
rather than victims, ofnuclear weaponry.
Prefer the negative’s discourse – the aff’stechnostrategic discourse is an abstraction
from reality.
Cohn, Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 1987 (Carol, “Sex and Death
in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4, Within and Without: Women,
Gender, and Theory. (Summer, 1987), pp.
687-718)//CS
Mechanisms of the mind’s militarization are revealed through bothlistening to the language and learning
to speak it. listening, it becomesclear that participation in the world of nuclear strategic analysis does
notnecessarily require confrontation with the central fact about military activity-that the purpose of all
weaponry and all strategy is to injure humanbodies." ln fact, as Elaine Scarry points out, participation in
militarythinking does not require confrontation with, and actually demands theelision of this reality."
Listening to the discourse of nuclear experts reveals a series of culturally grounded and culturally
acceptable mechanisms that serve this purposeand that make it possible to "think about the
unthinkable," to work ininstitutions that foster the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to plan
massincinerations of millions of human beings for a living. Language that is abstract, sanitized, full of
euphemisms; language that is sexy and fun to use; paradigms whose referent is weapons; imagery
that domesticates and deflates the forces of mass destruction; imagery that reverses sentient and
nonsentient matter, that conflates birth and death, destruction and creation-all of these are part of
what makes it possible to be radically removed from the reality of what one is talking about and from
the realities one is creating through the discourse."Learning to speak the language reveals something
about how thinking can become more abstract, more focused on parts disembedded from their
context, more attentive to the survival of weapons than the survival of human beings. That is, it
reveals something about the process of militarization and the way in which that process may be
undergone by man orwoman, hawk or dove.Most often, the act of learning technostrategic language is
conceived ofas an additive process: you add a new set of vocabulary words; you add thereflex ability to
decode and use endless numbers of acronyms; you addsome new information that the specialized
language contains; you add the conceptual tools that will allow you to "think strategically." This
additiveview appears to be held by defense intellectuals themselves; as one said tome, "Much of the
debate is in technical terms-learn it, and decide whether it's relevant later." This view also appears to
be held by many whothink of themselves as antinuclear, be they scholars and professionalsattempting
to change the field from within, or public interest lobbyists andeducational organizations, or some
feminist antimilitarists, "Some believethat our nuclear policies are so riddled with irrationality that there
is a lot ofroom for well-reasoned, well-informed arguments to make a difference;others, even if they do
not believe that the technical information is veryimportant, see it as necessary to master the language
simply because it istoo difficult to attain public legitimacy without it. In either case, the idea isthat you
add the expert language and information and proceed from there.
L: Overgeneralization
The affirmative’s gendered rhetoric assumes a precarious linearity that inaccurately
conveys the presence of migrant women.
Tungohan, PhD Candidate in Political Science and the Collaborative Program in Women and Gender
Studies at the University of Toronto, 2012 (Ethel, “Reconceptualizing Motherhood, Reconceptualizing
Resistance,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 15, no. 1, page 41, July 24, 2012,
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfjp20#.UeL3542cdqU)//CS
For labour migrants with children, such gendered norms irrevocably clash with socially-constructed
expectations of maternal behaviour, which have their roots in patriarchal ideology. These require the
supposedly ‘nurturing’ presence of women in the household to ensure that families receive sufficient
care. Migrant women who decide to work abroad in order to meet their families’ economic needs are
caught in an ideological impasse. On the one hand, sending countries’ rhetoric of female piety and
sacrifice venerate female migrants as ‘martyrs’ whose labour is an integral source of revenue for their
communities, households and home countries (Rodriguez 2010). On the other hand, dominant
expectations of maternal behaviour have as its basis women’s physical presence in the household; the
purported inability of female labour migrants to be active caregivers within their households has
therefore caused much consternation within migrants’ home communities, which equate the demise
of nuclear family structures with female migration (Parrenas 2005). Thus, female migrants face
competing expectations. They are expected to be economic heroes whose remittances ‘save’ their
countries, communities and households. At the same time, they are criticised for absenteeism.
Conceptualizing maternal care and domesticity as the sole domain of women simultaneously elevates
and denigrates migrant women, in that the maternal ‘sacrifice’ they display by working abroad is a
source of both admiration and condemnation for sending and receiving states, migrants’ families and
migrants themselves. Ironically, the existing literature on gender ‘care chains’ affirm gendered
narratives, leading to a ‘precarious linearity’ which assumes that ‘there is a total and universal
subjugation of third world women in the domestic sphere’ and that ‘affect is a cumulative essence
that can be neatly packaged and transferred’ (Manalansan 2008: 2). By providing a ‘linear’ account
that portrays Third World women as triply oppressed by sending states, receiving states and their
employers, the oppressive circumstances facing migrant women at every juncture of their migration
trajectories appear inevitable. Migrant women are tragic because their maternal obligations to take
care of their families forces them to seek employment abroad - where they oftentimes have to care for
other people’s children - while other women in their home communities are dispatched to care for their
children. Though I recognise the different ways in which the feminization of migration is harmful and
acknowledge the pains wrought by family separation and reunification which scholars like Rhacel
Parrenas (2001, 2005) and Geraldine Pratt (2009) discuss, I argue that it is equally important to
acknowledge the complexity with which migrant women view their circumstances. In order to see
‘distinctive counter-narratives’, questioning the inevitability of migrant women’s supposedly inferior
positions as ‘racialized and menial “others”’ in migration is important (Kofman 2001).
L: Security
Security discourse is based on gendered “bully protectors” that fabricate threats.
Gender analysis is necessary to open up the meaning of security for more effective
international relations
True ’5 – Lecturer in International Politics, University of Auckland, New Zealand (Jacqui, Theories of International
Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 226-228, http://gendocs.ru/docs/35/34939/conv_1/file1.pdf)//SS
Security, as conceived by mainstream International Relations theorists,¶ is also a biased concept when seen from a feminist perspective and as¶
such may not bring much actual security to women and men. Rather,¶security,
as conventionally defined by conventional
International¶ Relations, amounts to a situation of stability provided by militaristic¶ states whose
nuclear proliferation, ironically, is seen to prevent total¶ war, if not the many limited wars fought on
proxy territory. Security is¶ examined only in the context of the presence and absence of war,¶
because the threat of war is considered endemic to the sovereign statesystem. Logically, then, this reactive
notion of security is zero-sum and¶ by definition ‘national’. It presupposes what Peterson (1992a: 47–8)¶ terms a ‘sovereignty contract’
established between states. According
to¶ this imaginary contract the use of military force is a necessary evil
to¶ prevent the outside – difference, irrationality, anarchy and potential¶ conflict – from conquering
the inside of homogeneous, rational and¶ orderly states. States, in this feminist analysis, are a kind of
‘protection¶ racket’ that by their very existence as bully ‘protectors’ create threats¶ outside and
charge for the insecurity that they bring to their ‘protected’¶ population ‘inside’. In the name of protection,
states demand the sacrifice of gendered citizens, including that of soldiers – in most cases¶ men – through military conscription and mothers
who devote their lives¶ to socializing these dutiful citizens for the sovereign state (Elshtain 1992;¶ Goldstein 2001).¶ Spike Peterson (1992a: 53)
asks ‘through which gendered identities do¶ we seek security’? Like the state which has a monopoly on legitimate¶ force, she points out that
the institution of marriage has a monopoly on¶ legitimate reproduction and property inheritance and acts as a protection racket, specifically for
women. Women seek security in marriage or¶ marriage-like relationships and the protection of a husband from the¶ violence of other men or
males in general, and from the economic insecurity of an international division of labour which devalues work associated with women and
locates females in the poorest-paid and least¶ secure sectors of the labour force. In the post-9/11 environment, citizens¶ in the United States in
particular looked for manly men – firemen,¶ policemen, soldiers – to protect them from the unknown threats of¶ angry, non-Westerners.
American neoconservative discourse blamed¶ feminism and homosexuality for pacifying the United
States and weakening the resolve of the West to stamp out Islamic fundamentalism and¶ other
‘threats’ (Bar On 2003: 456). Thus, gender analysis reveals men¶ and states, domestic and
international violence, to be inextricably¶ related. The limited security they provide allows them to consolidate¶ their
authority over other men and states, but importantly also over¶ women and territory, on whom they depend for a source of exploitable¶
resources, and for the socio-cultural and biological reproduction of¶ power relations.¶ Through their careful attention to women’s as well as
men’s experiences, feminist analysts urge that security must be redefined. In particular,¶ what is called ‘national security’ is profoundly
endangering to human¶ survival and sustainable communities (Tickner 1992). State military¶ apparatuses create their own security dilemmas
by purporting androcentric control and power-over to be the name of the game; a game we¶ are persuaded to play in order to achieve the
absolute and relative gains¶ of state security.¶ A feminist analysis of
security is particularly relevant in light of the¶
events of 9/11 and their aftermath. Beliefs about gender and sexual¶ difference are behind
contemporary terrorist acts of violence against the¶ West. The World Values Survey reveals that differences in values/¶
attitudes about gender and sexuality divide Western from the nonWestern world (Norris and Ingelhart 2003). The statements of Osama¶ Bin
Laden and the diary account left behind by the 9/11 terrorists¶ suggest that their actions were directed not merely against the West but¶
against the Western gender identities perceived to be so threatening to their vision of an Islamic and/or pan Arabic culture (Tickner 2002).¶
When Islamic fundamentalists deride the depraved morals of the West¶ they are almost exclusively referring to gender norms. Their explicit¶
rejection of Western gender relations, specifically relations of gender¶ equality and women’s individual rights, affects the relations between¶
non-Western and Western states, heightening the possibility of conflict¶ between them (True 2004). Gender,
therefore, is not only
a useful but a¶ necessary analytical category for understanding post-9/11 international¶
relations.¶Tickner (1991) argues that ideas and key concepts such as ‘rationality’,¶ ‘security’ and
‘power’ might be building blocks of explanation for a¶ feminist theory of international politics. There is
nothing inherent in the¶terms which suggests that they must be discarded, rather it is their¶ narrow, gendered meanings in
mainstream International Relations¶ theory and practice which is problematic for feminist
analysts.Runyan¶ and Peterson (1991: 70) claim that dichotomous thinking – inside–outside,¶ sovereignty–anarchy, domestic–international
– prevents International¶ Relations theory from being able to ‘conceptualise, explain, or deliver¶ the very things it says it is all about – security,
power and sovereignty’.¶For
International Relations feminists, these conceptual opposites reproduce the
self-fulfilling security dilemma and reinforce masculine power¶ politics, thus limiting the possibilities
for feminist alternative
L: War
No turns – the systemic marginalization of women is only halted temporarily in
times of war
Ortega 12- doctorate candidate in political science at theUniversity of Vienna, Austria. She has worked as a Gender and DDR
consultant for the United Nations Development Programme , BA in international relations (Luisa Maria Dietrich, “Looking Beyond
Violent Militarized Masculinities”, International Feminist Journal of Politics, October 2012,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2012.726094)//js
But this
research also argues that insurgent gender regimes are temporary constructions, shaped
in the exceptional context of armed struggle. Althoughheightened mobilization allows for the construction of
militant femininitiesand masculinities and accommodation of gender relations, the insurgent gender regime is
dismantled with the conclusion of the insurgent organization and does not attempt to impact
overall societal order. Despite the fact thatprioritizing class above other societal struggles significantly disrupts
authorizationand marginalization mechanisms of intertwined inequality structuresand allows for accommodation of insurgent
gender arrangements, the chainof command responsibility installs yet again another hierarchical systemthat leaves androcentric
logic intact and perpetuates it over time. These mechanisms, though, are not based on the exclusion,
rejection or devaluation of women in general, but operate through the careful construction of
temporary guerrilla femininities. The female comrade is considered a different type of woman,
awarded with certain roles and privileges, acknowledged by male comrades and not seen as a
threat in the joint revolutionary endeavour. Using this construction has the effect of engaging
women in the armed struggle, taking advantage of their capacities for armed struggle, connectingprogressive discourse on
women’s emancipation with revolutionaryobjectives, and offering those actual female militants selective instances ofemancipation.
The idea of equal participation towards a national liberation project, political consciousness and
its impact on self-esteem, departure fromtraditional gendered roles and access to political and military commandpositions
comes at a high price: a relative lack of gender consciousness. Atthe same time, the bastions of male privilege, such as
irresponsible paternity, control of women’s bodies and sexuality, maintaining a heteronormative
conception of nuclear family and ‘male head of household’ are left untouched.Once transitions
from armed conflict are underway, the temporary construction of the female comrade fades
away as an ‘exceptional transgression’ amidsystematic marginalization, discrimination, stigmatization and exclusion.
Ina larger context, this ‘transition into marginalization’ for female insurgentmilitants is one of the most visible forms of how
patriarchal mechanisms areadapted, reinstalled and perpetuated in transitional contexts. While destabilizingelements need to be
excluded, stabilizing elements such as traditional‘militarized masculinity’ that collapses men with aggression are
particularlyreinforced, hiding alternative expressions of masculinity developed ininsurgent militant contexts.
L: Cuba
Western treatment of Cuba sexualizes inhabitants and uses false constructions of
identity to impose control
Nagar et al., Professor of Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies at the University of Minnesota 02 (Richa, Victoria Lawson, Linda
McDowell and Susan Hanson, “Locating Globalization: Feminist (Re)readings of the Subjects and Spaces of Globalization”, Economic Geogrpahy
78:3, July 2002, JSTOR)//AS
Some of the most creative feminist engagements with questions of mobility, ideology, subjectivity,
and struggle are represented in emerging research on global sex work. Kempadoo's (2001) collaborative research
with feminist scholars and practitioners in Colombia and Cuba identified the participation of women as sex
tourists as an important part of the late twentieth-century Caribbean landscape and proposed an
interrogation of the recolonizations shaped through the global tourism industry. By highlighting how
Caribbean women and men are both subject to eroticizing, sexualizing fantasies and exploitation, and
how sex tourists-both male and female-use the Caribbean as a place to consolidate or redefine their
own cultural identities, these researchers have shown the limitations of feminist analyses that rely solely on masculine hegemony as
an explanation for prostitution and sex work. Instead, they have emphasized that sexual labor has been historically,
culturally, and socially organized and how these specificities allow for a multiplicity of sexualized and
gendered categories, identities, and dependencies. This research moves us beyond the essentialist notions of the prostitute and the
client and "starkly [illustrates] the global repositioning that is occurring between postindustrial and postcolonial societies, where Black and
Brown bodies become (or continue to be) the sites for the construction of (white) North American
and Western European power, wealth, and well-being" (Kempadoo 2001, 58).
The Cuban embargo gave rights to women lifting it would be bad
Torregrosa, ’12-She is an adjunct professor at Fordham University's Latin American and Latino Studies
Institute and at Columbia University and a guest lecturer at Syracuse University
NEW YORK — Cuba may just be the most feminist country in Latin America (Luisita, “Cuba May Be the
Most Feminist Country in Latin America”, international herald Tribune, May 1, 2012,
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/cuba-may-be-the-most-feminist-country-in-latinamerica/)//CC
It ranks No. 3 in the world when it comes to the political participation of women in
Parliament,according to a United Nationssurvey on women in politics. And it’s the only nation in Latin
America to rank in the top 20 in the World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report 2011.In sheer
numbers and percentages, Cuban women’s advance is notable. Cuba has a high number of female
professional and technical workers (60 percent of the total work force in those areas) and in
Parliament (43 percent), as well as high levels of primary, secondary and tertiary education enrollment,
according to the Gender Gap report. In contrast, Brazil, the region’s economic behemoth, ranks 82nd
overall in the world, according to the report, though it moved up three places last year with
improvements in women’s wages, estimated earned income and the election of a female head of state,
President DilmaRousseff. What explains Cuba’s record? Sarah Stephens, the director of the Center for
Democracy in the Americas, a Washington-based advocacy and research organization that focuses on
Cuba and U.S.-Cuba relations and opposes the U.S. embargo, is working on a report on the status of
women in Cuba. “Cuban women tell us that they feel lucky to have come of age since 1959,” she says.
“Before 1959, women comprised only 5 percent of university graduates and only 12 percent of the
work force, often holding menial jobs.”Today, she says, women make up 41 percent of the Communist
Party, half of the island’s work force, the majority of students in high schools and universities, 60
percent of university faculties and the majority of provosts and department heads (but not presidents).
And women hold top portfolios in ministries and in key provincial positions.“Fidel Castro called for
women’s rights as a ‘revolution within a revolution’ and this commitment became tangible through
changes in legislation and policy,” Ms. Stephens says.
The embargo makes it difficult to preserve gender equality
CDA, ’13 (Center for Democracy in the Americas, “Women's Work: Gender Equality in Cuba and the Role
of Women Building Cuba's Future (21st Century Cuba)”, March 6, 2013,
http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/CDA_Womens_Work.pdf)//CC
That goal—making life better for women—was always ambitious, and is especially so under today’s
circumstances.Periods of economic crisis, like the “Special Period” of the 1990s, saw sharp cuts in many
programs, especially those affecting gender equality. Despite positive indicators and measureable
progress for women and girls, conditions were never ideal. For Cuba to preserve its existing
achievements, it must address the serious crisisIn the section titled The Risk of Falling Back, we
describe the complex moment it now confronts. For more than fifty years, gender equality policy has
been part of commitments to an expansive welfare system developed within a centrally-controlled
state. Now, however, Cuba’s economy is burdened by low productivity, an imbalance of trade, and
high external debt. The country imports over eighty percent of its food. These factors—in the face of a
global economic crisis, ruinous hurricanes, and an unyielding U.S. embargo—have made improving the
standard of living and women’s status in Cuba stubbornly intractable. Adding to their troubles, Cuba
potentially faces years to recover from the damage inflicted by repeated hurricanes, including Sandy in
October 2012.
L: Mexico
US economic policy in Mexico is marked by economic dichotomies and ignorance of
relevant gender aspects—addresses your authors directly
Marchand, Professor of International Relations at the University of the Americas, Puebla, Mexico 94 (Marianne A, “Gender and New
Regionalism in Latin America: Inclusion/Exclusion”, Third World Quarterly 15:1, 3/94, JSTOR)//AS
In the last few years a variety of competing discourses on NAFTA have emerged. This essay will focus in particular on
three articles representing different narratives.32 These articles have not been chosen for their representitiveness of the entire range of
debates surrounding NAFTA however. In his article 'North American free trade', M DelalBaer
takes a very economistic
approach to NAFTA. He emphasises and identifies in particular the advantages to the US economy if NAFTA were implemented. Robert
Pastor, in turn, pursues both political and economic angles in his article 'Post-revolutionary Mexico: the Salinas
opening'. According to him, both Mexico and the USA will benefit in the long run. He also sees an opportunity for US foreign policy to use
NAFTA as a vehicle to support calls for democracy and human rights in Mexico. Finally, David Barkin is a strong opponent to NAFTA. In 'About
face' he argues that: The accord promises to allow foreign investors to meld the two prongs of Mexico's development policy-the maquila and
the export promotion program-to take advantage of Mexico's low wage rates and congenial regulatory atmosphere.33Despite
the
obvious differences among these (masculine) articles, a feminist reading of them reveals some
striking 'gendered' similarities in their discussions about regionalism/regional (economic) integration.
Central to these gendered accounts of regionalism is the concealed masculinity inscribed in the
notion of integration. Christine Sylvester argues in her article, 'Feminists and realists view auton- omy and
obligation in international relations', that realism's hegemony has accounted for establishing the
concept of reactive autonomy as 'a norm of international relations'. As a result, the 'concept of
reactive autonomy [has] denie[d] or burie[d] international relationships in the language of liberal exchange-oriented contracts'.34 Sylvester summarises as follows the outcome of the process in which 'reactive autonomy' squares off
with 'relational autonomy': In the realist story, man is metaphorically fused to his state to form a reactive self who is celebratory of freedom.
That self-state is obligated by social contract to ensure the survival of nationals amid unrul(y) forces of anarchy. Yet he-it draws considerable
identity not from multiple relational ties with the society under contract but from similar (id)entities floating unattached in the international
"out there". The
potential for relational forms of autonomy, given in the fact that self-state is in
relationship with its protector-protected, from whom it draws obligations, thus squares off against
the "freedom" of anarchy and loses.35 Expanding upon Sylvester's thoughts, I contend that (economic) integration is
and should be a relational concept, but that a close reading of the three articles reveals its grounding in the dual norm of
'reactive autonomy' and 'minimal obligations'. Some support for this contention can be found in Sylvester's comments about neoliberal
institutionalism:36 ... his [Keohane's] neoliberal institutionalist framework offers promising relational innovations. But there is a dilemma built
into it as well. Among a priori sovereign identities, each entity may be leery of decisions that could alter the structure of the system and
undermine reactive autonomy. [...] Under neoliberal institutionalism, sneaked interdependencies come alive and are quickly restrained: only
after states reach a threshold of satisfaction with chosen obligations to one another (specific reciprocities) can they be tempted into diffuse
reciprocity. Thus the neoliberal difference from realism is hidebound to realist vigilances. Unchosen obligation is tamed.37 A similar built-in
dilemma/oscillation between 'reactive autonomy' and 'specific reciprocities' or 'chosen obligations' emerges from Baer's statement that 'a free
trade agreement may mean the difference between a friendly or ambivalent neighbor, and between shared goals or regional conflict'. 38
NAFTA, in other words, delineates clearly the chosen, reciprocal obligations of the parties involved
(without allowing for ventures into unchosen, diffuse reciprocities). In contrast, the absence of NAFTA might create a situation where the
sovereign identities of Canada, Mexico and the United States live side by side and where ambivalence, anarchy and regional conflict reigns. A
concern with the effects of NAFTA on the sovereignty (read: reactive autonomy) of the three states involved
also rings through in Robert Pastor's 70 This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:29:17 PM All use
subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsGENDER AND NEW REGIONALISM IN LATIN AMERICA story. The only difference with Baer is that
Pastor considers it from the vantage point of one of the weaker states, i.e. Mexico: A recipe for ruining an agreement would be if the US tried
to condition it on changes in the Mexican political system. The United States has a stake in those changes and should state clearly its
preference for democracy over "stability". I...] Nevertheless, democracy is more likely to arrive in Mexico if the United States completes the
agreement sooner, than if it conditions acceptance of an agreement on those changes or, worse, if it tried to interfere in Mexico's politics.39
Once the concept of integration has been grounded in the norm of reactive autonomy it takes on a
masculinist outlook. In the articles under discussion, two aspects stand out in particular: the
economistic approach to the question of regionalism resulting in the introduction of a dichotomised
hierarchy and the inscribing onto the concept of regionalism/integration the dual (implied) notion of
concentration cum homogenisation. Obviously, when analysing the question of (economic) integration it is necessary to discuss
economics. However, in discussions about NAFTA the economic logic (of regionalism) is assumed to be prior to all other structures and
relations. Consequently, in these debates NAFTA's economic aspects are used as a point of reference. This is true for
advocates as well as opponents of the agreement. For instance, objections of environmental groups have concentrated on the effects of
economic activities on the environment. I am
not suggesting here that economic issues should not be discussed
nor that they are unimportant. However, what I am arguing is that through the masculin- ist lens of
reactive autonomy there is a tendency to prioritise and dichotomise issues.40 This obviously makes it
more difficult to see the interrelatedness among oppositional viewpoints. The prioritising of the economy thus
virtually forces opponents to compartmentalise their objections and discuss them as 'separate issues', instead of showing the equally
interrelated but negative effects of NAFTA. A side-effect of this compartmentalisation is the introduction of a certain hierarchy among
objections. Needless to say, in this 'hierarchy of objections' gender dimensions are not a first priority. For
instance, the critical Barkin comments: They [Mexican policy makers] acknowledge that unemployment will grow, at least in the short run,
because the jobs created in export industries cannot keep pace with the jobs eliminated by cheap imports.41 It is important to remember that
Barkin is not speaking of just any kind of export industry. He is referring to the maquiladoras, which
have a predominantly female work force. However, he does not mention the inescapable impact of
this restructuring on women's lives. In sum, for Barkin NAFTA's negative effects on unemployment
rates in the maquiladora industry are important, not the gendered nature of this unemployment.
American policies of integration with Mexico exclude and objectify women
Marchand, Professor of International Relations at the University of the Americas, Puebla, Mexico 94 (Marianne A, “Gender and New
Regionalism in Latin America: Inclusion/Exclusion”, Third World Quarterly 15:1, 3/94, JSTOR)//AS
The masculinist inscription of homogenisation onto the concept of integration is also apparent in
Baer's economist narrative. According to him, 'NAFTA signifies that Mexico has become a North
American country, ready to share Western entrepreneurial values and participate in Western capital
markets'. 46 Pastor appears to be less sanguine about Mexico adopting North American values.47 Initially, he advocates a process of
homogenisation in which both US and Mexican societies are undergoing some transformations, rather than Mexico alone moving closer (to the
USA) by adopting North American/US values. However, in the rest of the article Pastor
only mentions the difficult ongoing
transitions in Mexican society while trying to modernise its economy and democratise its politics .
Because the transition of US society is never discussed in the article, it leaves the impression that the USA doesn't really need it! Moreover, in
its attempt to transform politically and economically, Mexico, not surprisingly, embraces North
American values. In other words, Pastor's ideas about the homogenising effects of NAFTA strongly
resemble those of Baer after all. The masculinist writing of integration allows, then, for the silencing,
ex- clusion and objectifying of women and feminist values. The integration story being told is one that
prioritises economic rationality, involves dichotomisedhierarchies , and equates integration with concentration cum
homogenisation. Women can only appear in this story in subordinate/subservient roles. They are among the ones
who have to provide the required 'flexible labour' which enables companies to become more competitive globally through the introduction of
jit-methods. They thus serve the geo-economic designs of North American transnational companies. Their
ongoing economic
marginalisation is being accompanied by further social and political exclusion. Likewise, any feminist
concerns about the 'new regionalism' are being excluded. Embedding the (theorising about) 'new regionalism' in the
dual norm of reactive autonomy and minimal obligations effectively entails a silencing of feminist concerns about relational autonomy and
diffuse reciprocity. Consequently,
integration is being presented as a vertical, top-down form of
cooperation whereby horizontal relational autonomy is being excluded.
Economic involvement in Mexico marks women as disposable and creates a cycle of
poverty
Nagar et al., Professor of Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies at the University of Minnesota 02 (Richa, Victoria Lawson, Linda
McDowell and Susan Hanson, “Locating Globalization: Feminist (Re)readings of the Subjects and Spaces of Globalization”, Economic Geogrpahy
78:3, July 2002, JSTOR)//AS
Melissa Wright's (1997) work illustrates how a
discourse of "disposable women" has underwritten the success of
maquiladora production in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.Transnational firms have sought a large number of
women, who are constructed, through discourses of femininity, as being in the workforce only temporarily and
as working for "lipstick" (as opposed to a family wage).Because these female workers are
discursively constructed as temporarily in the labor force, firms have not invested in educating,
training, and promoting them. Their resultant low wages and dead-end jobs, justified through the
gender ideologies that they are working only for their own amusement or for "pin money" and that they will soon leave the workforce
for family reasons, reinforce the notion that they are disposable women and, in the process, justify their
low wages in the service of global capital accumulation. In their detailed study of work in Worcester, Massachusetts,
Susan Hanson and Geraldine Pratt (1995) demonstrated the power of the same processes in delineating economic opportunity in older
industrialized places in the north. Processes
of gendering shape who has access to various forms and sites of
work, and, at the same time, the reworking of gender shapes the range of potential forms that global
restructuring can assume. A gendered analysis of globalization would reveal how inequality is actively produced in the relations
between global restructuring and culturally specific productions of gender difference. In a similar fashion, neoliberal states are subsidized
through the informal provision of housing, food, health care, and education. As neoliberal states withdraw from the provision of social
services, this work is most often assumed by women in the feminized spheres of household and community. Women's disproportionate role
in social reproduction is intelligible only in relation to gendered ideologies of caring and domesticity (Moser 1987; Folbre 2001).
Despite
the centrality of gender to these reworked forms of capitalism, feminist analyses of global
restructuring processes have been neglected.
Economic involvement in Mexico is bound up in conceptions of labor and migration
that justify rape and violence
Silvey, Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado Boulder, 04 (Rachel, “Power, difference and mobility: feminist advances in
migration studies”, Progress in Human Geography 28:4, 2004, Sage Publications)//AS
Concern with the political dimensions of migration has also led to research that works against understanding mobility exclusively in terms of
transgressive, agency-driven, potentially empowering moves (on rootedness in place, see Pratt and Hanson, 1994). Hyndman's work (2000)
offsets this mobility-orientated thinking by focusing on displacement. She examines the politics of humanitarian discourse surrounding refugee
resettlement, and the ways in which forced migration, as well as efforts to ameliorate its consequences, limit the agency of refugees. An
additional study that also focuses on the range of nodes of power that structure mobility and limit
agency is Melissa Wright's (1999) examination of the effects of the construction of women workers in
Mexico's Maquiladora factories as 'cheap', 'docile' and disposable. Wright traces the ways that these stories
contribute to rationalizing the high rates of murder and rape of factory women in the region, and in later
work (2001) explores the ways that a group of women activists organized its message to reverse the devaluation
of these women, and to confront the violence that they face. For feminist migration studies, this work puts forth a
complex reading of power that refuses dualistic, structure/agency polarizations, and insists that mobility
itself is enmeshed in the cultural struggles of migrants as well as the forces at work in controlling
mobility (see also Gibson et al., 2001). Each of these examples of feminist migration research demonstrates the ways in which the
political processes that forge gendered difference are tied to spatial mobility, as well as how spatial
mobility itself is a political process (see also Leitner, 1997; Staeheli, 1999).
Border Security and NAFTA dehumanize poor Mexican women
Orozco-Mendoza, ’08–(Elva, “Borderlands Theory: Producing Border Epistemologies with Gloria
Anzald˙a”, April 24, 2008)//CC
One of Anzald˙aís preoccupations regarding the spatial borderlands has to do with the economic
exploitation that Mexicans, particularly young and poor female populations, experience on the
Mexican side of the borderlands. More directly, she is bothered by the way in which maquiladoras are
allowed to operate in the Mexican side completely undermining the rights of workers. The
maquiladora industry in Mexico was created because of the Border Industrialization Program or BIP.
This program was supposedly designed to alleviate the growing rates of unemployment and poverty by
setting up plants all along the Mexican side of the border (Portillo, Independent Television Service. et al.,
2001). The BIP program was launched a year after the conclusion of the Bracero program in 1964, and it
was expected to curtail the illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States (MartÌnez, 1978). In
reality, American and other transnational companies were putting neo-liberal practices into action
and moved to the Mexican border in order to take advantage of the Mexican cheap labor (Marchand,
2004), in which, until recently, young, poor women constituted the majority of the workforce.28
However, the boom of the maquiladoras in Mexico is related to the creation of NAFTA, the North
American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, United States, and Canada. Despite the widespread
opposition to NAFTA, the program was implemented in January 1, 1994 increasing the number of
maquiladoras operating not only along the border area but in all Mexico (Marchand, 2004). Although
one cannot deny that the production of the maquiladoras has number of males workers has surpassed
that of females at the maquiladoras. See figures in www.cfomaquiladoras.org30positively affected the
Mexican economy, the negative effects for Mexican society surpass the positive ones. Maquiladoras at
the border are in part responsible for the dehumanization and devaluation of Mexican labor. Since
economic success in corporations is measured by their capacity to generate profits, and profits are
greater when the costs of production are less, the value of the workerís labor needs to be constantly
devalued by imposing racism and negative stereotypes among the population. Young and poor females
are particularly affected in this chain since they occupy the lowest level in the social status (SaldivarHull, 1991).
L: Relations
Relations advantages are based on practices to accumulate power and biased upon
agency of men
True ’5 – Lecturer in International Politics, University of Auckland, New Zealand (Jacqui, Theories of International
Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 225-226, http://gendocs.ru/docs/35/34939/conv_1/file1.pdf)//SS
How are International Relations’ concepts of power gendered? In¶Tickner’s (1988) critique of
Morgenthau’s six principles of power¶ politics, the realist understanding of power is androcentric. It
reflects¶ male self-development and objectivist ways of knowing in patriarchal¶ societies where men’s citizenship and personal authority has
traditionally relied on their head-of-household power-over women’s sexuality¶ and labour. This concept
of power also rests on a
particularly gender specific notion of autonomous agency that makes human relationships¶ and
affective connections invisible. If the human world is exhaustively¶ defined by such gendered
constructions of ‘power-over’, as in realist accounts, feminists ask, how do children get reared, collective movements mobilize and
everyday life reproduced? Christine Sylvester (1992:¶ 32–8) argues that it is incoherent to posit self-help as
the essential¶ feature of world politics when many ‘relations international’ go on¶ within households
and other institutions. These relations include diplomatic negotiations, trade regimes and the
socialization of future citizens,¶ which are not based on self-help alone, but which take
interdependent¶ relations between self and other as the norm. The conventional¶ International Relations’ assumption
that men and states are like units¶ presents power politics as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Power politics, however, is a gendered
and, therefore, biased account of world politics¶ because its conceptualization of power depends
upon the particular not¶ the universal agency of rational man.
L: Latin America
Discourses of globalization in Latin America treat unindustrialized areas as feminine
and thus inferior, devaluing both
Nagar et al., Professor of Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies at the University of Minnesota 02 (Richa, Victoria Lawson, Linda
McDowell and Susan Hanson, “Locating Globalization: Feminist (Re)readings of the Subjects and Spaces of Globalization”, Economic Geogrpahy
78:3, July 2002, JSTOR)//AS
We challenge the ways in which certain places are constructed as marginal (for example, southern
places and deindustrialized places in the north) and as passive recipients of, or as irrelevant to,
globalization. The focus of much globalization research is major cities in advanced economies, with their reach and networks extending
from the West sometimes to reach non-Western places (Sparke 2001). Southern places are constructed (if they even appear) in
this literature as mere recipients of globalization, rather than as being able to act on and transform this
global complex. Much of the literature on globalization engages in a double marginalization: Women are
sidelined, as is gender analysis more broadly, and southern countries are positioned as the
feminized other to advanced economies. In Herod, Tuathail, and Roberts's (1998) book, the case studies cover the United
States, Australia, Canada, and France, along with globalized spaces. Sassen (1998) deals with global cities, most of which are located in OECD
countries, and Cox's (1997) edited collection focuses on the scales of globalization and questions of territorialization while emphasizing
corporations and flows of commodities, capital, and information (the chapters by Herod and Low are exceptions). Accordingly, these
important volumes continue to construct the south and deindustrializing places in the north as the
passive, victimized, or invisible "other" to global spaces and processes. We argue that research on
globalization would be substantially enhanced by attention to critical development studies' research
on gender and on the feminization of southern countries (and deindustrialized spaces in the north). We discuss this
surprising lack of engagement more fully in the second section.
Engagement with Latin America brings the region back to “traditional” understandings
of being – sustaining authoritarian presence
Stromquist ’96 – professor of international development education in the School of Education, University of
Southern California (Nelly P., “GENDER, EQUITY, AND EMANCIPATORY
EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA,” Interamer, 1996,
http://educoea.net/Portal/bdigital/contenido/interamer/BkIACD/Interamer/Interamerhtml/Stromquisthtml/Stro
mqStromquist.htm)//SS
The Latin American region is said to be undergoing a steady return to democracy. This
process, fueled by internal as well
external agencies, advocates what most feminists would call a traditional understanding of democracy
and citizenship. For instance, the efforts by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in support of democracy
seek greater participation in elections and deeper understanding of democratic institutions by both men and women. These objectives are
desirable. Women
have attempted to widen the conceptualization of democracy to include
manifestations in micro-settings, in which authoritarianism is reduced if not eliminated, to consider
forms of political activism reflected in demands and mobilization for family and community needs,
and to acknowledge constraints that limit women's equal participation in the public sphere. These
goals are not reflected in the discourse of the democratization objectives of USAID.
L: Foreign Countries
The aff’s conception of foreign countries as “outside” translates to otherization of women – this
causes oppression – rejecting this is key
Tickner 92 – Professor of International Relations @ USC, Ph.D Political Science @ Brandeis, M.A.
International Relations @ Yale, B.A. History @ University of London (J. Ann, “Gender in International
Relations”, PDF, http://www.ces.uc.pt/ficheiros2/files/Short.pdf, RSpec)
Framed in its own set of binary distinctions, the discipline of international relations assumes similarly hierarchical
relationships when it posits an anarchic world "outside" to be defended against through the
accumulation and rational use of power. In political discourse, this becomes translated into
stereotypical notions about those who inhabit the outside. Like women, foreigners are frequently
portrayed as "the other": nonwhites and tropical countries are often depicted as irrational, emotional,
and unstable, characteristics that are also attributed to women. The construction of this discourse and
the way in which we are taught to think about international politics closely parallel the way in which
we are socialized into understanding gender differences. To ignore these hierarchical constructions
and their relevance to power is therefore to risk perpetuating these relationships of domination and
subordination . But before beginning to describe what the field of international relations might look like if gender were included as a
central category of analysis, I shall give a brief historical overview of the field as it has traditionally been constructed.
L: NGOs
NGOs have been co-opted by gendered capitalist exploitation and reinforce
oppression and dominance
Brunner et al. ‘13 - phD from the University of Vienna, research fellow at the Centre for
Transdisciplinary Gender Studies, Assistant Professor at the Alpen-Adria-University of Klagenfurt
(Claudia, with LilijanaBurcar of the University of Ljubljana and Magdalena Freudenschuß of Leuphana
University “Critical Reflections on ‘Democracy in Crisis’” International Feminist Journal of Politics
5/24/13)
Democracy in the western political-economic system has always been theconcept and actual rule of
government connected with the moneyed and propertiedclasses while the seemingly diverse party
system has functioned only asa smokescreen for promoting the interests of different fractions of the sameproperty-owning
elite. In this respect it is important to keep a critical eye onthe strategies of control and containment
western states use in structuringand organizing their own populace’s interests and concerns so that
itremains compliant with the agendas that continue to naturalize systemicexploitation and
racialized,gendered stratifications on which the accumulationof private corporate capital and the
well-being of the few also rests.Or put differently, it is important to understand how western capitalistdemocracies organize and
run their civil society as a sidekick to capitalist parliamentarydemocracy, while at the same time claiming that it is an outgrowthof spontaneous
civic participation with unlimited agency and possibilities forsuccess.CB: Referring to the subtitle of our meeting, ‘civic protest and civic
resistance’,are you saying that civic participation is part of the problem rather than a waytoward solutions?LB: Once again we should be wary of
how ‘civic’ is constructed in liberaldemocracies. It most certainly does not parallel collective and civic as understoodby the Zapatistas, as
Magdalena has already suggested. Nor does itresemble a serious social-justice movement that demands that the system bechanged from one
of competitive individualism to one based on solidarity,equal distribution of natural resources and fair compensation of everyone’slabor. A
closer look at civil society organizations and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), including women’s
NGOs, that are propped up bywestern governments, financial institutions and rich men’s
philanthropicsocieties such as the Rockefeller or Carnegie foundations reveals that theseare severely
limited and restricted in their scope of action. Furthermore, thegovernance mechanisms of money donations
shape the very agendas to bepursued by these seemingly non-governmental organizations, and they arethus brought
back into the folds of capitalist social relations of (gendered)exploitation.CB: So this explains why conservatives
and liberals alike celebrate the awakeningof civil society, most often in the form of NGOs?LB: Yes, NGOs serve a double function:
on the one hand, they function as apoor substitute for the shrinking and disappearing welfare state
whose provisionshave been decimated. Increasingly, services are being provided muchmore cheaply by NGOs, with their array of volunteers
and only a small crewof professional technical staff. SangeetaKamat (2003: 65) has dubbed thisprocess ‘franchising the state’. Second,
behind this process lurks the depoliticizationand neutralization of potential grassroots movements of
the dispossessedwho might develop clearly defined political agendas that challengethe status quo. MF:
Certainly, the influence of corporate interests in western political systemsshould not be underestimated –
as demonstrated in the policies developed inresponse to the Euro crisis. I would support this argument by stressing aperspective of
governmentality: we can definitely talk about the economizationof the social (Bro¨ckling 2007), which suggests that
the social is
systematicallyreorientated toward economic standards. This, of course, stronglyinfluences NGO work,
especially if it is externally funded, and thus subjectto benchmarking, extensive reporting and quantitative measurement.
Thesedynamics challenge the transformative power of NGOs, as Lilijana pointedout. At the same time, NGOs
– as much as grassroots activism – have todeal with the immense ability of capitalism to adopt critique (Boltanski
andChiapello 2003) and integrate it into structures of domination.
Impact
I: Patriarchy
Traditional IR practices are crudely patriarchal and make dangerous assumptions—
feminist critique reinserts consideration of power relations and solves this
Jones, political scientist, writer, and photojournalist based at theUniversityof British Columbia Okanagan96 (Adam, “Does 'Gender' Make
the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations”, Review Of International Studies 22:4, 10.96, JSTOR)//AS
In the last two decades, the
classical tradition in international relations1 has come under sustained attack on
thinkers, following in the footsteps of neo-Marxists and
critical theorists, have denounced IR as 'one of the most gender-blind, indeed crudely patriarchal, of all the
institutionalized forms of contemporary social and political analysis'.2 Feminists have sought to
subvert some of the most basic elements of the classical paradigm: the assumption of the state as a given;
con ceptions of power and 'international security'; and the model of a rational human individual
standing apart from the realm of lived experience, manipulating it to maximize his own self-interest. Denouncing standard
epistemological assumptions and theoretical approaches as inherently 'masculinist', feminists, particularly those from the radical band of
the spectrum, have advanced an alternative vision of inter national relations: one that redefines power as
'mutual enablement' rather than domination, and offers normative values of cooperation, care
giving, and com promise in place of patriarchal norms of competition, exploitation, and self
aggrandizement. At the same time, the feminist critique has subsumed an historical-revisionist project. Independently of whether they
seek to jettison existing theoretical frame works, feminists, by definition, reclaim women as subjects of history, politics,
and international relations. The classical conception of IR, with its emphasis on the state-as-(primary)-actor, and its fascination with
a number of fronts, and from a diverse range of critics. Most recently, feminist
the role of the statesman, is prone to being, at the very least, reworked and supplemented in feminist schemata. The revisionist project
likewise does not spare alternative 'progressive' critiques such as neo-Marxist or global-society theories. Hence, to take one example,
dependency theory's focus on the international division of labour is transformed, in feminist
scholarship, into an arguably more nuanced and holistic picture that analyzes the division of labour
along gender as well as class lines.
Unquestioned male domination institutionalizes oppression and exploitation
Youngs, Professor of Digital Economy and Academic Director of the Institute of Advanced Broadcasting at the University of Wales 04
(Gillian, “Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender Are Essential to Understanding the World
'We' Live in”, International Affairs 80:1, 1/04, JSTOR)//AS
Let us for simplicity's sake take the masculinist nature of states as referring to the historical problem of
politics as male-defined and male-dominated,15 and the problem of masculine subjectivity as a constrained and
particularistic articu- lation of political agency at the individual level. While mainstream International Relations has tended to treat the state
largely as a coherent (male-controlled) unit, feminist International
Relations has assessed at length the
implications of its gendered realities,i6 expressed through the 'public over private' hierarchy (sexual
contract) that has traditionally framed politics (and economics) as pre- dominantly public spheres of
male influence and identification, and the home, family and social reproduction as predominantly private spheres of female influence
and identification. The history of state formation and identity is therefore one of gendered (and other forms of)
oppression. 'As a historical matter, early state formation marked the effective centralization of political authority and accumulation
processes, institutionalization of gender and class exploitation, and ideological legitimation of these
transformations. At least since Aristotle, the codification of man as "master" [subject] and woman as "matter"
[object] has powerfully naturalized/ de-politicized man's exploitation of women, other men, and
nature.'17 In its range of critical work on the state, feminist International Relations has, directly and indirectly, accused mainstream
International Relations of depoliticizing exploitation by ignoring the relational gender dynamics integral to the political power of states as
(masculinist) actors. This work makes it clear that male
power can and should be explained, not just taken as given;
that the state as a para- mount expression of collective and historically and socially constructed male
power can and should be explained in dynamic gender terms, not taken as given.
Capitalist societies are designed to promote patriarchy and the subjugation of
women
Cockburn and Enloe 12 –feminist writer and professor @ UC Berkley, author of several books (Cynthia and Cynthia,
“Militarism, Patriarchy and PeaceMovements”, International Feminist Journal ofPolitics, December 2012,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2012.726098)//js
CE: Over the last thirty years, I think, feminists
in so many countries havearrived at three important
analytical conclusions. First, that governmentscannot militarize their policies and operations
without making most womencomplicit. Feminists in countries as different as Chile and Japan have beenshining a
bright light on the pressures directed to women, pushing them,luring them to lend their emotional and physical labour to
militarization.That is, you cannot tackle war waging, many feminists have found, unlessyou take
seriously the efforts to militarize women – and what causes somewomen to resist those formidable pressures and
lures.Second, I think, feminists have uncovered mounting evidence that wars (andpreparations
for wars) rely on very particular forms of masculinity – not justone, but several forms: the militarized
masculinity of the weapons engineer, ofthe civilian national security ‘expert’, of the chauvinistic
politician, of fathersurging sons to enlist, and of weapons-wielding combatants themselves.So
lumping together all sorts of militarized masculinities isn’t very helpfulwhen you’re trying to loosen the grip of militarism on any
society.Third, and you’ve emphasized this in your own recent writings, grapplingwith the ways
women are militarized and the ways men are militarized hasto be done together. That means
monitoring and challenging patriarchy.Patriarchy is the system that links militarized
femininities to militarizedmasculinities in a way that sustains the domination of certain brands
ofmasculinity, while keeping women in their assigned places. Racism fuelsmilitarism, so does
unrestrained capitalism, so does state authoritarianism.Many prominent critics of militarism
seem quite comfortable with analysingthese three militarizing dynamics. But they shrink from
examining theworkings of patriarchy, don’t they? Feminists in dozens of countries, however,have been warning us: if
we ignore the workings of patriarchy, militarizationwill rumble on destructively for generations.
Patriarchy is often hidden in unexpected places – it’s critical that we reveal it
through critical examination
Cockburn and Enloe 12 –feminist writer and professor @ UC Berkley, author of several books (Cynthia and Cynthia,
“Militarism, Patriarchy and Peace Movements”, International Feminist Journal of Politics, December 2012,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2012.726098)//js
CE: You’re right, we’re at a tricky point right now. Patriarchy
is slippery. Asyou showed back there at the London printers,
patriarchy is so malleable.It’s constantly being up-dated. Patriarchy doesn’t always look like
gun-wieldingcontractors or brass-bedecked generals or Murdoch’s media warmongers.To be
sustained, patriarchy needs men in peace movements who think theyknow best, men on peacekeeping missions who assume that it’s
rival menwho are the people most needed at the peace negotiating table; patriarchyrelies on even those men in academia who
imagine they can study masculinitywithout paying serious attention to women and the politics of femininities.CC: There’s something
I notice and wonder about. It’s the fact that, on the left,generally speaking, there’s an acute awareness of
racism and the need tocounter it, actively, openly. And I mean on the white left. People don’t letbeing
phenotypically white, or ethnically of the dominant group, stop thembeing actively, committedly
anti-racist. Indeed, there’s real shame felt inbeing otherwise. Likewise, some of the people most engaged in
the left, forwhom ‘class’ exploitation is an analysis they deploy, a language they speak,that defines a struggle they commit to, are in
fact middle-class, propertyowningpeople. But they don’t let that stand in the way of their
workingclassactivism. Why is it, then, that when it comes to sex/gender, being aman is so very
often sufficient to inhibit anti-patriarchal thinking and profeministactivism?CE: My hunch – and this
comes from listening to feminist anti-militarist activistsin places like Turkey, South Korea, Sweden and the USA – is that manymen
are afraid. They perform their fear with dismissive bluff. But I think it’sfear at work. They are afraid that if they take
feminist ideas about patriarchyseriously they’ll be thought to be ‘soft’ by those men they most
want to betaken seriously by. A lot of men have learned to be frightened of being feminizedin the
eyes of other men. Perhaps many men in anti-war movementsfeel as though it already takes
‘guts’ in a patriarchal society, as a man, to challengemilitaristic beliefs and values, since
accepting those is a commonmeasure of being a ‘real man’. So to go the next step, to actually
challengemasculinized privilege itself, may appear a risk they think they can’t affordto take. The patriarchal gaze of men towards
other men can be a potent
I: Racialization/Eroticization
Not considering gender causes racialization and eroticization of women’s bodies—we
embrace a feminist geopolitics that takes into account women’s role in history
Dowler and Sharp, Professors in the Department of Geography at Pennsylvania State and the Department of Geography and
Topographic Science at the University of Glasgow respectively 01 (Lorraine and Joanne, “A Feminist Geopolitics?”,Space& Polity 5:3, 2001,
EBSCO)//AS
This position argues for the
need to think of bodies as sites of performance intheir own right rather than nothing
more than surfaces for discursive inscription. Discourses do not simply write themselves directly onto
bodies as if these bodies offered blank surfaces of equal topography. Instead, these concepts and ways of being are taken
up and used by people who make meaning of them in the different global contexts in which they
operate. This will bring women and other marginalised groups back into the sight of critical geopolitics.
Most specifically, a feminist geopolitics does not simply rewrite women back into geopolitical histories.
Instead, it offers a lens through which the everyday experiences of the disenfranchised can be made
more visible. This is not to suggest that to understand geographies and identities of the national and international it is necessary to
abandon discourse but, instead, tosee it in a broader way that is less dominated by representation and more attuned to actual practices.
Political geographies can be regarded as emergingfrom the textualised practices and discourses that
actually draw people in assubjects. Women, caught up in different forms of international traffic, areespecially
vulnerable to racialisation and eroticisation of their bodies and labour. National security defines
women’s bodies as requiring protection, but this is often defined from a masculinist position.
Women’s bodies become quite liter- ally a part of making `the international’. For example, in the con¯ ict in
Kosovo, NATO went to war to protect some of the most patriarchal kinship structures in Europe. In her attempt to write a feminist geopolitics,
Fiona Smith (in this issue) demonstrates the ways in which particular spatialities adhere the
global geopolitics of `East’ and
`West’ are inherently entangled with gender politics in eastern European countries and so are
embodied in everyday practices through which people project their identities (for example, the performances of
femininitythrough dress and make-up).
I: Laundry List
Failure to analyze the gender dimension of international relations causes policies that
perpetuate human rights abuses, economic inequality, and rape
Byron and Thorburn, Head of the Government Department at the University of the West Indies and lecturer in International
Relations in the Department of Government at the University of the West Indies respectively 96 (Jessica and Diana, “Gender and International
Relations: A Global Perspective and Issues for the Caribbean”, Feminist Review 59, Summer 1998, JSTOR)//AS
Feminist IR scholars generally agree on the need to provide more holistic definitions of security, applicable to all of humanity. Ann Tickner
the contradictions between state-centric
projects of national security and global security. Human rights abuses and military threats are usually
generated by the nation state itself. Effective environmental protection and management are beyond
the capabilities of any one state. Finally, inequitable national and international economic systems are a
funda- mental source of human insecurity and suffering. However, the feminist critique goes beyond
these observations to emphasize the structural vio- lence that produces gender inequalities and point
out that 'women'sys- temic insecurity is . . . an internal as well as external dimension of state
systems' (Peterson, 1992: 32). On an empirical level, these claims are supported by the work of feminist researchers who present a starkly
contrasting picture of global security issues. They have thrown the spotlight on domestic violence, sexual crimes
and female infanticide (NiCarthy, in Ashworth, 1995; Seifert, 1996; Zalewski, 1995). They have shown that 80 per cent of all
refugees and dis- placed persons are women and children who are vulnerable not only to the insecurity
as refugees, but also to sexual violence and forced prostitution (Longwe, 199S; Agarwal, 1996). Critics of this work
(1991, 1992), Spike Peterson (1992) and Christine Sylvester (1994) all point out
have argued that feminist portrayals are skewed and ignore the damaging consequences of warfare for men. They claim that the methodology
espoused by feminist 215 This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:46:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and
Conditions thinkers does not adequately encompass the masculine gender and the human condition as a whole (Jones, 1996). None the less,
feminist scholarship in these areas has had a noticeable impact on international development and
humanitarian policies and pro- grammes. Since 1985, gender considerations have been increasingly inte- grated into the
design of refugee relief programmes (Ager et a!., l99S; Walker, 1995). In the sphere of environmental security, women are now often cast in
the role of environmental custodians and managers. Follow- ing upon the Bosnian conflict, rape during armed conflict has been cate- gorized
by the United Nations as a war crime. Finally, the influence is much evident in the United Nations Development Programme's concept of
'Human Security' which includes economic security, access to food and health services, personal security, political security and participation in
community life (UNDP Human Development Reports, 1994, 199S).3
Patriarchy is the ideology underlying war, militarism, and ecological destruction
Pietilä, former Secretary-General of the Finnish UN Association 93 (Hilkka, “Patriarchy as a State of War”, presented in the IPRA 25th
Anniversary Conference in Gronningen, 1993)//AS
Militarism has always had many faces, but now we can see them more clearly. The
peace movement failed to see and define
the ideology behind the arms race, use of force in international relations and social conflicts , power games
and domination by the strong actors in the world scene. This ideology is militarism and the philosophy behind that
ideology is patriarchy.The ultimate issue is the issue of power, how is power understood and implemented. Is it power
based on hierarchical structures and legitimately used by those at the top of the structures to dominate, subjugate and exploit those below; or
is it power from below based on potential and ability of people to decide and act together for common causes? The
end of 1970's and
the decade of 1980's were a time of an emerging and flourishing of variety of new people's
movements. But most of these movements are not just single issue movements, contrary to what is often assumed. Ifwe take a
closer look we see that peace, justice, healthy environment and sustainable development are the
implicit general aims of many of these movements. The conscious and conscienticizing women's movement becomes the
more peace oriented the more feminist it becomes. Development movements and action groups promote peace by working for greater equity
War and militarism are the worst enemies of
movements for the protection of nature and environment, since they literally devour natural
resources and destroy the environment even in times of so called peace. The anti-nuclear movements are
between people and nations, i.e. for decreasing structural violence.
campaigning against nuclear weapons as well as nuclear power, which they see as the height of antidemocratic concentration of power in
addition to all risks of destruction of people and nature and the proliferation of nuclear technology. All these forces therefore can be seen as a
front of people against militarism in its various forms, even if not everyone active in these movements perceive it themselves. Analysis by these
movements of the odds against them may also be fragmentary. Therefore, to
put the pieces together is even the more
important in order to strengthen the common ground of these movements. This could be the task of peace
research and its contribution to these potential agents for change of today. In this respect peace movements and peace research seem to have
remained very much in their old niche. Is the peace movement itself the least dynamic and creative of these new social movements? It looks as
Only part of women's movement/women's peace
movement has for quite some time seen the inseparability of militarism and patriarchy and therefore
also the connections between liberation, ecology and peace.
if it is even less antimilitaristic than many other movements.
Gendered framings render bodies disposable and justify militaristic intervention
Williams, Doctoral Candidate in Geography at Clark University, 11 (Jill, “Protection as subjection”, City: analysis of urban trends, culture,
theory, policy, action 15:3-4, June-August 2011, Taylor and Francis)//AS
In Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?, Judith Butler (2010) suggests that understanding
contemporary war-making
necessitates the identification and examination of the mechanisms of power through which life is
produced as grievable. It is in identifying the ‘frames’—selective carvings up of experience (p. 26)—that work to differentiate grievable
from non-grievable life that we can begin to understand how certain human lives are made disposable and various
forms of violence perpetuated. While constantly dynamic, frames function normatively, structuring modes of recognition through
which the world is constituted (p. 24). As Butler writes: ‘Forms of racism instituted and active at the level of perception tend to produce iconic
versions of populations who are eminently grievable, and others whose loss in no loss, and who remain ungrievable. The differential
distribution of grievability across populations has implications for why and when we feel politically consequential affective dispositions such as
horror, guilt, righteous sadism, loss, and indifference.’ (2010, p. 24) As such, frames are not merely reflective of the material conditions of the
world, but are essential to reproducing and challenging that reality by setting boundaries on (il)legitimate political action. Feminist geographers
such as Melissa Wright
and Geraldine Pratt have powerfully illustrated the role gender, race and geography play in
producing subjects unworthy of state assistance and spaces outside of state intervention. Wright’s examination of
femicide and associated feminist activism in Ciudad Jua´rez illustrates how spatially defined
discourses of female respectability are used to dismiss concerns over missing and murdered women
(2006). Women’s presence in public spaces (i.e. bars, streets) at night, regardless of the reason (for example, traveling to or
from work), is used to illustrate their lack of moral respectability, in turn framing the violence they
experience as self-induced and unworthy of state action (see also, Pratt, 2005). Similarly, Geraldine Pratt (2004) has
examined how laws regulating immigrant domestic work in Canada function in combination with gendered and racialized ideologies to produce
individual households as outside the realm of state intervention. These legal and material geographies make immigrant domestic workers
vulnerable to abuses by their employers. In this way, feminist geographers
have illustrated how material, imaginative
and legal geographies are central in the production of life as undeserving of state protections for they
draw literal and symbolic boundaries around where state intervention can occur and on whose behalf. In
addition to framing certain bodies as ungrievable and therefore undeserving of state intervention, feminist and postcolonial scholars have also
illustrated how gendered and racializeddiscourses
are key to producing grievable life and justifying associated
state action. Much of this work draws attention to the gendered and racialized narratives through which
both militarization and humanitarian intervention are enacted and justified. The work of Cynthia Enloe (2000)
and others (Cohn et al., 2005; Spivak, 1988) has drawn attention to how gendered discourses and ideologies are central to
justifying processes of militarization and imperialism. These scholars illustrate how representations (public and
governmental) of political conflicts mobilize gendered ideologies of female and child vulnerability, as well
as those of masculine responsibilities to protect, in order to justify militarized interventions (Enloe, 2000;
Faludi, 2007; Dowler, 2002; Abu-Lughod, 2002). This work suggests that gendered ideologies of vulnerability and security both structure and
justify militarized state actions.
Feminism opposes domination and can solve racism, classism, imperialism, and war
Warren and Cady, former Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Macalester College and professor of philosophy and value theory at
Hamline University, 94 (Karen J. and Duane L., “Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections”, Hypatia 9:2, Spring 1994, JSTOR)//AS
Perhaps the most obvious connection between feminism and peace is that both are structured
around the concept and logic of domination (see (5) below). Although there are a great many varieties of feminism, all
feminists agree that the domination/subordination of women exists, is morally wrong, and must be
eliminated. Most feminists agree that the social construction of gender is affected by such multiple factors as
race/ethnicity, class, affectional preferences, age, religion, and geographic location. So, in fact, any
feminist movement to end the oppression of women will also be a movement, for example, to end
the multiple oppressions of racism, classism, heterosexism, ageism, ethnocentrism, anti-Semitism,
imperialism, and so on (see Warren 1990). War, the "decision by arms," the "final arbiter of disputes," "an act of force which
theoretically has no limits"' (Clausewitz 1976) amounts to domination pushed to the extreme: Imposition of will by
one group onto another by means of threat, injury, and death. Genuine peace ("positive peace"), on the other
hand, involves interaction between and among individuals and groups where such behavior is orderly
from within, cooperative, and based on agreement. Genuine peace is not a mere absence of war ("negative peace"),
where order is imposed from outside by domination (Cady 1989, 1991). It is the process and reality where life-affirming,
self-determined, environmentally sustainable ends are sought and accomplished through
coalitionary, interactive, coopera- tive means. Feminism and peace share an important conceptual connection: Both are
critical of, and committed to the elimination of, coercive power-over privilege systems of domination as a basis of interaction between
A feminist critique and development of any peace politics, therefore, ulti- mately is
a critique of systems of unjustified domination.
individuals and groups.
Patriarchy sustains environmental destruction, war, proliferation, and violence against
women—will lead to extinction
Warren and Cady, former Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Macalester College and professor of philosophy and value theory at
Hamline University, 94 (Karen J. and Duane L., “Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections”, Hypatia 9:2, Spring 1994, JSTOR)//AS
Operationalized, the evidence
of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it
gives rise, (c), and 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 por- nography are examples of behaviors
practiced, sanctioned, or tolerated within patriarchy. In the realm of environmentally destructive
behaviors, strip-min- ing, 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 "man's 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 reallife consequences are precisely those concerns with nuclear proliferation, war, environmental
destruction, and violence toward women, which many feminists see as the logical outgrowth of patriarchal
thinking. In fact, it is often only through observing these dysfunctional behaviors-the symptoms of dysfunctionality-that one can truly see that and how patriarchy serves to maintain and perpetuate them .
When patriarchy is understood as a dysfunc- tional system, this "unmanageability" can be seen for what it is-as a
predict- able and thus logical consequence of patriarchy.'1 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 (see Russell 1989, 2). 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 reduc- ing their impact and preserving
life on Earth" (Spretnak 1989, 54). 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.
I: Otherization/Control
Traditional IR theories subscribe to patriarchal theories that otherize women and
attempt to control them
Runyan and Peterson, professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at the University of Cincinnati and Professor of
International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona 91 (Anne Sisson and V Spike, “The Radical Future
of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 16:1, Winter 1991, JSTOR)//AS
Much has been written of late by post-structuralist international relations theorists7 about this issue of "inside" and "outside" as it relates to
the paradigmatic formulation of realism that postulates an ordered and reasonable domestic society as against a disordered, unreasonable
(mad or MAD), anarchical international society. Although Richard Ashley
speaks to the will to power of "statecraft as
man-craft" to control all that it defines as outside of its control8 - anarchy, war, crises, and so on - he
does not root this analysis in the patriarchal relations of "manstate" seeking to control "woman,"
which it construes as an unreasonable (mad), anarchical "outsider" or "other." It is this patriarchal
construction of "woman," we argue, that renders women as both invisible in and yet central to the tenets of
realism. On the one hand, "woman" has no place in the grand narrative and high politics of anarchical
interstate relations. In this reading, she is a "domesticated" figure whose "feminine" sensibilities are
both at odds with and inconsequential to the harsh "realities" of the public world of men and states. On the
other hand, the patriarchal construction of woman" as madness, the other, the outsider, which is
coterminus with the way realism defines international relations, gives rise to the need to "tame" and
"domesticate" her - to bring her under control because she can never aspire to having "reason" herself.
Interestingly, as Felman notes, "Madness ... is precisely what makes a woman 'not' a woman."9 This does not mean that "woman" or the
"feminine" can lay claim to the "masculine" quality of rationality in patriarchal discourse, but it does suggest that womanhood" (particularly as
housewifery) is a reserved quality that is incompatible with the disorder of madness - witness the tortuous medical treatments visited upon
"hysterical" women over time. So,
too, the image of the impermeable and orderly state breaks down in the face
of international disorder.Realism does not expect rationality to prevail in interstate relations (any more than it is expected in
patriarchal discourse to exist in Vornan"), so it, too, must advocate strong and coercive measures to try to bring the
madness and hysteria under "man's" control. Thus, the patriarchal construction of woman" as the site of
disorder, which must be treated and tamed to conform to the dictates of "femininity" as a controlled
identity, haunts the realist formulation of man/state vs. mad/states
I: General
Realism neglects the power of politics as conflict resolution and dooms us to
destruction by its inability to solve problems
Runyan and Peterson, professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at the University of Cincinnati and Professor of
International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona 91 (Anne Sisson and V Spike, “The Radical Future
of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 16:1, Winter 1991, JSTOR)//AS
Women, of course, are not the only actors that are excluded from realism's limited gaze. Once again, many
critics of realism have targeted its state-centric bias that devalues and often dismisses other forms of
political organization (such as local and transnational non-governmental organizations) , and which, in its emphasis on the
inevitability of the clash of armed states, disregards almost entirely the possibility of politics as a complex form
of resolving conflicts among individuals and groups. Unable to see above, below, or past the lens of the state, realism
leaves much unseen and undervalued. But this is not just a problem of vision and imagination. It has dire
consequences for all those it does not represent and even for those in whose interest it continually
"represents." Realists are well aware that the destructive forces in the world that they continually evoke in
their narratives and practice are capable of annihilating not only the oppressed, but also the
privileged. Yet they seem to be unable or unwilling to deal with the contradictions this entails . It seems
strange, indeed, that they counsel security within a framework of total insecurity, even for those who have more buffers than others.19 But it
is precisely the dichotomous thinking in realism as patriarchal discourse that breeds these kinds of
contradictions, reducing its power to conceptualize, explain, or otherwise effectively deal with the many problems
in the world that it acknowledges. Realism maintains hegemony in the face of its ineffectualness because the reality of statecraft
it mirrors is still attractive to or resonant with the man/state as patriarchy has constructed it. But just as the subversive
strategies of feminism confront and undermine patriarchy, so, too, can these strategies assist in
displacing the power of the patriarchal construct of the man/state, which itself is heavily responsible for the
invocation of mad/states. If there is to be a future for realism, and, indeed, a future for any of us, its patriarchal roots
must be subverted to make possible not just an enlarged representation of reality, but a cognition of the multiple
realities that can animate and transform "the real" in the interests of all of us.
I: War
States with high levels of gender inequality are statistically more likely to use
aggressive force and start wars
Caprioli, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota at Duluth 04 (Mary, “Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative
Methodology: A Critical Analysis”, International Studies Review 6:2, June 2004, JSTOR)//AS
Adding to the quantitative feminist IR literature, Caprioli
(2000) applied feminist theory and drew upon the
empirical findings of the public opinion surveys dis- cussed above to test the potential impact of
domestic gender equality on state behavior internationally. She used logistic regression to test the relationship
between several measures of women's social, economic, and political equality and the escalation of violence during militarized interstate
disputes. Caprioliconcludes thathigher
levels of domestic gender equality result in less emphasis on military
action in settling international disputes.Caprioli and Boyer (2001) extend Caprioli's earlier work to assess the impact of
domestic gender equality on state's international crisis behavior. The authors pro- vide an empirically based descriptive analysis of the
behavior of states with female leaders as primary decision makers during times of international crises. They then use logistic regression to test
the relationship between domestic gender equality and the level of violence exhibited during international crises, concluding that the
severity of violence in a crisis does decrease as domestic gender equality increases .
In a later study, Caprioli
(2003) further tested the relationship between domestic gender equality and state behavior during militarized interstate disputes. In this
piece, she included an analysis relating gendered structural inequality to domestic norms of violence. Using
logistic regression to
assess the role of domestic gender equality in predicting the likelihood of a state using force first
during interstate disputes permits a more rigorous test of the author's earlier work by isolating the
effects of reciprocated violence. Caprioliconcludes that higher levels of gender equality lower the level
of state aggression during interstate disputes. In other words, states with higher levels of gender
inequality are more likely to use force first in interstate disputes.Caprioli (forthcoming-a) extends her earlier findings
relating gender equality to interstate behavior to internal or domestic level conflict. In this research, the author seriously considers the
implications of feminist theories by providing an analysis of structural violence and the role of gender inequality and discrimination in nationalist uprisings to assess this variable's potential role in predicting intrastate violence. Caprioli uses logistic regression to examine the impact of
gender inequality on the likelihood of intrastate conflict and concludes that domestic gender equality re- duces the occurrence of intrastate
violence. In other words, states
characterized by gender inequality are more likely to experience intrastate
conflict, confirming the basic link between gender inequality and intrastate conflict. Patrick Regan and Aida
Paskeviciute (2003) extended the analysis of gender equality and state use of force internationally beyond the state level by focusing on
whether the gender distribution of political power at the societal level influences the willingness of the ruling elite to engage in interstate
disputes. The authors concludethat
women's access to the political arena helps predict the likelihood of a
state engaging in interstate disputes and in war. The authors offer a policy pre- scription suggesting that support for family
planning facilities can facilitate more peaceful interstate relations.
War is inextricably linked with treatment of women—million die in conflict due to
false perceptions of the way security operates
Hudson et. al, professor of political science at Texas A&M, 09 (Valerie M., Mary Caprioli,Bonnie BallifSpanvill, RoseMcDermott,
andChad F. Emmett, “The Heart of the Matter: the Security of Women and the Security of States”, International Security 33:3, Winter 08/09,
University of Michigan Libraries)//AS
In this article we argue that there
is another fundamental and powerful explanatory factor that must be
considered when examining issues of state security and conflict: the treatment of females within society.
At first glance, thisargument seems hardly intuitive. How could the treatment of women possibly be linked to matters of high politics, such as
war and national security? The two realms seem not to inhabit the same conceptual space. Yet in 2006, Secretary-General of the United
Nations Kofi Annan opined, “The world is... starting to grasp that there is no policy more effective [in promoting development, health, and
no policy is more important in preventing
conflict, or in achieving reconciliation after a conflict has ended.”4 It is possible that views such as Annan’s are just a
education] than the empowerment of women and girls. And I would venture that
nod to political correctness, which can be ignored without consequence by security scholars and policymakers. Yet it is also possible that
security scholars are missing something important by overlooking the situation of women in the study
of security. In this article we examine the question: Is there a significant linkage between the security of women and the security of states?
When a coauthor of this article raised this question in a departmental research meeting, the answer offered was a swift and certain: “No.”
Violence wrought by the great military conflicts of the twentieth century was proof that security scholars would do best by focusing on larger
issues such as democracy and democratization, poverty and wealth, ideology and national identity. Along a scale of “blood spilt and lives lost”
as the proper location of concern for security studies, colleagues queried, Why would one ever choose to look at women? Taken aback by such
professed certainty that we were on the wrong course, it took some time for us to articulate an answer. How
to explain, for
example, that the death toll of Indian women due to female infanticide and sex selective abortion
from 1980 to the present dwarfs by almost fortyfold the death toll from all of India’s wars since and
including its bloody independence? Perhaps, we reasoned, it would be instructive to consider the scale upon which women die
from sex-selective causes. Using overall sex ratios as a crude marker for a host of causes of death by virtue of being female (female
infanticide, sex-selective abortion, egregious maternal mortality rates, disproportionate childhood
mortality, and murder/suicide rates), we would find ourselves contemplating the numbers in figure 1 in comparison with the
great slaughters of the twentieth century. Because the death tolls for the wars and conflicts listed above include deaths of women as both
civilians and combatants, it
would not be an exaggeration to suggest that the “blood spilt and lives lost” over
the last century have been, in the first place, that of females. When thinking of war and peace and
national security, many picture a uniformed soldier—male—lying dead on the field of battle, gendering
these important issues male. Perhaps fresh vision, such as offered in figure 1, would turn thoughts to the girl
baby drowned in a nearby stream or the charred body of a young bride burned in a “kitchen fire” of
her in-laws’ making. To pose the question more conceptually, might there be more to inquire about than simply the effect of war on
women—might the security of women in fact influence the security of states?
The male domination of the aff is the root cause of war – bolstering feminism is key
Goldstein 1 – Professor of International Relations @ American University, Ph.D and M.S. in Political
Science @ MIT, B.A. Political Science @ Stanford (Joshua, 2001, “War and Gender”, Google Books, page
356,
http://books.google.com/books?id=KXs_LS5g57MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&
cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false, RSpec)
A second variant, Hypothesis 6B, proposes that men’s participation in combat depends on feminizing the enemy and
enacting and enacting rape symbolically (and sometimes literally), thereby using gender to symbolize domination. “In
war’s coding, the inferior and hated enemy is feminine .” For example, a US pilot, after shooting down a male Iraqi pilot,
reportedly said he “cold smoked the bitch” (not the “bastard”). Men who feminize enemies in this way might be confused by having women
soldiers use gender to represent domination. Psychologically, they assume a
masculine and dominant position relative to a feminine and subordinate enemy. Within armies, by the same
warriors in their own ranks.61 Male
principle, subordinates are coded as female. One US soldier in Vietnam said of his officers that “[w]e are their women.” Thus, the
feminization not only of enemy troops and civilians, but of subordinates and nonsoldiers, plays into soldiers’ militarized
masculinity. In war films, the feminine is a “purely symbolic presence” for boys. In an all-male environment, the subordinate males take
on feminine gender (as “girls,” “pussies,” etc.). The absence of actual females frees up the gender category to
encode domination. In war films, “the feminine…is something to be conquered”.
Masculine domination makes violence inevitable
Tickner 92 – Professor of International Relations @ USC Ph.D Political Science @ Brandeis, M.A.
International Relations @ Yale, B.A. History @ University of London (J. Ann, “Gender in International
Relations”, PDF, http://www.ces.uc.pt/ficheiros2/files/Short.pdf, RSpec)
Masculinity and politics have a long and close association. Characteristics associated with “manliness,”
such as toughness, courage, power, independence, and even physical strength, have, throughout
history, been those most valued in the conduct of politics, particularly international politics. Frequently,
manliness has also been associated with violence and the use of force, a behavior that, when
conducted in the international arena, has been valorized and applauded int the name of defending one’s
country.
Male dominance ensures war – integrating feminism offers a new viewpoint that creates effective
solutions to peace and global problems
Ivanov 12 – B.A @ Western Ontario University in Political Science and M.A. @ Carleton in Political
Science (Georgi, “Why Feminism is Needed in International Relations”, 2012,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/1610/why-feminism-is-needed-in-international-relations, RSpec)
What is the role of women in global peace and security today? From a gender point of view, men are the chief
perpetrators and negotiators of war and peace in contemporary conflicts, but women are among those who suffer most and are illrepresented at peace mediation and settlement. The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, or as it is
simply known, UN Women, helps show that integrating
feminism in conflict resolution offers new approaches
towards reconciliation, fair social policies and inclusive peace strategies. In terms of security, there are three
key avenues along which the role of women is essentiaL: security sector reform, peacebuilding and reintegration and transitional justice. Looking at these from the perspective of gender critique offers some interesting solutions,
such as ensuring the security of girls and women, and introducing gender-based checks on police and military power. In respect to conflicts,
women are among the most vulnerable groups. Kidnappings, sexual crimes, and violent attacks are the most common and underreported
offences against women in a conflict setting, and a look at the statistics can substantiate that picture; for instance, less than 3% of signatories
on peace treaties are women. The question then transforms into what role women have in managing and settling conflicts.
Securitysector reform (SSR) involves demilitarization, the strengthening of rule of law and establishing civilian control over security capacities.
SSR is often a long process, and a sustained effort to incorporate gender perspectives coherently throughout all aspects of security reforms is
needed. This means working with police, military and justice institutions to gain recognition of crimes against women, gain ground on equal
opportunity and essentially empower women to contribute to good ideas and practices related to security.
Feminism offers a genderbased viewpoint on SSR that codifies tolerance, openness in crime investigations, and, by extension, a
civil debate on the use of force in the first place. Peacebuilding and re-integration refers to two key aspects: the
demobilization and re-integration of female combatants. The fundamental point here is that women in conflict act not only as soldiers,
but they also have a wide variety of support roles – some willingly participate, but most are forced when livelihoods are destroyed by war and
conflict. The main approaches focus on bringing
openness and tribune to the roles and issues women face in conflict
in order to overcome stigma, include them in the wider peace-building negotiations in critical areas,
such as the Middle East or the Sudans, and create effective opportunities for a fair chance at a life free
of fear and insecurity. In essence, women’s voices add another wrinkle and viewpoint to any peacebuilding initiative and helps make any resolution less male-focused. Transitional justice is a fairly new policy area and it
focuses on bridging enemies of a conflict in order to make a society move forward. Measures include truth reconciliation commissions, criminal
trials, SSR, and the wider involvement of the international community in finding a new balance of peace in a post-conflict society. Feminism’s
virtue in this respect is that it can encourage unconditional conversation between all stakeholders, and especially women, who are involved in
every way in a conflict, from logistics to fighting and taking care of the wounded; their roles are not recognized in male-dominated discussions.
For UN Women, the priorities focus on ensuring women access to these processes so they are not left outside of the new status quo and
received the aforementioned chances at a secure, dignified life. With all this in mind,
it is clear that women are essential to the
security of any society. Feminist perspectives can bring better ways of thinking, acting and policymaking. UN Women effectively centralizes these efforts, but more still needs to be done. As such, spreading the word is the first step to a
better world.
Male domination in international relations is the root cause of war
Fritzsche 11 – MSc Student @ Aalborg University, The Interdisciplinary Journal of International Relations
(Nora, “The Construction of Masculinity in International Relations”, Volume 7, Number 1, 2011, RSpec)
As has been demonstrated in the preceding discussions, the political sphere is generally a world of men—a fact that has
caught the attention of many feminist scholars like Tickner (1992: 6) who argues that ‘politics and masculinity have a long and
close association’. Lack of women is apparent in international politics. Share of women decreases the
closer the political position in question is related to national security and defence policy (that is to say, less
than 6% of the world’s Defence Ministers are women). This suggests that the bond between masculinity and international
politics is particularly tight when it comes to national security issues which, according to Tickner (1992: 5), is due to
the fact that the ‘foreign and military policy-making has been largely conducted by men’, including both the
decision making by politicians and the actual execution by diplomats and soldiers. Because politicians and
diplomats as well as soldiers have for a very long time been exclusively men, the concentration on men’s experiences is
nowhere as apparent as it is in the concepts of war and security, fields that have been traditionally given
very high priority in international politics as well as in theories of international relations. As Tickner (1992: 10)
rightly notes: ‘Central concern of realism, the dominant paradigm in IR since 1945, has been with issues of war and national security’.
Male domination in in international relations is the root cause of war
Fritzsche 11 – MSc Student @ Aalborg University, The Interdisciplinary Journal of International Relations
(Nora, “The Construction of Masculinity in International Relations”, Volume 7, Number 1, 2011, RSpec)
The idea that what is once defined as true becomes true was supplemented to the assumption of a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ by sociologist
Robert King Merton, who coined this expression in 1948, and continued among others by Karl Popper, who called it the ‘Oedipus effect’. On this
the reason for women having an especially tough time reaching and being accepted in the
field of foreign and military policy-making is due to the construction and perception of the field itself.
The whole sphere of international politics theory (mainly, realism and liberalism) and practice (broadly
speaking, war and peace and diplomacy, deterrence and nuclear threats, national bargain and hard
politics) are characterized by a high degree of gender-blindness, if not an exclusive concentration and
focus on men’s perspectives. The construction of and focus on masculinity in international relations is
the reason why femininity is hardly wanted nor found in it.
basis, I argue that
Patriarchy demands a constant state of war that turns women into unwilling soldiers
Pietilä, former Secretary-General of the Finnish UN Association 93 (Hilkka, “Patriarchy as a State of War”, presented in the IPRA 25th
Anniversary Conference in Gronningen, 1993)//AS
It has been said that a patriarchal
state is either in the state of war, recovering from war or preparing for
war. When seen from the women's point of view, and on the basis of women's experience, this statement is more true than it seems to be:
state of war is constantly prevailing within the patriarchy. What the constant preparation for war implies both for men
and women in a patriarchal society is beautifully described by Birgit Brock Utne (1985) when she compares the ideals of mothers
and soldiers in this kind of society and culture: "Both mothers and soldiers are asked to take orders from men
who have more power and a higher status than they, and to sacrifice their lives for others who are
judged more important. Not to reason why, just to accept the system is a virtue. The American peace researcher Betty Reardon (1981)
maintains that what the soldier has done for the nation or the warrior for the tribe through the centuries, woman has done for the family.
"Woman has been trained to sublimate her own needs to the service of others. Soldiers and mothers have days dedicated in their honor, when
society offers thanks for their sacrifices by, in Reardon's words;
'Reminding them that for such they were born and by
such they will continue to be identified and find meaning; for war and domesticity are in the natural
order of things, as are the fixed roles of soldiers and mothers in that order'. The military chain of command is
conceptually close to the patriarchal family, both being essentially hierarchical organizations. In both institutions, obedience is a virtue and
disobedience severely punished. Obedience to authority is the cornerstone of an effective military machine and the fundamental principle of
the patriarchal family. Though the similarity between the ideal mother and the ideal soldier are striking, there are also distinct differences in
their training. Both are asked to sacrifice themselves, both trained to be obedient and submissive ; but
mothers give life and seek to protect the life they have given, while soldiers are trained to be prepared to take life." The declaration of the
Sicilian women in 1981 expresses how women
always find themselves on the battle ground, war continues inside
and outside the patriarchal state: "Our NO TO WAR coincides with the struggle for our liberation. Never have we seen so clearly as
now the connection between nuclear escalation and the Culture of Muscleman, between the violence of war and the violence of rape. Such is
in fact the historical memory that women have about all wars, always and everywhere. But this is our daily experience in peacetime as well, and
in this respect women are always at war. It is not by chance that the gruesome game of war... goes through the same stages as the traditional
sex relationship: Aggression, Conquest, Possession, Control, of a woman or of a land makes little difference."
Male dominance of society results in militaristic, authoritarian regimes and
institutionalized social violence
Brock-Utne, Professor of Education and Development at the University of Oslo 84 (Birgit, “The Relationship of Feminism to Peace and
Peace Education”, Security Dialogue 15:149, Sage Publications)//AS
Peace-loving men have trouble understanding that the more women are oppressed in a society, the
easier their own viewpoints will be disregarded if they can be labeled feminine. Riane Eisler,’3 the co-director
of the Institute for Futures Forecasting, points to the following ironic fact: Those on the liberal left and center who speak of freedom, equality
and disarmament continue to see sexual equality, and other ’women’s issues’ as peripheral concerns, something for action alien- more
important things are done. But those on the right, who
relentlessly work for hierarchical orderings, authoritarian
controls and increased armaments, correctly perceive that sexual inequality is the cornerstone of the
system they seek to impose on us all, and therefore also work relentlessly against sexual equality. President Reagan has found
his ideologue (much as Hitler did in Nietzsche) in George Gilder, whose book ’Wealth and Poverty’ the President gave to all his Cabinet
appointees. Gilder claims that discrimination, both racial and sexual, is a myth and that women get paid less than men because they produce
less. The thesis by Gilder, which is actively promoted by the Reagan administration is that women destroy their husband’s productivity by
working: men work hard only if they have women and children at home who would starve without them. ’ To get women out of the labor force
will restore the American family’s viability. By re-criminalizing abortion - another goal of the Reagan administration - they evidently hope to
create another baby boom. We might cite Nietzsche 14 here: ’Men should be trained for war and women for the recreation of the warrior’.
Gilder claims that feminism is incompatible with the objectives of black males. It is a consoling fact that where polls according to sex have been
taken, it appears that for the first time since women have had the vote they are voting quite differently from men - and they are turning away
from Reagan and from the Republican party in very large numbers. Those
on the right see the women’s liberation
movement and feminist ideas as a dangerous threat to the society they want to create. And they are
right. Evidence strongly suggests that the more militarist a society is, the more sexist it tends to be .
Gloria Steinem 15 shows in a series of articles how Hitler crushed the German feminist movement as he militarized
Germany. The Nazi movement was an essentially male organization. German women’s virtue, according to Hitler, was to bear children,
preferably sons who were to become soldiers and propagate with the sword the ideology of Nazism around the world. The nutshell version of
his ideology tied in with the slogan: Kinder, Kuche, Kirche (Children, Kitchen, Church). The
best available research from archeology,
at a strong correlation
between male-dominance, a generally hierarchic and authoritarian system and a high degree of
institutionalized social violence. 16 These findings also show that thehorror and absurdity of our maledominated hierarchic and warlike system is not, as some religious dogmas have it, divinely ordained;
nor is it, as some scientists would have it, due to man’s killer genius. It is rather the result of a 5000-year long detour
anthropology, sociology, education, psychology, linguistics, economics, and other relevant disciplines point
in human cultural evolution.
I: Domestic Violence
Focus on realist notions of war ignores massive domestic violence and perpetuates a
domination-based system that thrives on war
Runyan and Peterson, professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at the University of Cincinnati and Professor of
International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona 91 (Anne Sisson and V Spike, “The Radical Future
of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 16:1, Winter 1991, JSTOR)//AS
To illustrate the evolution of contemporary feminist standpoint theorizing for peace,61 we turn first to Barbara Roberts's "No Safe Place: The
War Against Women."62 Building upon Susan Brownmiller's early work, Against Our WilL: Men, Women, and Rape,65 which
explores
the commonality and frequency of rape over time and across cultures to contend thatthe threat of
rape sustains male power over women, Roberts makes an explicit case for connecting women's
experience of male violence to the experience of war.By presenting a series of statistics on the frequency and
severity of domestic violence (including rape and battering) across all classes and races in the United States and
Canada, Roberts argues that the gender-blindness of peace researchers, rendering domestic violence
against women invisible, causes them to make very erroneous assumptions about the "peacefulness"
within societies, which is often contrasted to the violence between nations. This gender-blindness also
fails to identify the fact that "it is usually men who exercise power, however defined, over other men and over
women" and that "for most men a direct experience of power is power over women."64 In a later, but related article, "The Death of
Machothink: Feminist Research and the Transformation of Peace Studies," Roberts goes on to challenge traditional definitions of power.
Departing from Brownmiller, who saw rape as the locus and expression of absolute male power, Roberts insists that "power-as-dominance is
ultimately an expression of powerlessness."65 Citing various feminist theories and studies that suggest that men's experiential separation from
the reproductive realm of care and nurturing gives rise to the phenomenon of abstract masculinity, she argues that violent men, such as
rapists, batterers, and soldiers, are in fact powerless in the sense that they are "usually crippled, pathetic, incompetent human beings, unable
or unwilling to take responsibility for themselves, let alone others, in a nurturing way."66 Moreover, the license to assault and bully women
and children (often under the guise of male authority in and protection of the family) is much less a threat to the powers-that-be than would
be the empowerment of men. "The 'right' to control a woman is given to a man as a substitute for the right to control his own life."67 Thus,
the perpetuation of women's oppression, most often through male coercion and violence,
perpetuates a system based on domination and war.
The language of war and nature is profoundly patriarchal and encourages domination
of women and use of nuclear weapons
Warren and Cady, former Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Macalester College and professor of philosophy and value theory at
Hamline University, 94 (Karen J. and Duane L., “Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections”, Hypatia 9:2, Spring 1994, JSTOR)//AS
Much of feminist critique regarding war and violence focuses on language, particularly the symbolic
connections between sexist-naturist-warist language, that is, language which inferiorizes women and
nonhuman nature by natural- izing women and feminizing nature, and then gets used in discussions
of war and nuclear issues. For example, naturist language describes women as cows, foxes, chicks, serpents, bitches, beavers, old
bats, pussycats, cats, bird-brains, hare-brains. Sexist language feminizes and sexualizes nature: Nature is raped,
mastered, conquered, controlled, mined. "Her" "secrets" are "penetrated," and "her" "womb" is put into the service of the
"man of science." "Virgin (not stud) timber" is felled, cut down. "Fertile (not potent) soil" is tilled, and land that lies "fallow" (not cultivated) is
"barren," useless. Language which so feminizes nature and so naturalizes women describes, reflects, and perpetuates the domination and
inferiorization of both by failing to see the extent to which the twin dominations of women and nature (including animals) are, in fact,
The adoption of sexist-naturist language in military
and nuclear parlance carries the inequity to new heights (Warren N.d.). Nuclear missiles are on "farms," "in silos." That
culturally (and not merely figuratively) connected (Adams 1988, 61).
part of the submarine where twenty-four multiple warhead nuclear missiles are lined up, ready for launching, is called "the Christmas tree
farm"; BAMBI is the acronym developed for an early version of an antiballistic missile system (for Ballistic Missile Boost Intercept). In her
article "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals," Carol Cohn describes her one-year immersion in a university's center on
defense technology and arms control. She relates a professor's explanation of why the 12 MX missile is to be placed in the silos of the new
Minuteman missiles, instead of replacing the older, less accurate ones "because they're in the nicest hole-you're not going to take the nicest
missile you have and put it in a crummy hole." Cohn describes a linguistic world of vertical erector launchers, thrust-to-weight ratios, soft lay
downs, deep penetration, penetration aids (also known as "penaids", devices that help bombers of missiles get past the "enemy's" defensive
system), "the comparative advantages of protracted versus spasm attacks"-or what one military advisor to the National Security Council has
called "releasing 70 to 80 percent of our megatonnage in one orgasmic whump"-where India's
explosion of a nuclear bomb is
spoken of as "losing her virginity" and New Zealand's refusal to allow nuclear-arms or nuclear-powered warships into its ports is described as "nuclear virginity" (Cohn 1989, 133-37). Such language and
imagery creates, reinforces, and justifies nuclear weapons as a kind of male sexual dominance of
females. There are other examples of how sexist-naturist language in military con- texts is both self-deceptive
and symbolic of male-gendered dominance. Ronald Reagan dubbed the MX missile "the
Peacekeeper." "Clean bombs" are those which announce that "radioactivity is the only 'dirty' part of
killing people" (Cohn 1989, 132). Human deaths are only "collateral damage" (since bombs are targeted at buildings,
not people). While a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Senator Gary Hart recalled that during military lobbying efforts under
the Carter administration, the central image was that of a "size race" which became "a macho issue." The
American decision to drop the first atomic bomb into the centers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instead of rural areas, was based on the
military's designation of those cities as "virgin targets," not to be subjected to conventional bombing (Spretnak 1989, 55).
Empirical studies prove correlation between patriarchal social norms and violence
against women
Yodanis, assistant professor of family studies at the University of British Columbia 04 (Carrie L., “Gender Inequality, Violence Against
Women, and Fear”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19:655, 2004, Sage Publications)//AS
By combining cross-national data on violence against women, the status of women, and fear among
women, this article answers the need for a crossnationally comparative macro-level test of the feminist theory of violence against women.
This empirical test results in substantial support for the theory. The first main finding is that a structure of gender
inequality is associated with a culture of violence against women. The educational and occupational status of women
in a country is correlated with the prevalence of sexual violence in a country, with a high status of women corresponding with
lower rates of sexual violence. Based on feminist theory, this can be explained in a number of ways. On the institutional level,
when women represent nearly or more than half of those participating in institutions of higher education or
workplace settings, men may accept women as equal and competent peers and colleagues that belong in those
institutions beside them. Women may no longer be a threat to men, and thus, men will not use forms of
sexual violence, such as sexual harassment, to deter women from participating in those insti- tutions. In addition, when women
hold positions of power and influence in institutions, policies and practices may be less tolerant of
sexual violence.
The dichotomies between masculine and feminine in international relations are
used to propagate political violence
Ortega 12- doctorate candidate in political science at theUniversity of Vienna, Austria. She has worked as a Gender and DDR
consultant for the United Nations Development Programme , BA in international relations (Luisa Maria Dietrich, “Looking Beyond
Violent Militarized Masculinities”, International Feminist Journal of Politics, October 2012,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2012.726094)//js
The insurgent movements analysed understand ‘class struggle’, that is, the contradiction between
labour and capital, as the main structure of oppression in society and incorporate this conception into group
organization. Despite the fact that gender is established as a ‘side contradiction’ in revolutionary
discourse and insurgent practice, ‘gender’, being an inequality generating structure, does not disappear, nor
can insurgent organizations opt to operate outside a gendered framework. In this context, the efforts
of guerrilla organizations to ‘mute gender’ for ideological purposes, while preventing female
militants from developing a gender consciousness, indicate the vested interest of insurgent
organizations in manipulating gender constructions for the advancement of their revolutionary
objectives. Thus, significant efforts are invested in the provision of alternative gendered role
models in order to shape functional militant femininities and masculinities that are mobilized
for political violence. Although over the last decade the study of masculinities in Latin American contexts has increased
considerably, limited attention has been paid to the constructions of revolutionary masculinities .1
Particularly interesting are works on imagery and narratives used in the construction of revolutionary masculinity, stressing Ernesto
‘Che’ Guevara’s conception of the ‘New Man’, or the work of the Nicaraguan FSLN commander Omar Cabezas (1982) on the
incorporation of emotions into male revolutionary repertoires or ‘what might be considered the feminine, tender and loving side of
the macho guerrilla’ (Bayard de Volo 2012: 420; see also Rodriguez 1996; Goosses 2001). Given that autobiographies of male
revolutionary leaders rarely provide insights into men’s gendered experiences (Sanchez Cere´n 2008; Valencia 2008), increased
attention has been placed on female militants’ accounts and narratives (Va´zquez et al. 1996; Grabe 2000; Vasquez 2000; Pen˜ a
2009) to derive insights into guerrilla masculinities.
I: Political Violence
I: Prolif
Patriarchy is the driving force behind nuclear proliferation and a casual attitude
towards annihilation
Warren and Cady, former Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Macalester College and professor of philosophy and value theory at
Hamline University, 94 (Karen J. and Duane L., “Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections”, Hypatia 9:2, Spring 1994, JSTOR)//AS
The imagery that domesticates nuclear and conventional weapons, natural- izes women, and
feminizes nature comes at a high psychological cost. Many feminists claim that patriarchal conceptual
frameworks generate what ecofeminist Susan Griffin calls "ideologies of madness" (Griffin 1989). Femi- nist
scholarship abounds with discussions of "phallic worship," or what Helen Caldecott calls "missile envy," as a
significant motivating force in the nuclear buildup (Cohn 1989, 133). Many feminists join psychiatrist R.J. Liftonin
critiquing "nuclearism" as an addiction, characterized and maintained by "psychic numbing," a
defense mechanism that enables us to deny the reality and threat of nuclear annihilation. Denial is the
psychological process which makes possible the continuation of oppression by otherwise rational beings. Setting aside complicated
psychological issues, we can nonetheless ask, "Of what conceptual significance is the alleged psychological data on woman- nature-peace
connections? What do feminist philosophers glean from such accounts?" We close our consideration of feminist/peace connections by proposing an answer: Such
psychological accounts help us understand patriarchy as a dysfunctional social
system which is grounded in a faulty belief system (or conceptual framework) (Warren 1993). The notion of
patriarchy as a socially dysfunctional system enables feminist philosophers to show why conceptual
connections are so important and how conceptual connections are linked to the variety of other sorts
of woman-nature-peace connections. In addition, the claim that patriarchy is a dysfunctional social system
locates what ecofeminists see as various "dys- functionalities" of patriarchy-the empirical invisibility of what
women do, sexist-warist-naturist language, violence toward women, other cultures, and nature-in a
historical, socioeconomic, cultural, and political context.
I: Democracy
Feminist analysis of power relations is critical to functioning democracy—otherwise it
becomes oppressive
Phillips, Professor of Political and Gender Theory at the London School of Economics 98 (Anne, “Feminism and Politics”, Oxford University
Press, 1998, http://books.google.com/books/about/Feminism_and_Politics.html?id=gUzaAAAAMAAJ)//AS
Two strands of feminist writing illuminate the debate on deliber- ative democracy. One strand, which celebrates women's greater nur- turance,
modifies and enriches the deliberative framework by providing images and models of practice from women's experience. In this view, women's
socialization and role in child~rearing, among other causes, makes them especially concerned to transform "˜I' into "˜we' and to seek solutions
to conflict that accommodate diverse and often suppressed desires.
In our society women are usually brought up to
identify their own good with that of others, especially their children and husbands. More than men, women build their identities through relationships with friends. As Iennifer Nedelslcy puts it, the female self has more `permeable' boundaries.
Feminist writers propose this capacity for broader self-definition as a model for democratic politics.
Yet, as feminists are also well aware, the very capacity to identify with others can easily be manipulated to the
disadvantage of women. A second strand of feminist thought, which focuses on male oppression, warns against deliberation serving
as a mask for domination. Permeability, Andrea Dworkin demonstrates, is the avenue for invasion as well as intimacy. The
transformation of "˜I' into "˜we' brought about through political deliberation can easily mask subtle
forms of control. Even the language people use as they reason together usually favours one way of
seeing things and dis- courages others. Subordinate groups sometimes cannot find the right voice or words to express their
thoughts, and when they do, they discover that they are not heard. Feminists who focus on the inequality of power
between men and women point to the ways women are silenced, encouraged to keep their wants
inchoate, and heard to say "˜yes' when they mean "˜noi These same insights help us to grasp other forms of domination,
such as those based on wealth, that can also infect the deliberative process. So, as political theorists turn to thinking about
democracy as deliberation, feminist thought lends both encouragement and cau- tion. Feminists bring
to the new stress on deliberation experiences ofa self accustomed to encompassing others' welfare in
its own and achieving that common welfare more by persuasion than by power. Yet feminists also
bring a vivid recognition of the capacity of a dom- inant group to silence or ignore voices it does not
wish to hear.
I: Fear
The violence of patriarchy creates a culture of fear for women—it’s a terror tactic
Yodanis, assistant professor of family studies at the University of British Columbia 04 (Carrie L., “Gender Inequality, Violence Against
Women, and Fear”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19:655, 2004, Sage Publications)//AS
The second main finding in this article is that sexual
violence is associated with a culture of women’s fear. The overall
rates of sexual violence in a country
increase, a woman does not personally have to be a victim of violence to feel more fearful. Rather, under
these circumstances, women likely hear and know about acts of sexual violence against other women. This
knowledge is enough to instill fear in all women, regardless of personal experiences. This is consistent with
the feminist theory of violence. Not every woman needs to be a victim of violence for violence to control the
lives ofwomen. Rather, if a culture of violence against women is created—a climate in which women know that sexual
violence does occur—a culture of fear among women will accompany it. This is a standard terrorist strategy.
Violence against some can create terror and limit the behavior of many. Again, however, rates of physical violence
prevalence of sexual violence in a country is related to women’s fear relative to men’s. As
are not related to women’s fear. Explanations again may be found in the fact that physical and sexual violence are different forms of violence
against women and may be used by men against women in different ways. It may be that physical violence creates a fearful home, and
sexual violence forms the culture of fear, as the “shadow” explanation of women’s fear suggests . Yet
women’s fear is not rooted in merely a “shadow” of sexual violence or only the personal experience of violence. Rather, as the rates of sexual
violence in a country and women’s general probability of being a victim increases, so does women’s fear. Women’s
fear is not a
paradox or unwarranted. A culture of fear among women grows among a culture of violence against
women. The findings presented in this article are admittedly limited. As discussed in the Method section, one must be cautious about the
claims made as a result of the data and methods used. First, the data do not provide us with knowledge of how women actually experience
violence and fear in their lives. Second, the small number of cases limits the ability to perform statistical tests. Future steps in this project
include the development of multilevel models to test the effects of both individual- and country-level variables. Additional measures of status
of women are also planned for the future, including the status of women in legal and criminal justice systems. Finally, it is important to
remember that the data on violence and fear are based on reported experiences by women. In some countries, particularly those in which
violence against women is openly discussed and addressed as a social problem, women may be more likely to report their experiences.
Patriarchy creates a culture of fear where pervasive violence keeps women
subordinate
Yodanis, assistant professor of family studies at the University of British Columbia 04 (Carrie L., “Gender Inequality, Violence Against
Women, and Fear”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19:655, 2004, Sage Publications)//AS
Theoretically, a number of possible mechanisms link these dimensions of women’s status to violence against women. First, when
men
dominate family, political, economic, and other social institutions both in number and in power, the
policies and practices of these institutions are likely to embody, reproduce, and legitimate male
domination over women. Men’s power will be considered right and “natural” not only in these
institutions but also throughout the society in general. Second, in male-dominated institutions, violence is a tool
that men can use to keep women out or subordinate and thereby maintain male power and control.
Given the male-constructed and male-defined policies and practices of these institutions, such violence is not likely to
be punished or stopped. On the contrary, it may be subtly or overtly condoned and encouraged (Dobash & Dobash,
1979; MacKinnon, 1979; Walby, 1990). Women’s fear plays an essential role in this process. Criminologists have been
perplexed by what they have termed the “fear-victimization paradox”— although men are more likely than women to be victims of violent
crime, women are more fearful than men (Pain, 1997). Although some have assumed that women’s fear is unwarranted and irrational, others
have found reasons for women’s fear. The “shadow theory” explains women’s fear as a fear of sexual violence, a form of violent crime to which
men generally are not vulnerable (Ferraro, 1996). Similarly, others have found that experiences of intimate violence explain women’s high
levels of fear relative to men (Culbertson, Vik, & Kooiman, 2001). And some have found that women’s fear is indeed related to their perceived
vulnerability. In other words, when women perceive themselves as unlikely or unable to escape or resist an attack, women are more likely to be
fearful (Killias & Clerici, 2000). Research has also shown that women’s fear is tied to particular social settings and immediate surroundings (Alvi,
Schwartz, DeKeseredy, & Maume, 2001). According to feminist theory, it
is through fear that men are able to control
women’s behavior, keep women out or confine their participation, and thereby maintain control of
social institutions. Not every man must be violent toward every woman in order for violence to control
women’s behavior. Rather, knowing that some women are victims of horrific violence is enough to
control the behavior and limit the movement of all women in a society. The creation of a culture of
fear secures men’s status over women (Brownmiller, 1975; Riger & Gordon, 1981; Stanko, 1990, 1995).
Mobility
The dichotomization of spaces is a method of restricting mobility
McLaughlin 99associate professor in Mass Communication and Women's Studies, Ph. D from Iowa University(Lisa,
“Beyond "Separate Spheres": Feminism and the Cultural Studies PoliticalEconomv Debate”, Journal of Communication Inquiry,
1999, http://jci_sagepub.com/content/23/4/327)//js
The recognition that the
distinction drawn between public and private works to legitimate women’s
oppression and exploitation has been critical for feminist emancipatory politics. Feminists have
revealed that a vast chain of polarities- including nature/culture, body/mind, emotion/reason,
passion/interest, par- ticular/universal, concrete/abstract, and home/the world of work or
politics- act as cultural codes that assign specific places and roles to different genders (Cohen 1996,
208). Through these codes, the modernist construction of “sepa- rate spheres” produces a social distinction structured by gender
and differenti- ates the “public man” of work and politics from the “private woman,” who either remains in the domestic realm or
risks violating the norms of “idealized femininity" through her public presence. The separate spheres conception
helps to advance the argument that gender inequality arises from men’s and women’s distinct
locations. And yet the notion is also misleading in that it sug- gests “severed spheres," a rigid segregation
between the respective spheres occupied by men and women. The problem could better be understood as one of
mobility: traditionally, women have been consigned to the intimate sphere of the home and family, while men have
been allowed more mobility between spheres of politics, economics, civil society, and the intimate sphere. In this configuration,
while men have access to all spheres, the sole sphere established as the appropriate place for
women is one in which social discourses are depo- liticized, where matters related to women’s
lives are conventionally off-limits as topics of public discussion and areas of political
intervention (Fraser 1989). Feminism has been successful as a “mobilizing” force in the sense that it crosses the great divide
between the private and the public not only by politi- cizing and publicizing the needs and interests that emerge within the private,
intimate sphere but also in revealing that all spheres, whether associated with the private or the public, have had extensive
structuring significance for women’s lives. The feminist movement’s fight for women's equality was initi- ated in confrontation with
the modernist legacy of gendering the boundary between private and public. Yet, in the gendering of the cultural
studies/politi- cal economy debate, this boundary reappears in a form that suggests its rigidity
and impermeability. It is difficult to follow the more polemical debates between the opponents on either side of this dispute
without coming to the con- clusion that the two approaches are divided along gender lines. In the either-or discourse surrounding
these debates, the persistence of the binary oppositions employed in modernist thought becomes
clear, as cultural studies and political economy become differentiated on the basis that one is
allied with the femi- nine, the emotional, and the private and the other with the masculine, the
rational, and the public.
Examining gender relations is key to prevent the subjugation and dehumanization
of the other
McLaughlin 99associate professor in Mass Communication and Women's Studies, Ph. D from Iowa University(Lisa,
“Beyond "Separate Spheres": Feminism and the Cultural Studies PoliticalEconomv Debate”, Journal of Communication Inquiry,
1999, http://jci_sagepub.com/content/23/4/327)//js
Ang (1996a. 107), who adopts something of a postmodern “don’t ask, don’t te1l” posture toward feminism, argues that Radway’s
entreaty that the women become more activist has the unfortunate “therapeutic“ effect of restoring the authority of feminist
discourse, thus invalidating “the significance of the crav- ing for and pleasure in romantic feelings that so many women have in
common and share.” She suggests that in expressing her “feminist desire,”Radway draws “dangerously
near a form of political moralism, propelled by a desire to make ‘them’ more like ‘us”’ (Ang 1996a, 104). Eschewing
the “normative and moral absolutism in earlier feminisms,”Ang (1996b, 129) argues for a postmodern feminism, based in a poststructuralist theory of subjectivity, which approaches research into
gender and media consumption with “a profound sense of gender scepticism, thereby eradicating any
pregiven guarantee for female unity.” She suggests that rather than presuming to hold the “one and only truth about
women,” feminists should pay attention to the concrete situa-tions in which “ordinary” women reveal their resources and capacities
(Ang 1996b, 125).In registering this perspective, postmodern critics engage a key issue within feminist politics: since the feminist
movement’s representational politics necessitate the articulation of a stable subject, the feminist subject appears dis-
cursively constituted by the very political system that is supposed to facilitate its emancipation
(Butler 1990, 2). This, in turn, corresponds to a difficulty within feminist ethnography: how to avoid
speaking for respondents when interpreting the experience of their everyday relationship to
popular culture. The two concerns are linked through the feminist interrogation of “the politics
of representing the other.” In the postmodern view, the threat to feminism is not the recognition of differences but the
restriction of claims to stable identity and general interest. From a theoretical standpoint, this provides an effective argu- ment for
recognizing heterogeneity. However, this notion also poses a prob- lem: an identity politics based on instability,
difference, and fragmentation does not lend itself to developing the collective action and
solidarity that are necessary preconditions for oppositional social movements to emerge, thrive,
and survive. Postmodernism is politically limited in making a contribution to feminism because
its notion of social construction makes the category of “woman” entirely indeterminate. With
“woman" deconstructed entirely out of existence and the second-wave feminist movement
disparaged as though its intentions are fascistic, it appears that emancipatory politics must
come in the form of an ethnography that “promises to offer us vocabularies that can rob
television audiencehood of its static muteness” (Ang 1991, I70).
FASCISM!!!!
Nef 95 - PhD, is currently professor of political studies and international development
at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada (Jorge, “Human Security and Mutual Vulnerability
An Exploration into the Global Political Economy of Development,” 1995,pg 76-77)//js
Last, but not least in the list of emerging threats to political security is the upsurge of neofascism
(Fakete 1993). With pronounced declines in living standards affecting the once secure bastions
of the middle and blue-collar sectors in the First and the former Second World, sociopolitical
conditions similar to those of post World War I Europe have been created. The unemployed,
alienated youth and an economically threatened middle class constitute a propitious culture for
"extremism from the centre." These symptomatic trends have become more pronounced in
recent years. There are full-fledged Nazi organizations in areas of continental Europe which
have experienced a large influx of immigrants and refugees, chiefly in Germany and Austria
(Roberts 1992). (In 1993 there were some 40 thousand right-wing extremists in some 77
political organizations.) Neofascism is also rampant in the former Eastem Bloc; in Russia,
Rumania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and in the remnants of the former Yugoslavia
(Fakete 1993). Established democracies, such as France and Italy have seen a recurrence of
xenophobic movements as with the National Front and the older Italian Social Party (PSI), an
heir of Mussolini's fascists. The Front has fared relatively well at the polls (having increased to
nearly 13% of the vote), while the PSI had a poor showing in the 1993 Italian parliamentary
elections, after having held 34 parliamentary seats since 1992. Nonetheless, the fact remains
that neofascists have come out into the open as recognizable contenders in the official arena
(Husbands 1992). It should be borne in mind that electoral politics have always been but a
minor component in past fascist movements and therefore a careful analysis of their alternative,
extraparliamentary strategies is essential to ascertain their full potential. Marked racist and
protofascist tendencies are also increasingly evident in the Americas, having found home in a
number of fringe organizations with a high capacity to penetrate mainstream movements and
public institutions, such as political parties, the bureaucracy, the police and the military.
Contemporary fascism is perhaps less nationalistic and more anti-left than its historical
counterparts. Nor it questions, as classical facism did, the tenets of liberalism. In this, it largely
reflects the nature of contemporary globalization and the collapse of communism. Today's
fascism is primarily defused by xenophobia and racism rather than by a coherent sociopolitical
doctrine (e.g., corporatism) or a national project. It constitutes an appeal to action, especially to
the young and to those displaced by economic dislocations, uncertainty and the trauma resulting
from the loss of community and identity (Bunyan 1993). In this sense, the skinhead
phenomenon in Germany, the United Kingdom and elsewhere (B'nai B'rith 1990) deserves
particular attention. Most importantly though, is the fact, rooted in the historical evidence of
pre-World War II Europe, that in periods of crisis, the fascist syndrome is more pronounced
among the "respectable" white-collar middle classes than in other sectors of society. These
extremist movements are on the rise. Potentially, they have the capacity to affect policy in an
indirect, but also in a more direct and forceful way. Key areas are language, education, welfare
and especially immigration. In a poisoned political atmosphere, governments, as in Germany,
Austria and France, have been already hard pressed, yielding to fringe demands to restrict
policies regarding asylum and immigration (Nagorski and Waldrop 1993). There is also the
possibility of neofascist movements coming to power in the not so distant future in a number of
countries, either by themselves or in coalitions. This latter scenario is foreboding not only for
the safety of democracy. It poses a threat to peace to the larger society and to the global order.
I: Structural Violence
Patriarchal institutions sustain the norm of structural violence that marginalizes and
oppresses half the population
Hudson et. al, professor of political science at Texas A&M, 09 (Valerie M., Mary Caprioli, Bonnie BallifSpanvill, Rose McDermott, and
Chad F. Emmett, “The Heart of the Matter: the Security of Women and the Security of States”, International Security 33:3, Winter 08/09,
University of Michigan Libraries)//AS
Just as a proclivity toward international peace in democratic societies is based, in part, “on tolerance and a respect for the rights of
opponents,”37 so scholars might also contemplate that norms
of gender-based violence have an inflammatory impact
on domestic and international behavior. For example, studies have shown that if domestic violence is
normal in family conflict resolution in a society, then that society is more likely to rely on violent
conflict resolution and to be involved in militarism and war than are societies with lower levels of family violence.38 A vicious
circle may result, where such state violence may in turn lead to higher levels of gender violence .39
Indeed, lower levels of gender inequality hinder the ability of societies to mobilize for aggression
through demoralizing women.40 JohanGaltung, a political scientist specializing in political sociology, offers two
concepts that help explain how a generalized ideological justification for violence is formed and
diffuses throughout society: structural violence and cultural violence.41 Galtung’s conceptualization of
structural violence paints a picture of pervasive and systematic exploitation that makes open violence
in the public sphere unnecessary—“The amateur who wants to dominate uses guns, the professional
uses social structure.”42 According to Galtung, structural violence has at least four manifestations:
exploitation based on a division of labor wherein benefits are asymmetrically distributed; control by the exploiters
over the consciousness of the exploited, resulting in the acquiescence of the oppressed; fragmentation, meaning
that the exploited are separated from each other; and marginalization, with the exploiters as a
privileged class with their own rules and form of interaction.43 The concordance between this list and the
means by which gender inequality is typically maintained in human societies is clear . Gender roles lead to
highly differential possibilities for personal security, development, and prosperity, even in today’s world. An example of this kind of
exploitation occurs when women “naturally” receive less pay than men for equal work, or when
domestic violence is considered “normal.” The second component, manipulation of consciousness to ensure acquiescence, is
maintained through socialization, gender stereotyping, and a constant threat of domestic violence—all of which insidiously identify women as
inferior. The perpetrators of female infanticide, for example, are virtually all female. The third component, fragmentation, is easily effected
from women’s circumstances of patrilocality and greater family responsibilities (and in some cases, the practice of physical purdah), thus
minimizing social access that could otherwise be used to build networks with other women. And finally, marginalization
serves to
clearly distinguish men and women, with no doubt as to the relative status of each sex. Galtung posits
that structural violence arises from cultural violence, that is, he day-to-day use of overt or implicit force to obtain one’s
ends in social relations. Thus, while structural violence may obviate the need for open violence in the public
sphere, it is based on open or implicit violence in the private sphere of the home. Norms of cultural violence
diffuse within religion, ideology, language, and art, among other aspects of culture. “Cultural violence makes direct and
structural violence look, even feel, right—or at least not wrong,” writes Galtung.44 Violent patriarchy is the
primary basis of cultural violence in human collectives: although women have become active agents with notable success
in the struggle for equality in many states, violence remains an enduring component of relations between men
and women in the private sphere the world over, providing a natural wellspring for social diffusion.45
I: Disposability
Globalization renders women’s bodies disposable—legitimizes rape, kidnapping, and
murder
Mountz and Hyndman, associate professor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs and Professor and Director, Centre for
Refugee Studies at York University respectively 06 (Alison and Jennifer, “Feminist Approaches to the Global Intimate”, Women’s Studies
Quarterly 41:1/2, Spring/Summer 2006, JSTOR)//AS
The use of a transnational feminist approach problematizes binary conceptions of politics and scale as
either global or local, central or peripheral, focusing instead on the circulation of power, identity, and
subjectivity across space vis-a-vis transnational populations (Grewal and Kaplan 1994; Silvey 2004). "We need to articulate the
relationship of gender to scattered hegemonies such as global economic structures, patriarchal
nationalisms, authentic forms of tradition, local structures of domination, and legal-juridical oppression on multiple levels"
(Grewal and Kaplan 1994, 17). The murder of women working in maquiladoras along Mexico's northern
border with the United States illustrates how the global and the intimate are inseparable.Intimate violent
acts committed on women's bodies in the form of rape, abduction, and homicide went unrecognized
by local, state, and federal authorities for many years. Feminist advocates organizing on the ground in Ciudad Juarez argued that the
confluence of the women's identities and intimate geographies contributed to the silence around
their disappearance. The woman who leaves home to work is considered to have made herself
vulnerable. Many of the women disappeared on the way to or from work at the factory, their bodies often abandoned in vacant urban
spaces. Melissa Wright (2004) argues that their disappearance confirms the idea of the global worker with
exploitable and disposable, devalued body as commodity. The increasing occurrence of disappearances of women in
multiple nation-states and the calls for feminist advocates to "jump scale" by appealing to national and international bodies to recognize
femicide as genocide also suggests the urgency of the work of transnational femi- nisms to name, map, connect, and mobilize against
oppressions occur- ring across international borders. The
strategies of activists organizing to call attention to such
violent silences demonstrate that the mobiliza- tion of scale has proved an effective political strategy.
This transnational feminism articulates the global as intimate, the intimate as global.
I: VTL
Male domination ensures the dehumanization of women
Taylor 12 – Ph.D Transpersonal Psychology @ Liverpool John Moores University, Senior lecturer in
psychology @ Leeds Metropolitan University (Steven, “Out of the Darkness”,
http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/steve-taylor, RSpec)
There have been attempts to explain the oppression of women in biological terms. For example, in his book The Inevitablity of Patriarchy, the
men are naturally more competitive than women because of their high
level of testosterone. This makes them aggressive and power-hungry, so that they inevitably take over
the high status positions in a society, leaving women to the more subordinate roles. However, in my view the
sociologist Stephen Goldberg suggests that
maltreatment of women has more deep-rooted psychological causes. In my new book Back to Sanity, I suggest that most human beings suffer
from an underlying psychological disorder, which I call ‘humania.' The
one thing to take over the positions of power in a society, but another
oppression of women is a symptom of this disorder. It’s
to seemingly despise women, and inflict so much
brutality and degradation on them. What sane species would treat half of its members — and the very half which gives birth to
the whole species — with such contempt and injustice? Despite their high level of testosterone, the men of many ancient and indigenous
The oppression of women stems largely
from men’s desire for power and control. The same need which, throughout history, has driven men to
try to conquer and subjugate other groups or nations, and to oppress other classes or groups in their
own society, drives them to dominate and oppress women. Since men feel the need to gain as much
power and control as they can, they steal away power and control from women. They deny women the
right to make decisions so that they can make them for them, leave women unable to direct their own
lives so that they can direct their lives for them. Ultimately, they’re trying to increase their sense of significance and status, in
cultures revered women for their life-giving and nurturing role, so why don’t we?
an effort to offset the discontent and sense of lack created by humania.
This destroys VTL – worse than extinction and a D rule
Peskin 12 – Professor @ San Fran. State University, Ph.D Clinincal Psychology @ UC Berkeley, B.S.
Psychology @ The City College (Harvey, “Man Is a Wolf to Man”: Disorders of Dehumanization in
Psychoanalysis”, 2012, http://www.pincsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Man-is-A-Wolf.pdf, RSpec)
Psychoanalysis and clinical psychology have been customarily uneasy about addressing directly the loss of humanness in psychopathology and
personality development. The general index of Freud’s (1974) complete works devotes a full page to civilization and civilized but gives no
listings for humanity, humanness, nonhuman, or dehumanization. Nor are they mentioned in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders(4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) or the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM Task Force, 2006). Early exceptions
are The Nonhuman Environment in Normal Development and Schizophrenia by Searles (1960) and Harry Stack Sullivan’s (1962) Schizophrenia
as a Human Process. Kohut’s (1984) acknowledgment
of dehumanization in severe traumatic disorders, too, is
noticeably explicit: “What is feared is not physical extinction but loss of humanness: a psychological
death in which our humanness would permanently come to an end” (p. 16). With the crossover of trauma theory
and relational psychoanalysis, the often unfathomable and uncanny experience of evil and dehumanization is
being candidly addressed today (Alpert, 2001; Boulanger, 2007; Davies & Frawley, 1994; Grand, 2000; Howell, 2005).
This must be rejected
Kokski 13 – B.A. Philosophy @ McMaster University, columnist (Paul, “Dehumanization and
objectification of persons”, 6/13/13, Canada Free Press,
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55901, RSpec)
Prostitution cannot be separated from the issue of the status and dignity of persons; governments and society
must not accept such a dehumanization and objectification of persons.
I: Erasure
The patriarchal nature of international relations exiles other modes of thought and
appropriates those it deems Other
Ling, Associate Professor on the Graduate Program in International Affairs at The New School 07 (L.H.M., “Said's Exile: Strategic Insights for
Postcolonial Feminists”, Millennium 36:135, 2007, Sage Publications)//AS
These understandings
of home and exile apply to the discipline of International Relations. To demonstrate, I
refer to an earlier work that analogises mainstream IR to a colonial, patriarchal household.8 This House
of IR clearly demarcates who’s ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, who’s ‘upstairs’ and ‘downstairs’, and who
teeters dangerously on the ‘borders’. Recalling colonial households in Europe’s former subaltern states,9 this analogy
ferrets from IR those ‘erasures and violences’ that made the field possible.10 For example, iconic works like
Said’s Orientalism have cross-fertilised with members of the House of IR – such as Marxism,
Postmodernism, and Constructivism/Pragmatism, not to mention Feminism – to produce new schools of thought
such as Postcolonial IR that speak to world politics from the perspective of those outside of yet intertwined
with the West. Postcolonial-feminist approaches, generally, and a more specific articulation of multiple worlds or ‘worldism’11 derive
from these intellectual hybrids. Indeed, relations between ‘members’ and ‘aliens’ have gone on for millennia and intimately. 12 Yet the
House of IR exiles them from public, formal acknowledgement. Such exclusions do not simply reflect
the outcome of ideological contestations. Rather, a global imperialist and capitalist order ensures a
hierarchy of social relations of power to sustain this ‘exilic condition’. [T]he House does so by appropriating
the knowledge, resources, and labour of racialised, sexualised Others [e.g., contributions from non-capitalist
traditions like socialism or scholarship from ‘nativeinformants’ or developmental experiences from non-Western sites likeAsian capitalism] for
its own benefit and pleasure while announcing itself the sole producer – the father – of our world.13
Put differently, the House presumes that ‘they’ want to be just like ‘us’, and not that ‘we’ are indebted to
‘them’.
I: Environment
Patriarchy’s logic of dominance is the root cause of environmental destruction—can’t
solve it without a feminist movement
Glazebrook, Professor of Philosophy and Religion Studies at the University of North Texas 02 (Trish, “Karen Warren's Ecofeminism”,
Ethics and the Environment 7:2, Autumn 2002, JSTOR)//AS
Ecofeminism has conceptual beginnings in the French tradition of femi- nist theory. In 1952, Simone de Beauvoir pointed out that in
the
logic of patriarchy, both women and nature appear as other (de Beauvoir 1952,
114). In 1974, Luce Irigaray diagnosed
philosophically a phallic logic of the Same that precludes representation of woman's alterity, so that it subjects women to man's domination
(Irigaray 1974). In the same year, Fran^oised'Eaubonne coined the term, "l'eco-feminisme," to point to the necessity for women to bring about
ecological revolution, and used the slogan, "Feminism or death [Le feminismeou la mort]" (d'Eaubonne 1974, 221), to argue that the
phallic order is the source of a double threat to human being: overpopulation, and the depletion of
resources. Exploita- tion of female reproductive power has caused an excess of births, and hence
overpopulation; while an excess of production has exploited natural resources to the point of their
destruction. Though "feminism or death" was a battle cry, it was also a warning that human being
cannot survive patriarchy's ecological consequences. In North America, the alliance between feminism and ecology likewise began in 1974, when Sandra Marburg and Lisa Watson hosted a conference at Berkeley entitled "Women and the Environment." The following year, Rosemary Radford Ruether pointed out that "Women
must see that there can be no liberation for them
and no solution to ecologi- cal crisis within a society whose fundamental model of relationships continues to be one of domination" (Ruether 1975, 204). She called for a unification of feminist and ecological interests in the vision
of a society transformed from values of possession, conquest, and accumulation to reci- procity, harmony, and mutual interdependence. In
1991, Karen Warren edited an issue of Hypatia devoted entirely to ecofeminism, which was later expanded and republished under the title
Ecological Feminist Phi- losophies. This anthology was ground-breaking, because in it Warren con- solidated a collection of diverse voices, not
into an ecofeminist platform as such, but into a vision of the lay of the land, as it were, with respect to ecofeminism. Although Warren has
been writing as an ecofeminist since 1987, it was not until 2000 that she published a sustained treatment in her own voice: Ecofeminist
Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters. This book is the culmination of her thinking for over a decade. Her
perspective, very much in the spirit of d' Eaubonne and Ruethei; is as political, social, and practical as it is philosophical, and constitutes a
research program that extends beyond the walls of the Academy in its challenge to the social order. The book can be used to answer some of
the criticisms that ecofeminism has received. I will use Warren's work to ad- dress in particular the validity of the foundational ecofeminist
assumption that environmental issues are feminist issues; the charge against feminism in general that it reflects only the needs of white,
middle-class, Western women; the claim, especially in reference to spirituality, that ecofeminism reinscribes gender essentialism; and the
challenge ecofeminism offers to traditional philosophy, including how such
an inclusivist movement can respond to the
history of philosophy without simply reproducing its exclu- sionary politics.
Male dominated politics risks environmental collapse and extinction – incorporating feminism can
solve environmental problems
Braidotti et al. 94 (*Rosi Braidotti Ph.D Philosophy @ U of Linköping, “Women, the Environment and
Sustainable, *Ewa Charkiewicz is a lecturer and researcher about social movements, *Sabine Hausler
M.Sc Indo-European Studies, Ph.D in something relating to language, *Saskia Wieringa Chair and
Professor of Gender and Women’s Same-sex Relations Cross-culturally, University of Amsterdam)
Development”, 1994, Page X [Preface], Google Books, RSpec)
At the core of this vision was a commitment to the empowerment of women, ‘the central and
powerful force in the search for equity between and among the peoples of the earth and for a balance
between them and the life-support systems that sustain us all’. Recognizing women as catalysts and
intiators of environmental activism, the preamble pointed out that, nevertheless, ‘policy-makers
continue to ignore the centrality of women’s roles and needs as they make Fate-of-the-Earth
decisions’.
Environmental destruction and an insatiable appetite for exploitation are rooted in
the male-female hierarchy
Bookchin, founder of the social ecology movement within anarchist, libertarian socialist, and ecological thought 96 (Murray, “Towards
an Ecological Society”, 1996, http://logica.ugent.be/philosophica/fulltexts/13-6.pdf)//AS
These concepts, brought together in a totality that could be expressed as unity in diversity, spontaneity, and complementarity, comprise not
only a judgement that derives from an "artful science" or "scientific art" (as I have described ecology elsewhere); they also constitute an
overall sensibility that we are slowly recovering from a distant archaic world and placing in a new social context. The
notion 76
that man is destined to dominate nature stems from the domination of man by man - and perhaps
woman by man and the domination of the young by the old. The hierarchical mentality
that arranges experience itself - in all its forms - along hierarchically pyramidal lines is a mode of
perception and conceptualization in to which we have been socialized by hierarchical society. This
M.BOOKCHIN
even earlier, by the domination of
mentality tends to be tenuous or completely absent in non-hierarchical communities. So-called "primitive" societies that are based on a simple
sexual division of labor, that lack states and hierarchical institutions, do not experience reality as we do through a filter that categorizes
phenomena in terms of "superior" and "inferior" or "above" and "below". In
the absence of inequality, these truly organic
communities do not even have a word for equality. As Dorothy Lee observes in her superb discussion of the "primitive"
mind, "equality exists in the very nature of things, as a byproduct of the democratic structure of the
culture itself, not as a principle to be applied. In such societies, there is no attempt to achieve the
goal of equality, and in fact there is no concept of equality. Often, there is no linguistic mechanism whatever for comparison. What
we find is an absolute respect for man, for all individuals irrespective of age and sex".
Failure to reverse hierarchy-based environmental domination will inevitably result in
extinction
Bookchin, founder of the social ecology movement within anarchist, libertarian socialist, and ecological thought 96 (Murray, “Towards
an Ecological Society”, 1996, http://logica.ugent.be/philosophica/fulltexts/13-6.pdf)//AS
On the other hand, if
the present society persists indefinitely to do its work, the ecological problems we
face are even more formidable than those which we gather under the rubric of "pollution". A society
based on production for the sake of production is inherently anti-ecological and its consequences are a devoured natural
world, one whose organic complexity has been degraded by technology into the inorganic stuff that flows from the end of the assembly line;
literally, the simple matter that formed the metaphysical presuppositions of classical physics. As the cities continue to grow
cancerously over the land, as complex materials are turned into simple materials, as diversity disappears in the maw
of a synthetic environment composed of glass, bricks, mortar, metals, and machines, the complex
food chains on which we depend for the health of our soil, for the integrity of our oceans and atmosphere, and for the
physiological viability of our beings will become ever more simple. Literally, the system in its endless devouring of
nature will reduce the entire biosphere to the fragile simplicity of our desert and arctic biomes . We will
be reversing the process of organic evolu tion which has differentiated flora and fauna into increasingly complex forms and relationships,
thereby creating a simpler and lessstable world of life. The consequences of this appalling regression are predictable enough in the long run -
the biosphere will become so fragile that it will eventually collapse from the standpoint of human
survival needs and remove the organic preconditions for human life. That this will eventuate from a society based on
production for the sake of production is, in my view, merely a matter of time, although when it will occur is
impossible to predict.
I: Rape
Heterosexism normalizes rape and prostitution—they are inextricably linked
Peterson, Professor of International Relations at the University of Arizona 99( V. Spike, “Sexing Political Identities / Nationalism as
Heterosexism”, International Feminist Journal of Politics 1:1, June 1999,
http://webhome.idirect.com/~yu176197/CF/articles/Sexing%20Political%20Identities-Nationalism%20as%20Heterosexism.pdf)//AS
Heterosexism as sex/affect involves the normalization of exclusively heterosexual desire, intimacy, and
family life. Historically, this normalization is inextricable from the state’s interest in regulating sexual reproduction,
undertaken primarily through controlling women’s bodies, policing sexual activities, and instituting the
heteropatriarchal family/household as the basic socio-economic unit. This normalization entails constructions
of gender identity and hegemonic masculinity as heterosexual, with corollary interests in women’s
bodies as objects of (male) sexual gratification and the means of ensuring group continuity. In complex – and even
contradictory – ways, masculinity as entitlement and control is here linked to heterosexual practice as an
expression of power and violence. In short, and as feminists relentlessly document, the hegemonic masculinity
constituted by heterosexist practice normalizes the subordination of women and naturalizes rape as
an expression of male power against women and ‘insufficiently masculine’ men. The argument here is that rape is not
reducible to but is inextricable from heterosexism. To clarify briefly, the objectification of women and forced penile
penetration as an expression of power requires for its intelligibility the polarized identities and objectification of the feminine that is
constituted by heterosexist ideology, identities, and practice. In this framing, women/the feminine are passive and denigrated by definition and
it is the definitively masculine role of agency and penetration that exemplifies heterosexism, whether the denigrated object of that agency is
female or male. Hence, male– male rape exemplifies heterosexism’s objectification of the feminine even though no females are involved.
Stated differently, the willingness/desire to rape is not established by the presence of a (normally •flaccid) penis but by the internalization of a
masculinist/heterosexist identity that promotes aggressive male penetration as an expression of sexuality, power, and dominance. It
is,
presumably, the mobilization of some version of such an identity and ideology that renders rape a viable
strategy for social control. On this view, heterosexist masculinity is mobilized to sustain gender hierarchy
within groups (e.g. domestic violence in ‘private’ and the threat/reality of rape in ‘public’) and to enact
masculinist violence between groups (e.g. castration of ‘Other’ males, forced prostitution, and mass
rapes in war).
Turns Case: Trade
Gender inequality is a cause of trade deficiencies that cause poverty and misery—
considering gender aspects solves
Joekes, Fellow At the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, 99 (Susan,“A GENDER-ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVE ON
TRADE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT”, Trade, sustainable development and gender—UNCTAD Conference, July 1999,
http://unctad.org/en/Docs/poedmm78.en.pdf#page=30)//AS
Work on the gender dimension of international trade in developing countries has mostly concentrated on its
impact in terms of the employment, income and welfare effects. This paper presents the main findings of this work.
But it also argues that social relations of gender have been a driving force in the evolution of the
international economy and, more specifically, that gender discrimination has been a contributory factor to
some long-standing concerns about trade and development which have received renewed impetus in recent years12 .
The first of these concerns about the developmental effects of trade expansion in the contemporary period is that international trade
may have strongly unequalizing tendencies, both between and within nations. This puts into doubt the
particular promise that trade seemed to bring, as a possible way of bringing about convergence in incomes between
industrializing and developing countries, improving labour incomes and reducing poverty in developing countries. The
second concern is a revisit of a critique of trade which argued that demand-based market forces cause
structural limitations on low-income countries’ ability to draw on international trade as a source of growth
and development. In its contemporary version, known as the “immizeration” thesis, the critique draws attention to
price and income trends which are unfavourable to development not only in primary commodities (as in the original
thesis) but also in basic manufactured products.13 Until now, neither of these propositions has been discussed in relation to gender, but this
paper argues that this can be done.
The key factor in both cases is the gender discriminatory pattern of rewards
to workers in the labour market - a phenomenon which obtains worldwide, but with particular
severity in developing countries. Thus the elimination of gender bias in the labour market should be a
central objective of public policy, not only for equity reasons, but also because it is necessary for the
development gains from trade to be maximized.
War and sexual violence perpetrated by patriarchal norms must be rejected—
overshadows women’s lives
Skjelsbaek, deputy director at Peace Research Institute Oslo 01 (Inger, “Sexual Violence and War: : Mapping Out a Complex
Relationship”, European Journal of International Relations 7:211, 2001, Sage Publications)//AS
It is a known fact that the
use and threat of sexual violence overshadow thelives of all women world-wide.
This is true for women in times of both warand peace. The effects of sexual violence in the war-zone are
recognizablebecause we have become accustomed to them through times of peace.Recognizing this does, however,
entail a potential danger. Nordstrom(19961 156) warns, in a discussion about genocidal rape, that "˜by distin-guishing qualitatively between
"genocidal"• rape in war and "everyday"• rape,the latter is both "normalized"• and made less significant than wartime rape',whereas Copelon
(1995: 207) says that
placing "˜[e]mphasis on the genderdimension of rape in war is critical not only to
surfacing women as fullsubjects of sexual violence in war but also to recognizing the atrocity of rapein
so-called times of peace'.The essentialist discourse is appealing because it attempts to explain whyit was that in the war in BosniaHerzegovina Serb, Croat and Bosnian9women were raped as well as Hutu and Tutsi women during the genocide inRwanda."• This
conceptualization asks whether all these women were rapedsimply because many women in general (i.e. in times of war and peace) areraped.
Or, is it possible that the war-zone is a place where women in generalare at greater risk of being victimized by crimes of sexual violence than in
thenon-war-zone?Before exploring possible answers to the question raised above it isimportant to establish an understanding of the war-zone.
First, it isimportant to recognize that the
war-zone is a place where distinct rules ofbehaviour apply. Through for
certain acts which are normally non-permissible in
times ofpeace, may, given that a set of criteria are met, be allowed. In reality,however, the war-zone
appears to be a place where abhorrent modes ofconduct can flourish - not all of which are in accordance with the
instance the Geneva Conventions soldiers aretaught that
GenevaConventions. Second, the war-zone is a place of increased polarizationbetween the genders. "˜In general _ _ _ gender roles have
become morepolarized by nationalism and war', says Benderly (1997: 60) in herdescription of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Men are called to
light and/or be killed, whereas women are, in the words of Enloe (1983: 46), set tokeep the home fires burning." In the war-zone men are not
only set to bemen, but to be militaristic men (for discussion about this see Enloe, 1983,1989, 1993). An understanding of militaristic culture is
key in attempting tounderstand the gender dimension of the war-zone. Enloe (1993: 52)explains that "˜the glue [of militarism] is camaraderie,
the base of that glue is masculinity'. Militaries need
"˜real' men. Being a real man in the war-zonemay entail
suppression of feelings of insecurity, gentleness and othercharacteristics which are commonly
considered feminine. A combination ofthese processes might make it "˜easier' for men to commit
sexual violence inwar situations (Seifert, 1994: 59-62).12 The use of sexual violence in timesof war can thereby be
perceived as a Way of reaffirming patriarchal hierarchies between men and women. The strategic purpose of
the use of sexual violence is to manifest the militaristic masculine identity of the male perpetrator. The question then is how sexual violence
can be perceived as masculinity reaffirming acts.
Turns Case
Resolving conflict impossible with traditional frames of international relations—
feminist analysis is key
Tickner, distinguished scholar in residence at the School of International Services at American University92 (J. Ann, “Gender in
International Relations Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security”, Columbia Press, 1992,
http://www.ces.uc.pt/ficheiros2/files/Short.pdf)//AS
Rather than discussing strategies for bringing more women into the international relations discipline as
it is conventionally defined, I shall seek answers to my questions by bringing to light what I believe to be the
masculinist underpinnings of the field. I shall also examine what the discipline might look like if the central realities of women's
day-to-day lives were included in its subject matter. Making women's experiences visible allows us to see how
gender relations have contributed to the way in which the field of international relations is
conventionally constructed and to reexamine the traditional boundaries of the field. Drawing
attention to gender hierarchies that privilege men's knowledge and men's experiences permits us to see that
it is these experiences that have formed the basis of most of our knowledge about international
politics. It is doubtful whether we can achieve a more peaceful and just world, a goal of many scholars both
women and men who write about international politics, while these gender hierarchies remain in place. Although this book
is an attempt to make the discipline of international relations more relevant to women's lives, I am not writing it only for women; I hope that its
audience will include both women and men who are seeking a more inclusive approach to the way we think about international politics.
Women have spoken and written on the margins of international relations because it is to the margins that their experiences have been
relegated. Not
until international politics is an arena that values the lived experiences of us all can we
truly envisage a more comprehensive and egalitarian approach that, it is to be hoped, could lead to a more
peaceful world.Because gender hierarchies have contributed to the perpetuation of global
insecurities, all those concerned with international affairs-- men and women alike-- should also be concerned
with understanding and overcoming their effects.
Alt
Alt
Critical reflection on knowledge claims and assumptions is critical to understand
power relations that impact policy
Peterson, Professor of International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona, 92 (V Spike,
“Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations”, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 21:2,
1992, http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Publications/VSP%20TransgBoundaries%20Millenn%201992.pdf)//AS
"˜Appropriate' responses to the post-positivist critique begin with critical reflection, not only attending to
underlying assumptions and tacit commitments but also evaluating knowledge claims in terms of their
political effects. lt is in this sense that theory-practice, empirical-normative, and abstract-concrete are
undermined as dichotomies and exposed as mutually constituted: "˜perspectives, beliefs and ideologies are part of
the objective reality and form a key constituent of power'.'5 How United States Presidents and international relations theorists 'map' global
events constitutes a form of power with concrete effects. Post-
positivism exposes mapping and theorizing as political
practices - practices of power which discipline meaning, enable and disable resistance, and generate
intended and unintended consequences. To deny that power is a dimension' of all mapping practices
effectively condones and reproduces the status quo. The third debate has challenged international relations theorists to
confront metatheoretical issues, calling into question positivism and the objectivist metaphysics it presupposes. This has the salutary
effect of focusing critical attention on a variety of boundaries. normally accepted as given, that
structure thought and practice in international relations. Yet there remains a pivotal boundary virtually
unchallenged in these debates: that of gender.
A constructivist approach is essential to understand why actors operate the way they
do
Kardam, Professor of Gender Equality and Development and the Monterey Institute of International Studies, 04 (Nuket, “The Emerging
Global Gender Equality Regime from Neoliberal and Constructivist Perspectives in International Relations”, International Feminist Journal of
Politics 6:1, 3/04, JSTOR)//AS
This is where the
constructivist approach is more helpful than the neoliberal theory of international
regimes. The neoliberal theories yield insights into the identification of the regime, explanations of its formation
and the limits of external incentives for compliance, but they do not examine how gender norms and identities are
socially constructed, defined, contested, interpreted in different socio-political and institutional
contexts. As Ruggie (1998) has maintained, the neoliberal theories lack a methodology to understand how social norms are constructed.
Constructivism, on the other hand, questions state interests, not just accepting them as preferences shaped
by particular beliefs or knowledge but asking where they come from in the first place. The social
construction of norms is examined and not accepted as a priori. Many feminist scholars, along the same lines, define
gender as an analytical category like race, class and ethnicity, whose meaning is socially constructed. To adopt gender as an
analytical category means to focus on the social and cultural construction of sexual difference. Every
culture, institution, society, historical epoch constitutes and interprets sexual difference in a certain way. If that is the case, we need to go
beyond classifying all resistance to gender equality as stemming from ‘traditional and cultural norms’
and examine where those norms come from, and what types of power relations underlie them.
Constructivists argue that international life is social, that it follows norms and rules that make up social structures. For constructivists, success
of regimes is found not just in external incentives but in constitutive rules. These rules do not ‘explain’ in the positivist sense, but underlie
everything else. These structures reproduce only through the practices of knowledgeable agents. Structures
and agents cannot
exist without each other. Actors draw on the rules that make up structures in their everyday routines,
and in doing so they reproduce these rules. But they also have the capacity to understand what they
are doing and why they are doing it, allowing them to reflexively monitor the social practices they
engage in (Giddens 1984; Wendt 1987). Ruggie pointed out that both realism and liberalism rest on a positivist epistemology whose view of
international relations is framed in utilitarian terms. Ruggie calls them neo-utilitarian approaches depicting: ‘an atomistic universe of selfregarding units whose identity is assumed given and fixed, and who are responsive largely if not solely to material interests’ (1998: 3). Yet,
understanding ‘intersubjective meanings’ necessitates a relational epistemology, where
interpretation is required. According to Ruggie, social constructivism views international politics on the basis of a more relational
ontology than the atomistic framing of neo-utilitarianism:
The alt is emancipation through rejection of any totalizing framework
Spegele ‘2- Monash University, Victoria, Australia; phD from Cambridge (Roger D., “Emancipatory International Relations: Good News, Bad
News or No News at All?” International Relations 2002 Sage Journals)
By contrast, Feminist Postmodern
Theory focuses on an epistemology whichreveals the futility of any
attempt to define an essential female nature or to replacemasculinist epistemology with feminist
epistemology. It denies that any totalizingframework, including Marx’s, will result in emancipation. For
FeministPostmodern Theory, we (men included) must reject all subject/object dichotomiesincluding the
dichotomy, redolent in FST, which says that men and women arefundamentally different and women are superior.
Feminist Postmodern Theoryaims to emancipate women not by seeking a unitary absolute or
transcendent truthbut by subverting, displacing, disrupting and transgressing all
dichotomies,normalizings, unities and totalities. According to Christine Sylvester, one of itsmost incisive proponents in
international relations, postmodern feminism ‘looksfor differences in voices and standpoints and marks the
connections that may existacross the differences. It looks for new forms and mobilities of subjectivity
thatcan replace single-subject categories . . .’17 In her more recent work, FeministTheory and International Relations in a
Postmodern Era, Sylvester becomes moreexplicit in her commitment to a postmodern feminism which ‘exposes thesmokescreens, and the
histories of the screens and the smoke, in brilliant, eyeopeningways’.18 The
path to emancipation lies neither in
assimilation nor in theoverthrow of male dominance and its replacement by female (or
feminist)dominance. Emancipation comes about through looking at ‘other identityallegiances within
ourselves and our context of knowledge with an empatheticcriticalgaze’.19 It comes from ‘listening to and
engaging canon-excluding andcanon-including subjectivities’.20 Rejecting postmodern feminist doctrine,Sylvester deploys and develops the
concept of homesteading to articulate whatwomen require in the face of their homeless condition. According to Sylvester,homesteading leads
to emancipation ‘through a radically empathetic conversationalpolitics that helps us to learn the strengths and limitations of ourinherited
identity categories and to decide our identities, theories, politics, anddaily concerns rather than continue to derive them out of hand because
they comefrom established authority sources’.21 In Sylvester’s view, homesteading is alwaysa ‘politics of disturbance that unsettles and
ploughs up inherited turfs withoutplanting the same old seeds in the field . . .’22 It emancipates, we are told, through‘an unraveling-reworking
process’ such as the one that took place at GreenhamCommon. Emancipation
is a matter, on this view, ‘of shaking up
foundations andalways maintaining ambiguity and a Janus-faced politics of disturbance’.23
Overcoming shallow male-constructed visions of IR requires ontological revisionism—
policy debate is a critical arena
Youngs, Professor of Digital Economy and Academic Director of the Institute of Advanced Broadcasting at the University of Wales 04
(Gillian, “Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender Are Essential to Understanding the World
'We' Live in”, International Affairs 80:1, 1/04, JSTOR)//AS
In closing it is usually necessary to go back to the beginning. I want to focus on the questions posed in my title: 'Feminist International
Relations: a contradiction in terms? Or: why women and gender are essential to understanding the world "we" live in'. My discussion has been
why feminist International Relations, from mainstream perspectives, tends
to be viewed as a contradiction in terms, and reasons why this is an ontologically and epistemologically
narrow and superficial judgement. I have stressed that International Relations as a field of study focuses on
power, and that malestream perspectives, in failing to take detailed account of gender, offer a partial
account of power that remains largely on the surface of an assumed, rather than fully interrogated,
predominantly male-constructed reality. I have argued that feminist International Relations calls for
ontological revisionism.This brings into view the deeper gendered reality of international politics and
economics, and explores the complex of inequalities operating within and across genders. It concerns the
intended to illustrate both reasons
relationships between power, identities, institutions and discourses (in the theoretical and practical realms). I have illustrated how feminist
International Relations argues that women and gender are essential to understanding the world 'we' live in. I
have illustrated how feminist and mainstream International Relations are working with many similar core concepts and issues. This could be a
basis for much more collaboration and exchange between them.
We need to think of ways in which diverse fora, such
as policy and academic meetings, conferences and research initiatives, can be constructed to enable such
collaboration and exchange. It will not just happen, and clearly it will require new kinds of shared commitment,
imagination and energy. Shared
understandings are clearly missing at this point and will have to be worked
for on both sides.
The alternative is to embrace a self-analytical frame of reference in politics—critical to
avoid political failure and fetishizing victimization
Runyan and Peterson, professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at the University of Cincinnati and Professor of
International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona 91 (Anne Sisson and V Spike, “The Radical Future
of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 16:1, Winter 1991, JSTOR)//AS
In
charting courses that might avoid the dangerous shoals of essentialism and political impotence,
Goetz recommends "a reconstruction of subjectivity through self-analytical, self-referential practice,
with the awareness that consciousness is never fixed, because its boundaries change according to the
cultural discursive contexts in which the sub- ject is situated."58 This sense of "provisional identity," sustained by the
feminist theorist constantly invoking "each of the positions from which she speaks, even as she works 'to expose the illusory coherence of
those positions,'"59 avoids
deferral to and reification of the binary and hierarchical oppositions between
male-female, center-periphery, First WorldThird World, developed-underdeveloped, and industrialagricultural that pervade antifeminist, feminist empiricist, feminist standpoint and other critical epistemologies
that address "development." It also ceases the totalizing quest for the "politically correct" strategy by
forcing Western, white women to acknowledge where and how they act from positions of power and
allowing Third World women to "struggle for freedom from personal oppression within the family while at
the same engaging in a common project with men to protect the integrity of traditional economies ."60
Thus, a politics of provisional identity opens up the way for a politics of what GayatriSpivak, at the April 1989 conference, "Feminisms and
Cultural Imperialisms: The Politics of Difference" at Cornell University, called "postcoloniality." Postcoloniality
resists
"fetishizing" a politics of victimization (which is implicated in reproducing marginalization) and embraces the notion of
difference to validate, but also to constantly reformulate political struggles by oppressed women and
men on several fronts to subverthe dictates of modernization and create "alternative" strategies for
"development."
The alternative is to analyze the gendered binaries of international relations and
realize that they are not fixed
Tickner, distinguished scholar in residence at the School of International Services at American University92 (J. Ann, “Gender in
International Relations Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security”, Columbia Press, 1992,
http://www.ces.uc.pt/ficheiros2/files/Short.pdf)//AS
Scott claims that the
way in which our understanding of gender signifies relationships of power is through a
set of normative concepts that set forth interpretations of the meanings of symbols . In Western culture, these
concepts take the form of fixed binary oppositions that categorically assert the meaning of masculine and feminine and
hence legitimize a set of unequal social relationships. 8 Scott and many other contemporary feminists assert that, through
our use of language, we come to perceive the world through these binary oppositions. Our Western
understanding of gender is based on a set of culturally determined binary distinctions, such as public
versus private, objective versus subjective, self versus other, reason versus emotion, autonomy versus relatedness, and
culture versus nature; the first of each pair of characteristics is typically associated with masculinity, the
second with femininity. 9 Scott claims that the hierarchical construction of these distinctions can take on a
fixed and permanent quality that perpetuates women's oppression: therefore they must be
challenged. To do so we must analyze the way these binary oppositions operate in different contexts
and, rather than accepting them as fixed, seek to displace their hierarchical construction. 10 When many of
these differences between women and men are no longer assumed to be natural or fixed, we can examine how relations of
gender inequality are constructed and sustained in various arenas of public and private life. In
committing itself to gender as a category of analysis, contemporary feminism also commits itself to gender
equality as a social goal. Extending Scott's challenge to the field of international relations, we can immediately detect a similar set of
hierarchical binary oppositions. But
in spite of the seemingly obvious association of international politics with
the masculine characteristics described above, the field of international relations is one of the last of the social
sciences to be touched by gender analysis and feminist perspectives. 11 The reason for this, I believe, is not that the field is
gender neutral, meaning that the introduction of gender is irrelevant to its subject matter as many scholars believe, but that it is so
thoroughly masculinized that the workings of these hierarchical gender relations are hidden.
Masculinist discourses of globalization must be rejected to allow for marginalized and
valuable knowledge forms to influence policy
Mountz and Hyndman, associate professor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs and Professor and Director, Centre for
Refugee Studies at York University respectively 06 (Alison and Jennifer, “Feminist Approaches to the Global Intimate”, Women’s Studies
Quarterly 41:1/2, Spring/Summer 2006, JSTOR)//AS
Feminist scholars have made a number of important critiques of glob- alization (Kofman 1996; Marchand and
Runyan 2000). Many of these con- tributions explore the relationship between "the local" and "the global." In this essay we review some of
these contributions and argue that that the
global and the intimate constitute one another. Feminist
interventions question the disembodied masculinism of the former and interrogate the limits of
local/global binaries, calling attention to the silenced, marginalized, and excluded. In so doing, they observe
that the local is oftenessentialized (Roberts 2004), the domestic feminized (Domosh and Seager 2001), the discourses of
globalization hypermasculinized (Nagar et al. 2002), and many forms of knowledge and social relations
effaced. Feminists reclaim and analyze sites, voices, and ways of knowing the world epistemologically and methodologically that produce
differ- ences and disparities, among them gender and geographical location. They find these to be not only sites of knowing and being, but also
sites of crossing, laboring, and living the global. They have thus worked scale in order to rework the global through their "grounded, feminist
approach [which] starts from the lives of a variety of people with diverse relationships to globalization" (Nagar et al. 2002, 269). Scholars
often write global and local onto social, economic, and polit- ical phenomena, thus dividing empirical
realities into hierarchical frames (Freeman 2001). Those phenomena, categorized as macroleveleconomic
processes, weigh more heavily, the globalization backdrop to life's microlevel daily minutiae. For
these reasons precisely, feminist scholars have argued that discourse on globalization is masculinist. Of
courseknowledges of the global and the local are epistemological asser- tions to know the same world. We deploy arguments about the social
construction of scale to demonstrate the essential role that scale as a con- cept has played in feminist interventions in globalization discourse.
We do not collapse these scales (c.f. Marston et al. 2005), but instead main- tain that they are discrete categories best understood as
constitutive of one another. In order to develop this argument, we first review some of the ways that feminists have reclaimed the global
through the intimate. The word intimate derives from the Latin intimare, "to impress or make familiar." How have feminist attempts to make
sense of the familiar intersected with their critiques of masculinist efforts to render known the global? As we seek to answer this question, we
conceptualize the intimate as embodied social relations that include mobility, emotion, materiality,
belonging, alienation. The intimate encompasses not only those entan- glements rooted in the
everyday, but also the subtlety of their intercon- nectedness to everyday intimacies in other places and times:
the rough hands of the woman who labors, the shortness of breath of the child without medication, the softness of the bed on which one
sleeps.
The alternative is to embrace a transformatory politics that considers humanity first
and foremost
Elshtain, Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago 91 (Jean Bethke, “Ethics in the Women's Movement”, Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 515, May 1991, JSTOR)//AS
Within this world of ethical femi- nism, the
possibility is present, and sought, for citizens, male and female, to
act together toward ends they de- bate and articulate in public. A femi- nist politics that does not
allow for the possibility of transformation of men as well as of women, in ways over which no ideology has or
should have control, is deeply nihilistic; it does not truly believe in human pos- sibility or the ideal of mutuality.
How to go about articulating the ethics intimated in these general com- ments? The most effective way is
through storytelling, narratives of human tragedy and achievement, of perseverance and failure. One
poses certain questions: how can or might we relocate ourselves in order to cre- ate space for a less rigid
play of indi- vidual and civic virtues than those we have known? what alternative im- ages of citizenship can
we draw upon?
what perspectives currently within our reach offer hope for sustaining an ethos, stripped of utopian preten- sions, that
extends the prospect of limiting force and the threat of force? Who should be our moral teach- ers? I suggest
that we look not
toward the fabricators of abstract systems but toward the livers of concrete lives. The best current women's
stud- ies scholarship helps us to do just that by apprising us that the world is untidy and complex. For example, Natalie Zemon Davis, in an
essay on men, women, and the problem of col- lective violence, argues that the oppo- sition presumed by sex-polarists be- tween "life-givers"
and 'life-takers" is not so clear-cut if one looks at "the historical record of the late Middle Ages and the early modern period."14 She sketches
the numerous compet- ing and compelling notions of man- hood available in early modern Eu- rope, from warrior to pacifist, with reflections
about male violence car- ried out in "a nuanced fashion" in contrast to the "simplistic terms" that tended to dominate discourse on women
and violence. The
distin- guishing characteristics of Davis's discussion are its desimplifying qual- ity and
the ways in which she alerts us to the fact that each historical epoch defined and set limits to ac- ceptable human conduct.
Before economically engaging Latin America we must form an alternative to economic
development that ensures a gender-just economy
Harcourt, ’12 - a Senior Program Advisor at the Society for International Development, Editor
ofDevelopment and Chair of Women in Development Europe (Wendy, “NO ECONOMIC JUSTICE
WITHOUT GENDER JUSTICE. WENDY HARCOURT'S EDITORIAL”, Society for International Development;
August 2, 2012; http://www.sidint.net/content/no-economic-justice-without-gender-justice-wendyharcourts-editorial)//CC
This journal issue is packed with insights. Cindy Clark and Lydia AlpizarDurán give a sizzling overview in
their introduction of the main issues of the Forum from the epicentre of the Forum arrangements. The
other articles in the Upfront section present highlights from the plenaries and in-depth sessions. Articles
based on stirring speeches reflect new forms of activism and urgency in today's crisis hung world. From
the defiant revolutionary poem by MarwaSharafeldin, to the talk of a fierce new world by Gita Sen and
Marilyn Waring's crisp critique of economic power; from Christa Wichterich's urging to occupy
development, to RhadikaBalakrishnan plea for popular education, and the warnings of the misuse of
culture by Yakin Ertürk, we sense a new dynamism and activism as women confront economic and social
inequalities. JayatiGhosh completes the section when she argues it is time for feminists to enter into the
discussion of alternatives more forcefully in order to define how economic institutions and policies can
ensure a gender-just economy and society.The Thematic section pushes further into how this
engagement might happen with a series of articles setting out the structural reasons for the economic
injustices that are impeding women's lives. Feminist economists, most of whom spoke at the AWID
Forum, go to the core of economic processes in order to give a gender reading of financialization of our
lives; the impact of neo-liberal economic policies on women's employment; social protection policies;
taxes; balancing family life; funding for women's rights, environment, well-being and livelihoods.The
Dialogue section details a vision of change by setting out feminist alternative visions to the
mainstream economic development model. The three articles present: how AWID is engaged with
many women's rights networks exploring alternatives; what is being constructed in Latin America by
feminists and others around the Andean concept of BuenVivir; and lastly post-development visions for
Africa (anticipating Development 55.4).
Alt: Geopolitics
The alt is to embrace an anti-geopolitics to create change and prevent injustice and
exploitation and rewrite women into politics
Dowler and Sharp, Professors in the Department of Geography at Pennsylvania State and the Department of Geography and
Topographic Science at the University of Glasgow respectively 01 (Lorraine and Joanne, “A Feminist Geopolitics?”,Space& Polity 5:3, 2001,
EBSCO)//AS
Women’s bodies are inherently caught up in international relations, but often at mundane or everyday levels
and so are not written into the texts of political discourse. Women’s places in international politics tend not to
be those of decision makers, but of international labourers and migrants, as images in international advertising
and as `victims’ to be protected by international peace- keepers. However, as Cynthia Enloe (1989, 1993) has long
insisted, this does not mean that women have no role in the recreation of international orders, simply
that their agency is hidden from the traditional gaze of geopolitics. How different would international geo-politics be
without these images of woman- hood, and the international ¯ ows of workers and refugees? It is not only important to rewrite
the actions of women back into geopolitical debates, but also to question their absence in the first
place. The first move towards critically addressing the marginalisation of certain voices from the recording of geopolitical events came from
OÂ Tuathail (1996a) when he desig- nated the ª anti-geopolitical eyeº .This `anti-geopolitics’ represents an embodied and
situated geographical view of the world which avoids what Donna Haraway (1988) has called `the God trick’ that
simultaneously allows the viewer to be both everywhere and nowhere. OÂ Tuathail’s anti-geopolitical
eye sees the world from a vantage-point which is readily acknowledged; it is a position that takes
responsibility for its representation from somewhere. The political geogra- phies produced by an anti-geopolitical eye
emphasise moral proximity and anger: it is not distanced and dispassionate, even-handed or ironic, but is angry
at injustice, exploitation and subjugation; it wants to see change. OÂ Tuathail (1996a) offers Maggie O’Kane’s
impassioned reports of the war in Bosnia as a situated, moral and subjective alternative to the distanced all-seeing-eye of the traditional
geopolitician. Her reports emphasised the agency and acts of people, and the materiality of violence. She discusses the imagined geographies
and representations through which the region gains its political identity and through which con¯ ict has been configured, but also the actions of
peopleÐheroic acts and violent repressionÐthe impacts
are not only words or discourses, but pain, sorrow and
death. Similarly, in the case of Northern Ireland, women have been marginalised in the consciousness of most of those who have written of
the geopolitcs of this war. This phenomenon is not unique to Northern Ireland and scholars have addressed the gendering of war in South
Africa, Namibia, Israel, Palestine, Croatia and Peru (see Enloe, 1983; Cock, 1993; Radcliffe and Westwood, 1993; Mayer, 1994; Zarkov, 2001;
Sharoni, 2001). There is an
exhaustive amount of literature focused on political violence; however, most of
this literature concentrates on the operational study of war. Historically armed con¯ ict was executed
by men, ª whether as armed forces, guerrilla groups, paramilitary or peace-keeping forcesº (Moser and Clark, 2001, p. 3). As a result,
men were the heroes and the soldiers of war, protectors of wives and children. On the other hand, women
are considered helpmates to the male warrior or the victims of war, particularly of sexual abuse and
forced abduction (Dowler, 1998; Moser and Clark, 2001). As a result, the nation is expressed through the
recording of the actions of the public sphere rendering it as masculine. However, deconstruction of the
inter- dependent nature of public and private space in this case inverts patriarchal power structures
and reveals a political solidarity which is constructed of theA Feminist Geopolitics? 169 actions of both men and
women. This type of geopolitical analysis, which is grounded in the everyday of experiences, rewrites
women back into this con¯ ict as both mothers and warriors (Dowler, 1998).
The alternative is to reject the affirmative – this allows a deconstruction of gender relationships
resulting in gender equality
Tickner 92 – Professor of International Relations @ USC, Ph.D Political Science @ Brandeis, M.A.
International Relations @ Yale, B.A. History @ University of London (J. Ann, “Gender in International
Relations”, PDF, http://www.ces.uc.pt/ficheiros2/files/Short.pdf, RSpec)
Scott claims that the way in which our understanding of gender signifies relationships of power is through a
set of normative concepts that set forth interpretations of the meanings of symbols. In Western culture, these concepts
take the form of fixed binary oppositions that categorically assert the meaning of masculine and feminine and hence legitimize a set of unequal
social relationships. 8 Scott and many other contemporary feminists assert that, through our use of language, we come to perceive the
world through these binary oppositions. Our Western understanding of gender is based on a set of culturally determined binary distinctions,
such as public versus private, objective versus subjective, self versus other, reason versus emotion, autonomy versus relatedness, and culture
versus nature; the first of each pair of characteristics is typically associated with masculinity, the second with femininity. 9 Scott claims that
the hierarchical construction of these distinctions can take on a fixed and permanent quality that
perpetuates women's oppression: therefore they must be challenged. To do so we must analyze the
way these binary oppositions operate in different contexts and, rather than accepting them as fixed,
seek to displace their hierarchical construction. 10 When many of these differences between women
and men are no longer assumed to be natural or fixed, we can examine how relations of gender
inequality are constructed and sustained in various arenas of public and private life. In committing itself
to gender as a category of analysis, contemporary feminism also commits itself to gender equality as a
social goal.
Interrogating the geopolitics that creates conflict and difference in the world today is
key contest militarization and intervention that cause violent relations
Hyndman ’4 – Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University (Jennifer, “Mind the gap: bridging feminist
and political geography through geopolitics,” Political Geography, 2004,
http://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/6356/Mind%20the%20Gap.pdf)//SS
The term " feminist " is
employed in a broad and inclusive sense to describe¶ analyses and political
interventions that address the asymmetrical and often violent¶ relationships among people based on
real or perceived social and cultural differences. Just as there are several schools of thought within political geography,
there¶ are many feminisms, and this paper does not attempt to fix the term "feminist" in¶ any singular manner. Gender remains a central
concern of feminist politics and¶ thought, but its primacy over other positionings is not fixed across time and place.¶ Asymmetrical gender
relations that position women as subordinate to men exist¶ across space and time, but it would be ethnocentric, if not racist, to assume
that¶gender is always and everywhere the primary basis of oppression, persecution, or¶ exclusion (Anzaldua, 1987; Mohanty, 1991). Relations
of class, race, caste, sexuality, religion, nationality, ethnicity, and other axes of affiliation are potentially¶ exclusionary, discriminatory, and even
violent. And while disparities based on¶ these differences are in themselves important, it
is the prevailing power relations¶ and
discursive practices that position groups of people in hierarchical relations to¶ others based on such
differences that remain critical to this feminist analysis. Building on critiques from both political
geography and political science, feminist geopolitics decentres but does not dismiss state security, the
conventional subject of¶ geopolitics, and contests the militarization of states and societies (Falk, 2000). It¶
attempts to develop a politics of security at the scale of the (civilian) body. ¶ A feminist geopolitical imagination aims to
remap realist geopolitics by interrogating scale as pre-given and discrete from other levels of analysis.
The invocation of scale is critical in structuring political action (Staeheli, 1994), yet it is¶ historically produced, variegated, and contested
(Swyngedouw, 2000). Rethinking scale entails more than deconstructing dominant geopolitical narratives; it
involves¶ engaging
relationally with processes that are made powerful by the existence of¶ borders, or that appear to
exist beyond borders. International borders can serve to¶naturalizedifference, refuse political
alliances, and obscure commonalities between¶ discrete spaces and linked oppression. Spivak's (1990)
work urges us to connect¶ local contingencies with the operation of power across borders that
construct and¶ reify difference. Studying mobility across such borders represents one tool for problematizing scale and
foregrounding power relations that include, but exceed, the¶ borders of nation-states. The analytical and political valence of deploying
feminist¶ geopolitics in relation to mobility, violence, and security is explored in the second¶ half of the paper. By
analyzing state
power at a multiplicity of scales and focusing¶ on embodied epistemologies and subjects, geographers
can begin to forge a bridge¶ between political and feminist geography.
Alt: Inclusion
The alt takes an inclusionary and contextualizing approach to policy to reveal bias in IR
that leads to securitization
True ’5 – Lecturer in International Politics, University of Auckland, New Zealand (Jacqui, Theories of International
Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 224-225, http://gendocs.ru/docs/35/34939/conv_1/file1.pdf)//SS
Some feminists posit an alternative female model of agency as connected, interdependent and interrelated (Gilligan 1982; Tronto 1989).¶
most feminist International Relations scholars are sceptical of¶ positing a nurturing account of
feminine nature to correct the gender¶ bias of Waltzian man/state (cf. Elshtain 1985: 41).International
Relations feminists search for richer, alternative models of agency that¶ take account of both
production and reproduction, redefine rationality¶ to be less exclusive and instrumental and respect
human relationships¶ (across all levels) as well as the interdependence of human beings with¶ nature
(Tickner 1991: 204–6). For example, some scholars look for¶ emancipatory models of agency at the margins – among Third World¶
women and human rights activists for instance (Ackerly 2000). Feminist¶ alternatives to International Relations’ levels of
analysis do not resort to¶ more universal abstractions, they demand greater historical and cultural ¶
contextualization in order more adequately to reflect the complexity and¶ indeterminacy of human
agency and social structure.¶ Feminist scholars use gender analysis to uncover the bias of core¶
International Relations concepts such as power and security. Such bias¶ not only limits their
theoretical application, it has detrimental consequences for international relations practice.Power in
International¶ Relations theory has been almost exclusively conceived of as ‘powerover’: the power to
force or influence someone to do something that they¶ otherwise would not (Jaquette 1984). An
individual’s power rests on his¶ or her autonomy from the power of others. In this view, power
cannot¶ be shared nor can power be readily increased by relationships with¶ others in the context of
interdependent or common interests. The accumulation of power capabilities and resources,
according to Morgenthau,¶ is both an end and a means to security. In the context of an anarchical¶ state system
However,
which is interpreted as necessarily hostile and self-helping,¶ states that act ‘rationally’ instinctively deduce their national interests as¶ their
maximization of power-over other states. The
Waltzian notion of¶ power is only mildly different. Waltz
conceptualizes power as a means¶ for the survival of a state but not as an end-goal in itself, to the
extent¶ that a stable, bipolar, balance of power configuration exists between¶ states. Consequently, in
the Waltzian world-view, the only power that¶ really matters is the power-capability of ‘Great
Powers’, whose bipolar¶ or multipolar arrangement brings limited order to an anarchic international realm.
The alt isn’t constructed as central towards feminism – the alt examines what the best
way to achieve effective relations is through critical theory
True ’5 – Lecturer in International Politics, University of Auckland, New Zealand (Jacqui, Theories of International
Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 231, http://gendocs.ru/docs/35/34939/conv_1/file1.pdf)//SS
Normative feminism recognizes that there is no feminist ‘high ground’¶ from which to theorize about
international relations. For instance,¶ Christine Sylvester (1994a: 12) argues that ‘all places to speak and act as¶ women are
problematic’, because they are socially and historically¶ constructed and exclude other identities. Effectively, Sylvester relinquishes
the feminist standpoint position that women’s experience can¶ constitute the ground(s) for a more
critical and universal theory of¶ international relations, in favour of multiple feminist standpoints that¶
question the discipline’s hegemonic knowledge. Feminism, ‘is the¶ research posture of standing in
many locations, illuminating important¶ relations and practices darkened by the long shadows of
official IR, of¶ painting International Relations differently … Feminism has many types¶ and shifting
forms. It is non-uniform and non-consensual; it is a complex¶ matter with many internal debates’
(Sylvester 2002: 269). International¶ Relations feminism demonstrates that it is possible to do
research and¶ make normative claims, despite there being no given ontological starting ¶ points for
theories of international relations (Sylvester 1994b: 317).
The alt requires listening to the vulnerable – something that the power structures of
the affirmative don’t address
Robinson ’11 – Carleton University, Canada (Fiona, “Stop Talking and Listen: Discourse Ethics and Feminist Care
Ethics in International Political Theory,” Millennium – Journal of International Studies, March 2011,
http://mil.sagepub.com/content/39/3/845)//SS
Thus, from the perspective of care ethics, the
goal is not simple ‘inclusion’ of the previously excluded into a
system, community or dialogue that may in fact lead to further isolation. Rather, moral recognition and responsibility
require a longer-term com- mitment of listening and responding to the needs of those who are
excluded, marginalised or exploited, and therefore vulnerable. This involves questioning why and understanding how
it is that different forms of ‘power’ come to exist, and how they are distributed in society. It also involves understanding which
relations of dependence are built on mutual trust and support, and which are built on manipulation and paternalism,
and why. When care is no longer seen as something done by those who cannot do anything else (such as
already marginalised women of colour) for people who cannot look after themselves (young children, the elderly, the
chronically ill or disabled), but rather as the most important thing we do, a climate of increased trust and
respect can be built.
Alt: Deconstruction
We propose a deconstruction of patriarchy.
Olea, PhD in Literature and researcher of Latin American women and Spanish literature, 1995
(Raquel,The Postmodernism Debate in Latin America , page 196, 1995,www.gbv.de/dms/subhamburg/172121000.pdf)//SB
In modernity, women have of course also formed their own movements or parties but these
have been built around specific goals that, once achieved, lead to an impasse in these
organizations, so that they sometimes end up disbanding. An example of this is the long
historical silence of the Chilean feminist movement after the achievement of full rights of
citizenship for women in 1949. lt has been only recently that some sectors of feminism have
begun to create autonomous spaces for feminist theory and critique and for the transformation
of patriarchal relations. This new feminism constitutes itself in an important production of
theoretical knowledge, on the one hand, and as a space of cultural critique, on the other. Rather than
opposing neoliberal capitalist ideology or the socialist ideologies represented in particular by
Marxism, this feminism proposes instead the "deconstruction" of the system of patriarchy as such.
To that end, it has introduced into the language of social analysis the concepts of patriarchy, sexual
gender, and public/private space; a critique and revision of sexual identities; and proposals for the
construction of a new subject form for women. These theoretical constructs, in turn, have been
important factors in the political struggles of women. For example, the slogan "the personal is
the political" has allowed women in many countries to win specific legal rights pertaining to
divorce, abortion, child care, and the like. ln addition, as a response to the deification of reason
as representing the one and the universal, the practices of feminism in recent decades involve a
revalorization of the experiential, of the body, and of practice itself, as modes of construction of
rationalities that arise from logics rooted in the coporeality of women's experience, a dimension that
is notably absent in the discourse of Enlightenment. Feminist scholarship today is undertaking, in
different disciplines, a rehistoricization of the place that women have occupied in Western
society, as a way both of making ourselves visible and of installing a difference that cancels the
pseudo-objectivity of masculine discourses. That modernity, as a cultural project, is elaborated
from the perspective of a masculine subject, or, better, that it postulates the subject of representation
as centered, unitary, and in principle masculine, and that this subject is now in crisis: these are
among the main themes of the mod-representation as centered, unitary, and in principle
masculine, and that this subject is now in crisis: these are among the main themes of the
modern/postmodern debate.
The alternative is to deconstruct technostrategic discourse then develop alternative
rational visions of the future.
Cohn, Director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 1987 (Carol, “Sex and Death
in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4, Within and Without: Women,
Gender, and Theory. (Summer, 1987), pp.
687-718)//CS
I do not, however, want to suggest that none of us should learn the language. l do not believe that this
language is well suited to achieving the goals desired by antimilitarists, yet at the same time, I, for one,
have found the experience of learning the language useful and worthwhile (even if at times traumatic),
The question for those of us who do choose to learn it, I think, is what use are we going to make of that
knowledge? One of the most intriguing options opened by learning the language is that it suggests a
basis upon which to challenge the legitimacy of the defense intellectuals' dominance of the discourse on
nuclear issues. When defense intellectuals are criticized for the cold-blooded inhumanity of the
scenarios they plan, their response is to claim the high ground of rationality; they are the only ones
whose response to the existence of nuclear weapons is objective and realistic. They portray those who
are radically opposed to the nuclear status quo as irrational, unrealistic, too emotional. "ldealistic
activists" is the pejorative they set against their own hard-nosed professionalism. Much of their claim to
legitimacy, then, is a claim to objectivity born of technical expertise and to the disciplined purging of
the emotional valences that might threaten their objectivity.But if the surface of their discourse-its
abstraction and technical jargon-appears at first to support theseclaims, a look just below the surface
does not. There we End currents ofhomoerotic excitement, heterosexual domination, the drive toward
competency and mastery, the pleasures of membership in an elite and privileged group, the ultimate
importance and meaning of membership in thepriesthood, and the thrilling power of becoming Death,
shatterer ofworlds. How is it possible to hold this up as a paragon of cool-headedobjectivity?I do not
wish here to discuss or judge the holding of "objectivity" as anepistemological goal. Iwould simply point
out that, as defense intellectualsrest their claims to legitimacy on the untainted rationality of their
discourse, their project fails according to its own criteria. Deconstructing strategic discourse claims to
rationality is, then, in and of itself, an important way to challenge its hegemony as the sole legitimate
language for public debate about nuclear policy.I believe thatfeminists, and others who seek a more
just and peacefulworld, have a dual task before us-a deconstructive project and a reconstructive
project that are intimately linked." Our deconstructive task requires close attention to, and the
dismantling of, technostrategic discourse. The dominant voice of militarized masculinity and
decontextualized rationality speaks so loudly in our culture, it will remain difficult forany other voices
to be heard until that voice loses some of its power todefine what we hear and how we name the worlduntil that voice isdelegitimated.Our reconstructive task is a task of creating compelling alternative
visions of possible futures, a task of reorganizing and developing alternative conceptions of
rationality, a task of creating rich and imaginative alternative voices-diverse voices whose
conversations with each other will invent those futures.
Alt: Gender Lens
The alternative is to do the affirmative with the lens of gender analysis – several
reasons.
Tungohan, PhD Candidate in Political Science and the Collaborative Program in Women and Gender
Studies at the University of Toronto, 2012 (Ethel, “Reconceptualizing Motherhood, Reconceptualizing
Resistance,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 15, no. 1, page 40, July 24, 2012,
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfjp20#.UeL3542cdqU)//CS
There are several ways to understand the feminization of migration. According to neoclassical
approaches to labour migration, the rise in the numbers of female migrants is a simple supply/demand
scenario (Yin 2005). Migrant-receiving countries facing labour shortages in female-dominated
industries such as manufacturing, nursing and care work recruit women who are facing
unemployment in migrant-sending countries. Using gender analysis to assess these trends provides
useful insights. From a macro-level perspective, applying gender analysis shows how trade
liberalization and structural adjustment policies have disproportionately affected more women than
men in developing countries, leading more women to view labour migration as the solution to their
economic difficulties (Elson 1995). Gender analysis also illustrates how sending states have responded
to such economic constraints by deliberately using stereotypes on female ‘docility’ and female
‘compliance’ to market their nationals to prospective employers abroad; sending states have
concurrently used rhetoric concerning female sacrifice and piety to encourage the labour migration of
women (Rodriguez 2010). Migrant women send remittances more frequently than male migrants and
are more likely to maintain ties to their home countries, making them a crucial source of revenue for
economically beleaguered countries. Sending countries therefore benefit financially from the
perpetuation of gender stereo stereotypes. Moreover, although receiving states still encourage male
migration in lucrative industries such as seafaring and construction, gender analysis explains receiving
states’ preference for female migrants, who are deemed cheaper and more acquiescent than male
migrants. As Mirjana Morokvasic (1984) and Diane Elson and Ruth Pearson (1981) discuss, employers in
receiving states see female migrants as ideal workers because they are reticent and more productive.
Employers ‘manufacture’ migrant women’s ‘otherness’ by emphasizing migrant women’s purportedly
‘inferior’ race, nationality, class and femininity (Maher and Staab 2005). They construct ‘poor’ and
‘workingclass’ ‘Third World’ women as better workers driven by economic desperation. In addition,
gender analysis shows how gender discourses that bolster the private/public dichotomy and nuclear
family ideologies - all of which operate within the nation, the community and the household - affect
migrants’ experiences. Gendered norms enshrining ideas concerning maternal nurturing and paternal
providing affect migrants’ decisions to migrate (Bakan and Stasiulis 1997), influence their experiences in
their host country (Bakan and Stasiulis 2005) and impact their re-integration into their home country
upon repatriation (Parrenas 2001, 2005).
Alt: Security
Women are excluded from the realist paradigm of security despite their direct ties to
war and violence
NURUZZAMAN ‘6- Associate Professor of International Relations at the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST), Kuwait
(“Paradigms in Conflict” Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 2006 Sage Journals)
Like the human security and critical theory paradigms, feminist scholarshipin International Relations is also characterized by divergent ideas,
viewsand perspectives. For example, liberal feminists accept the state as themainstay that delivers liberal principles, Marxist feminists prioritize
classand post-structuralists deconstruct the notion of individuals. The differencesin views and positions notwithstanding, feminist
scholars in generalaccept security as a comprehensive concept and refuse to view it throughthe lens of
the state-centric realist paradigm. The refusal to accept therealist security paradigm is premised on
the grounds that InternationalRelations is a gendered discourse (Runyan, 1992; Sylvester, 1992). Theconcepts of
state, power and security, the feminist scholars argue, are constructedin masculinist terms. They object to the
projection of the state bythe realist scholars as a national political community struggling to survivein a condition of constant anarchy. The
emphasis on anarchy diverts attentionfrom the necessity to address gendered and other social
inequalitiesand brings about social change favouring women.Feminist scholars contend that the realist view of
the state as primaryactor in an international system is built on the notion of ‘sovereign man’ that
represents the images of the male warriors or the Prince and excludeswomen from areas of high politics such as war,
peace and security (Steans,1998: 46). As an obvious result, gender issues such as inequality betweenmen and
women and the absence of women in the public sphere receivelittle or no importance. The security of
women continues to remain aneglected issue in international politics (Tickner, 1999: 53).The feminist critique of the realist view of
International Relations hasresulted in significant revisions of our traditional understanding of security.The two important issues that dominate
feminist positions on security are:(a) gender inequality and (b) inclusion of women’s experiences in securityanalysis.There is no denying the fact
that men and women experience insecuritydifferently. Women, in most societies, face more insecurities thanmen. They
are usually placed at the bottom layer in all societies andaccorded limited opportunities in terms of access to critical resources suchas
institutional credit, land ownership, education, employment and wages.Women head around 21% of rural households in Asia, Sub-Saharan
Africa,Latin America and the Caribbean, but they own less than 2% of land globallyand enjoy access to only 10% of credit funds available
worldwide. Suchgender inequalities exist because of the absence of appropriate nationallegislations as well as customary laws that discriminate
against women(Commission on Human Security, 2003: 81–2). Hard
security issues, such aswar and environmental
damage, affect women more directly than men.Although men usually fight wars, women and children become
the casualtiesof war. Women and children also constitute some 80% of the totalrefugees of the world
(Tickner, 1995: 190–2). The predicament of womendemands that their experiences be taken into consideration while formulatingsecurity
policies.Feminist scholars also raise questions about where women fit inInternational Relations and security studies. Cynthia
Enloe, in
particular,investigates the issues of treatment of women soldiers in the military, theconstruction of
masculinity in national armies and the presence of femaleprostitutes around military bases to
discover how power really operates inthe realist conception of security (Enloe, 1993, 1989).The conclusion
Enloearrives at is that women have been successfully marginalized in the practicesof security dominated by
the realist paradigm.The military dimensionof security privileges men, confers on them the dominating role and putswomen in the
position of the dominated.
The alt is a comprehensive definition of security that includes protections for the
oppressed
NURUZZAMAN ‘6- Associate Professor of International Relations at the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST), Kuwait
(“Paradigms in Conflict” Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 2006 Sage Journals)
The multiple insecurities women face across the globe have led feministscholars to devise a security
framework that suits the interest of all individuals.The state, the feminists argue, cannot be taken as the
referent of securityprecisely because it represents the interests of men and discriminatesagainst women.
Departing from the statist discourse of security, feministscholars take individuals as the primary
referents of security. They definesecurity in light of the circumstances and needs of people and stress
that‘security is not just the absence of threats or acts of violence, but the enjoymentof economic and
social justice’ (Steans, 1998: 127). Security includesabsence of the threat of unemployment, elimination of all forms of discriminationand
the provision for safe working conditions. Security alsomeans that all individuals have access to food and other economic provisionsthat
provide them with a standard livelihood.This comprehensive definition
of security, of course, recognizes that
thesecurity of individuals depends on their respective economic, political,social and personal
circumstances across societies. Thus, issues of poverty,inequality, mal-development and a denial of
basic needs are relevant tounderstanding security. The state-centric realist security paradigm is farfrom
resolving these issues and cannot ensure security of the vulnerablegroups, particularly of women. Realists insist on security
preparationthrough armaments build-up that depends on huge military expenditures.In most cases,
huge military spending impacts on women and threatenstheir security. An increase in military spending
may mean a contraction ofsocial spending in areas of health, education and support to low
incomegroups. As its consequence, female-headed households are likely to suffermost. The move towards increased
military spending also complicates theissue of inequality between men and women, because women
are lessemployed in military hardware-producing industries, and those who areemployed are paid less compared to
men (Steans, 1998: 110–12). Feministsbelieve that true security can be achieved through the elimination of
genderinequality and the abolition of boundary distinctions between men andwomen, the powerful
and the weak (Tickner, 1995: 193).
Alt: Borders
Borders are critical sites of resistance—transformative potential exists in their
contradictions
Mountz and Hyndman, associate professor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs and Professor and Director, Centre for
Refugee Studies at York University respectively 06 (Alison and Jennifer, “Feminist Approaches to the Global Intimate”, Women’s Studies
Quarterly 41:1/2, Spring/Summer 2006, JSTOR)//AS
Borders are geographically and analytically dynamic sites where femi- nist interventions into and
understandings of relations between global and intimate occur. Geraldine Pratt (1998) names borders as poignant
"transfer points" in our geographical imaginations of self, other, nation- state, and global relations. They delineate binaries
between statesand regions in cartographic mappings that are reproduced at multiple sites and scales in our
daily lives. Through dualities, borders produce and reproduce differences. They construct people as in/out, legal/illegal,
here/there, white/racialized "other." Not just spatializeddelineations on the landscape, borders are temporal as
welL: moments of truth when power that often operates more subtly is exposed in all its
incarnations. As such, borders present confrontational moments in which we must declare ourselves
and in which others exercise power to identify, an exercise that conveys power through visibility. At the
international bor- der, the power of the nation-state is enacted through the disciplining of bodies. The state is not only performed
along the international border, however, but also in daily life, through the construction of identities
of citizens, noncitizens, and "partial" citizens. Borders are reproduced and inscribed on the body in daily life where the state
influences the body in the most intimate and far-reaching of ways, from the regulation of abor- tion to euthanasia. Borders also
appeal to feminists because of the former's transforma- tive potential. They are lines drawn to be
crossed: sometimes solid, mili- tarized; other times porous and crossed daily on the way to work.
They are places that divide, but also contact zones where people meet, conjoin, neighbor, abut. In her
pioneering and celebrated Chicana text Border- lands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza (1987), Gloria Anzaldua depicts daily life growing up along
the U.S. -Mexico border. She recounts formative experiences characterized by identities in which the contradictions of dualities collide and are
embodied. Anzaldua
speaks of the border often as an edge: the edge of something, the end of
something, the beginning of something else. For her, borders function as both oppressive sites "unaheridaabierta [an open
wound] where the Third World grates against the first and bleeds" (3) and sites of resistance. She frames her autobio- graphical experience of
the borderlands as a "consciousness of the bor- derlands." She names "mestiza consciousness" as an upheaval of dualistic thinking. Anzaldua
describes a fear of going home (21) because the
border- lands are a place of "intimate terrorism" (20). They offer
comfort and contradiction, security and insecurity. She undergoes a series of cross- ings that signal processes of profound
transformation. Along the way, she resists, travels through, and mobilizes binaries; and her revelations render
those binaries her home, a hybrid space of wounding, healing, and then empowerment.Anzaldua locates
herself in this site in countless ways, arguing that the new mestiza, the hybrid woman, mitigates duali- ty and embraces contradiction and
ambiguity. She embodies the border- lands and the intimacy of scales traversed there. The "new mestiza con- sciousness" embraces
ambiguity, ambivalence, multilingualism, psychic restlessness, a state of perpetual transition (78). Ultimately she argues, "To survive the
Borderlands you must live sinfronteras [without borders], be a crossroads" (195)
Alt: Latin America
Latin American feminist movements are critical to human rights and dismantling
oppressive regimes
Chinchilla, Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies at California State University, Long Beach91 (Norma Stoltz, “Marxism,
Feminism, and the Struggle for Democracy in Latin America”, Gender and Society 5:291, 1991, Sage Publications)//AS
The most dramatic early examples of women's contributions to a redefi- nition of what constitutes
political activity or "doing politics"•in Latin America come from the protests of Argentine and Chilean
women against military dictatorships in their countries, even when other groups were still reluctant to
confront the regimes openly and directly. Women in Argentina used their "moral force"• as mothers, grandmothers, and sisters of the
disap- peared to demand an accounting of relatives who had been victims of political repression, while in Chile women converted homes and
neighborhoods into centers of collective resistance and survival after the emergence of the Pinochet dictatorship (Agosin 1987; Feijo 1989). In
both cases, these
strug- gles by women contributed significantly to the demise of the respective military
regimes. In the last two years before the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua was overthrown in 1979 (and throughout the hemisphere during
the decade of the 1980s) women acquired unprecedented importance in opposition movements, often
through new organizational forms and with new tactics that they themselves helped to invent . In rural
areas, women became active in peasant organizations and in ethnic/racial movements in urban areas; they formed the backbone of
neighborhood-based grass-roots protest movements. In both rural and urban areas, they
formed the foundation of the Christian-
based community and human rights movements (Alvarez 1988; Chinchilla 1990; Jacquette 1989; Jelin 1990; Randall 1981). Women's
growing participation in these protest and social change move~ ments during the 1980s were often derived from an attempt to fulfill, rather
than subvert, the traditional gender division of labor (mothers entering the public sphere to save the lives of their children, housewives turning
to col- lective action to provide for the survival of their families, etc.). But the
experiences women gained in the process
often created fertile ground for links between a gender-specific consciousness (what Molyneux [1986] calls
"women's strategic interests"•) and social consciousness (consciousness of class, social sector, nation, etc.) Parallel to women's
growing visibility in nontraditional forms of civilian politics was the unprecedented incorporation of women into cadre
revolu- tionary organizations and political parties in countries with broad-based revolutionary movements, such as Nicaragua, El
Salvador, and Guatemala (Chinchilla 1990; Gargallo 1987; Murguialday 1990). The ties of these women with women in neighborhood and
other organizations nurtured their appreciation of women's potential for courageous and creative protest
and encouraged them to analyze the concrete conditions of women's lives in greater depth (Randall 1981;
author's interviews with Guatemalan women participants in politico-military organizations). Women's visibility in human rights
organizations and groups for the defense of basic survival, in turn, encouraged women in traditionally maledominated class organizations (such as trade unions) to form women's Caucuses and commissions and
create mechanisms for greater representation of women in leadership-for exam- ple, the Nicaraguan Agricultural Workers
Union (Chinchilla 1990; Criquillon and Espinoza 1987; Murguialday 1990). Increased contact with feminist ideas within and
without the movement, at international conferences and as a result of intemational solidarity efforts, and the ability to test ideas in prac- tice
served as incubators for a new-born revolutionary Marxist-feminist cur- rent within socialism and the
feminist movement.
Alt: Care Ethics
The alt is to embrace an feminist ethic of care that serve as a dialogic basis for
discourse – this entails an understanding of responsibility in international politics
Robinson ’11 – Carleton University, Canada (Fiona, “Stop Talking and Listen: Discourse Ethics and Feminist Care
Ethics in International Political Theory,” Millennium – Journal of International Studies, March 2011,
http://mil.sagepub.com/content/39/3/845)//SS
An ethics of care argues that the activities of caring for particular others for whom we take
responsibility are of both moral and political significance. Taking this seriously demands not only
putting questions regarding the nature, quality and distribution of care and caring labour at the centre
of public discourse, it also demands a rethinking of the dialogical skills required to consider care
effectively. Care ethics emphasises the existence of dependency and vulnerability as normal ways of
‘being human’. Learning how to listen effectively to others, especially those who – at that particular
moment in time and space – may be more vulnerable to the outcomes of dialogue than you are, requires the cultivation of moral attitudes of
patience, attentiveness and trust. It also requires a recognition that the feminisation and privatisation of caring activities and care work have served as an informal
barrier to women’s participation in dialogue, and continue to do so. This
allows us to recognise the ways in which dominant
norms and discourses can serve to exclude women and other groups from dialogue even when
‘formal’ inclusion has been granted. Likewise, if men can ‘absent’ themselves from discussion of the
distribution of care-work responsibilities, as well as removing them- selves from consideration of
eligibility for those responsibilities, meaningful dialogue will not occur. ¶ In the democratic spirit of both Habermas and
Linklater, I have argued that the ethics of care can provide the substantive basis for a new vision of democracy, in which meaningful dialogue on the nature and
distribution of responsibilities for care is of paramount importance. Care
in this sense is no longer a single ‘issue’ to be debated;
rather, consideration of responsibilities for care becomes an overarching moral lens through which
many key questions in the public sphere are debated. While care ethicists such as Joan Tronto and Selma Sevenhuijsen have
discussed this possibility in the context of domestic societies, I would argue that care ethics can also serve as a basis for
understanding responsibility, dialogue and democracy in the global context.
AT: Utopian Alt
The alt is not a fantasy – it argues that care ethics emerge out of practice rather than
spontaneity
Robinson ’11 – Carleton University, Canada (Fiona, “Stop Talking and Listen: Discourse Ethics and Feminist Care
Ethics in International Political Theory,” Millennium – Journal of International Studies, March 2011,
http://mil.sagepub.com/content/39/3/845)//SS
The obvious utopianism of discourse ethics is not necessarily a failing. Utopianism has an important
role to play in both international ethics and critical theory. Contrary to those who would condemn all
critical theory as ‘fantasy theory’, I would argue that imagining a different – and defensibly better –
world is an indispensable task of social and political thought.54 It is important, however, to ensure that those
imaginings rest on a coherent evaluation of the nature and source of moral action. For example, when Linklater argues that participants in
dialogue should ‘think from the standpoint of others’, critics are understandably sceptical about how this will come about. As
an
embodied ethics of practice, care ethics argues that moral responses emerge out of the practices of
caring for others, rather than being spontaneously generated by moral maxims.
Alt: Cuba
Cuba Spills Over Globally
CDA, ’13 (Center for Democracy in the Americas, “Women's Work: Gender Equality in Cuba and the Role
of Women Building Cuba's Future (21st Century Cuba)”, March 6, 2013,
http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/CDA_Womens_Work.pdf)//CC
We share a region—and a world—with countries struggling to break free of the burdens of
underdevelopment and inequality. Empowerment of women is commonly understood as more than a
powerful instrument of social justice to alleviate those conditions, but also as a means of creating a
more broadly shared prosperity. In spite of impediments, the progress made in Cuba to substantially
increase gender equality carries with it important lessons for other societies. In today’s increasingly
interconnected world, progress or regression in one country is likely to have a transnational
impact.Cubans are in a position to share programmatic insights, especially with those countries where
the status of women is highly deficient. Since women constitute the majority of the world’s population,
supporting, fortifying and disseminating Cuban women’s experience could contribute to improved
welfare in other countries that have not progressed as much.
The Feminist critique is key to spark change in Cuba
Davies, ‘96 -Professor of Hispanic and Latin American Studies in the University of Nottingham(Catherine,
“National Feminism in Cuba: The Elaboration of a Counter-Discourse, 1900-1935”, January, 1996)//CC
In what follows I shall pinpoint some specific strategies by means of which white educated women
created a multi-layered counter-discourse in Cuba between 1900 and 1935. These strategies are:
gynomorphic representations of the nation (the most prevalent); (self)-identification of the mother
with the homeland; refiguring the mother; refiguring the home; a feminine critique of
modernity/masculinity; the analogy between woman and slave; the ironic deflation of the myths of
masculinity and femininity; the rebellion of subjectivity. Clearly, there is an attempt to redefine the
post-colonial social body and that of the individual from a feminine point of view. At the same time
women writers engage with language; for those writers who demanded more than equal rights,
language became an essential instrument in achieving a sexual liberation which entailed 'access to a
status of individual and collective subjectivity that is valid for them as women'.
Solvency
The alternative’s radical critique of society solves.
Cole and Phillips, Professor of Anthropology at Concordia University and Professor at Amherst
University, 2008 (Sally and Lynne, “The Violence Against Women Campaigns in Latin America: New
Feminist Alliances,” Feminist Criminology 2008 3: 145, pages 150-151, April 8, 2008)//SB
In the remainder of this article, we examine three confluent efforts to combat violenceagainst women in
Brazil and Ecuador: (a) the international offices of the¶ United Nations, specifically the two subregional
offices of UNIFEM in LatinAmerica, the Andean office located in Quito, Ecuador, and the Southern Cone
officelocated in Brasilia, Brazil; (b) the government approach in these two countries, as¶ represented by
the offices established for women’s issues, CONAMU, the NationalCouncil for women in Ecuador and
SPM, the Special Secretariat for Policy for Women in Brazil; and (c) transnational feminist networks—
represented by theNetwork of Women Transforming the Economy, REMTE, which has links to
othersocial movements active in Latin America.Our argument draws on the idea that the outcome of
any social change exercise, including efforts to eradicate violence against women, is always shaped by
a specific assemblage of resources, strategies, and practices within specific moral and political spaces.
It situates itself in the literature concerned to explore, with a critical eye, thepotential of global,
national, and local collaborations to create alternatives to neoliberalglobal capitalism (Bennett, 2001;
Desmarais, 2007; Faria, 2003; Gibson-Graham, 2006; León, 2005; Merry, 2006; Tsing, 2005). Within this
literature, therelationships between global and local scales have been theorized in terms of
howinternational ideas about human rights and gender violence can be “translated” inpositive ways by
local cultures (Merry, 2006) and how the effectiveness of international,national, and local collaborations
around social issues does not depend on theexistence of homogeneous interest groups but on a politics
of working with difference(Tsing, 2005; Walby, 2002). At the same time, feminist activists are making
conceptual contributions to framing public discourse on violence against women, particularly through
creative alliances with antineoliberal globalization movements in many parts of the world such as La
VíaCampesina and the World Social Forum¶ and in coalitions against free trade (Desmarais, 2007; Faria,
2003; Vargas, 2003). Inthis article, we focus on the work and alliance building of activists in the
LatinAmerican REMTE. In developing alternatives to neoliberal globalization and in their collaborations
on multiple fronts, they have not only initiated actions and campaigns but have also reframed public
discourse on violence against women through a radical critique of the economy and of the relations
on which many forms of violence depend. As a contribution to these academic and activist efforts, we
hope to demonstratein the following sections the efficacy of combating violence against womenthrough
attention to diverse alliances and different scales.
The alternative solves – violence against women provides a focal point for unity.
Cole and Phillips, Professor of Anthropology at Concordia University and Professor at Amherst
University, 2008 (Sally and Lynne, “The Violence Against Women Campaigns in Latin America: New
Feminist Alliances,” Feminist Criminology 2008 3: 145, pages 150-151, April 8, 2008)//SB
One of the characteristics of the terrain of feminisms in Latin America is that feminist movements
have played key roles in building the new democracies in the region. As a result, many feminists have
been integrated as civil servants into the new government structures that have been created to
develop policies to address women’s concerns. There is great debate among Latin American feminists
about whether or not this inevitably constitutes co-optation and there have emerged new divisions
among feminists who are variously labeled autónomas, institucionalizadas, or popular—autonomous,
institutionalized, or grassroots (Alvarez, 1999; Alvarez et al., 2002). Nonetheless, because of this
historical process, there is also a great deal of fluidity between the women’s movements and the
government owing to informal networks of friendship and previous experience of working together in
various campaigns, notably campaigns against gender-based violence. Every person we interviewed,
at all levels—international, national government, and regional movement— identified violence
against women as the focal point for bringing together women in diverse contexts and with diverse
backgrounds and goals to work together. In Ecuador, violence against women was described as the
issue that provided continuity for feminists through years of political instability. In Brazil, violence
against women was identified as the issue that was able to bring together women otherwise divided by
deep divisions of race, region, and income inequality and the issue that helped to crystallize the Lula
government’s transversal approach to gender equality. Our case study of a regional-level, transnational,
women’s movement is REMTE. REMTE sees women’s rights as inextricably tied to questions of economic
justice and gender equality. For REMTE, campaigns to end violence against women are an integral part of
campaigns against neoliberal globalization and of the work to build “another world,” another—more
just—globalization in which violence against women will be obsolete. REMTE feminists ally with peasant,
antiglobalization, and popular women’s movements to articulate a unified critique of globalization and
are especially concerned with the potential impacts on women of the proposed Free Trade Zone of the
Americas. In the REMTE context, violence against women is broadly defined to comprise—in addition
to domestic violence and rape—the retrenching of gender inequality and gender violence evident in
the commoditization of women in the beauty industry, the expansion of global sexual tourism, and
the discursive framing of “flexible,” unregulated employment as women’s “freedom” to participate in
the labour force. Less concerned with lobbying and affecting government policy, REMTE focuses its
efforts on popular education, building the women’s movement, and ensuring that a radical feminist
critique is present in antiglobalization movements (see Alvarez, 2004, p. 202; Diaz, 2007; Faria, 2003).
AT
AT: Perm
Perm is antiproductive—“adding women” perpetuates oppressive status quo
binaries—rethinking the boundaries of our political thought is the only way
Peterson, Professor of International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona, 92 (V Spike,
“Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations”, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 21:2,
1992, http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Publications/VSP%20TransgBoundaries%20Millenn%201992.pdf)//AS
This research, which focused on making women visible and exposing gender hierarchy.documented
the extent and tenacity
of androcentric bias and. especially, the anointment of men as knowers. But even more important, the
project of adding women to existing paradigms exposed existing gender boundaries and the need for
fundamental reconceptualizations. For example.including women in history forced a reassessment of
conventional notions of periodization and social categorization. Because women`s history is not that of men, the
characterization of third century Athens as the Golden Age and the European Renaissance as progressive is less than compelling when their
effects on and meaning for women - concubinage and confinement, domestication of bourgeois wives and persecution of witches - are properly
understood." Similarly, it
is not possible to include `women's work"˜ in economic frameworks that assume
the male model of work as paid labour. Nor can women`s asymmetrical access to power and resources
in their homes and in the labour force be accommodated within conventional definitions of politics. In
general, feminists have exposed the contradictions of "˜adding women' to constructions that are defined in
terms of masculinity, suchas formal politics, public authority, economic power, rationality and
freedom. Insofar as fundamental dichotomies are historically gender-coded and structurally oppositional. "˜adding women'
requires changing the meaning, and therefore the boundaries of "˜given' categories in Western thought and
practice.
Accepting any lessened form of masculinity results in persisting militarization – this
means only full rejection can solve
Bevan and Mackenzie ’12 – *University of Wellington, New Zealand AND **University of Sydney, Australia
(Marianne and Megan H., “‘Cowboy’ Policing versus ‘the Softer Stuff,’” International Journal of Feminist Politics,
December 10, 2012)//SS
In 2008, following a request from the Government of Timor-Leste to provide support for community
policing, a Community Policing Pilot Program (CPPP) was initiated by the New Zealand Police (NZPOL).
This program was part of the wider United Nations Policing component of the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT). The
goal of the program was:¶to support[the National Police force of Timor-Leste/Polic ́ıaNacional de
Timor-Leste] PNTL in developing a sustainable community policing model and philosophy, to assist in
restoring community trust and confidence in police, and to create an environment conducive to all aspects of community policing. (Emmott et
al. 2010: 365)¶NZPOL were authorized to develop and carry out the CPPP; from 2008 to 2010 cohorts of twenty-five
New Zealand Police officers were deployed on six- month rotations as part of the United Nations Police (UNPOL).¶There has been speculation
that enhancing the role of police in both provid- ing security and initiating security sector reform projects is a new trend that will result in less
militarized, more collaborative security sector reform efforts (Greener-Barcham 2007). Despite a growing literature examining broad issues
related to gender and international policing, there is little evidence to support or refute this claim. Instead, the
majority of literature
on gender and international policing focuses on either gender mainstreaming within UNPOL (Olsson 2000;
UNDPKO 2004, 2008; UNIFEM 2007), the margin- alization of women in UNPOL and local police forces (Olsson 2000;
Fitzsim- mons 2005; Greener et al. 2011), or the absence of focus on masculinities in gender policy (Bendix 2009;
Mobekk 2009; Myrttinen 2009b). In particular, there is a lack of understanding of what types of masculinities are valued within police
institutions operating as part of UN police reform projects and whether the police do indeed represent a less militarized and less hypermasculine institution. We know even less about how police officers involved in international missions identify themselves and what forms of
masculinities they value or prioritize. This research aims to fill these gaps by exploring how police officers operating under a UN mission
conceptualize and prioritize various forms of masculinities.¶Focusing
on the New Zealand Community Policing Project,
we argue that despite calls for less militarized, more community-centered approaches to security
sector reform, and despite the New Zealand Police’s rejection of overt violence , various forms of
militarized masculinities persisted within the culture of the New Zealand Police during its
international mission. Specifi- cally, we draw attention to two iterations of militarized masculinities that exist within the
NZPOL: ‘task-oriented masculinity’ and ‘Bwana masculinity’. We consider how these two types of militarized masculinity could inhibit
the achievement of the stated goals of the Community Policing Program by placing value on action-oriented, authoritarian
policing practices over per- ceived ‘less manly’ forms of community-orientated policing and
collaborative, capacity building. We also draw attention to the agency of a number of police officers in
rejecting these militarized masculinities and adopting masculinities that promote collaboration and
respect. In doing so, we not only complicate singular representations of militarized masculinity, but also
challenge accounts that see masculinity as a monolithic negative, violent construct that is engaged with in only problematic ways. The article
begins with a brief description of the policing mission in Timor-Leste and its context, fol- lowed by an overview of the methodology used in the
analysis. We
then situate our work within a growing body of research focused on masculinities and
policing. After that we explore militarized forms of policing within NZPOL and discuss the ways in
which these two types of militarized masculinities might inhibit community-policing efforts.
Simply considering women is no better than ignoring them—gender must be
recognized as an analytic category before international relations can be successful
Peterson, Professor of International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona, 92 (V Spike,
“Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations”, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 21:2,
1992, http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Publications/VSP%20TransgBoundaries%20Millenn%201992.pdf)//AS
Of feminism's many variants, liberal feminism - stereotyped as a
quest for"˜equal opportunity' - receives the most
attention both within and outside of academe. lf the efforts of international relations to address feminism spring fromliberal-pluralist
commitments and/or images, this explains in part why feminism'smore transformative claims remain
unacknowledged. "Adding women as equals'does not constitute a systemic revolution or
‘philosophical insurgency’To many in international relations, accepting feminism seems to mean no
more thanmaking a personal effort to include women’s issues in the field and supportliberal feminist objectives. Here
the intersection of liberalism and positivism is key. Liberal feminism may in fact have transformative implications."• but
that radical potential is obscured by positivist commitments. In brief, to the extent that positivist orientations prevail, feminism can only
be understood as promoting the addition of sex as a variable (since gender is ostensibly an irrelevant factor in
"˜objective' science). As long as gender is not recognized as an analytic category, no theoretical change
results from adding women to `universal` categories so that they can achieve `equality' with men . Thus,
the positivist commitments that continue to predominate in international relations preclude understanding feminism as anything other than a
call for adding sex as a variable or including "˜women`s issues' in otherwise unchanged coursework and frameworks. Through a positivist lens,
the implications of gender as a theoretical category are rendered invisible.
The perm fails – the state cannot co-exist with emancipatory international
relations
Spegele 02 - obtained his MA and PhD from the University of Chicago, and has published several articles in international
theory. (Roger D., “Emancipatory International Relations: Good News, Bad News or No News at All?”, International Relations,
12/1/02, http://ire.sagepub.com/content/16/3/381)//js
For emancipatory international relations, nation-states, and the state-systems of which they
form the essential parts, are either anachronistic institutions which have no legitimacy and which
we should replace with something else (althoughthere is no consensus on what that something might be) or they
have always involved repression, lacked legitimacy and marginalized the powerless. In anycase,
there is no place for nation-states or state-systems in any emancipatory conception of
international relations. For emancipatory international relations, the state and the state-system need to be
replaced with other institutional structures,the kind and character of the substitute depending on the particular
emancipatorytheory in question. World socialism (Wallerstein); dialogic communities(Linklater); alternative world orders (Cox);
international human rights regime(Booth); nongendered societies; global society (Albrow); maternalist society(Ruddick);
homesteads (Slyvester); anarchy (Ashley and George) would be justsome of the things that give content to what Kant called the
Kingdom of Ends.Whatever the value of thinking in terms of radical goals that may not berealizable, one part of the emancipatory
international relationist’s claim seems tobe solidly based: for, there is, after all, considerable support for the empiricalclaim that the
authority, capacity and power of nation-states are rapidlydiminishing in the face of globalization, interdependence and a just
environmentalorder. Clearly much more content would have to be given to the institutional envelopes
that would be morally and practically superior to the nation-state. It willnot do, for example, to talk in some
vague way about the rise of the postmodernstate
Perm coopts diverse feminist practices and incorporates them into the oppressive
“civilizing mission” of US imperialism
Chowdhury, Associate Professor of Women's Studies at the University of Massachusetts, 09 (EloraHalim, “Locating Global Feminisms
Elsewhere: Braiding US Women of Color and Transnationa; Feminisms”, Cultural Dynamics 21:51, 2009, Sage Publications)//AS
I open with the above vignette because I
want to probe the braiding of democracy (free media in the United States, an
informed public in direct opposition to authoritarian regimes, and their compliant subjects elsewhere), freedom (of women to drive and
support women’s oppression elsewhere such as FGM), and benevolent global feminism (that help women who are victimized by
their cultures, their men, and their states). Imperiously demarcating the space between ‘us’ and ‘them’ fi rstby
establishing the USA as a ‘free’ society where human rights are respected, and second by assuming an
affinity with ‘global feminism’ by declaring her concern for abused women in ‘other’ cultures, our host
occupied the benevolent fi rst world feminist position—seemingly oblivious to the US government’s role
in creating or exacerbating harsh conditions for the women with whom she so wanted to be in
solidarity. In this instance, global feminism was co-opted into a narrative justification of western liberal
notions of democracy and used in the service of reconstructing/reconsolidating its civilizing mission.
Sitting at the university cafeteria with my American feminist colleagues and our guest from Saudi Arabia, I was reminded of the
importance of carefully examining the ways in which feminisms are deployed to further disparate
political agendas that can be quite contradictory to feminist principals of equality, self-reflexivity, and
reciprocity. At a time of militarized war and US empire-building indeed, the enactment of global feminisms within such seemingly
innocuous spaces such as the academy can unwittingly bolster the project of US imperialism in the
global scene.
Perm attempts to appropriate what cannot belong to it—hurts feminist movements
and strips away consideration of power relations
Baden and Goetz, Researcher and Policy Analyst specialising in Agricultural Development, Food Security and Gender Equality and
Chief Advisor of Governance, Peace and Security at UNIFEM respectively 97 (Sally and Anne Marie, “Who Needs [Sex] When You Can Have
[Gender]? Conflicting Discourses on Gender at Beijing”, Feminist Review 56, Summer 1997,
http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/developpement/shared/developpement/mdev/soutienauxcours0809/verschuur_rights/E742_Baden_
Goetz.pdf)//AS
As gender has become a more mainstream and
players are entering the field, who bear no allegiance
to feminist research and may not even be familiar with its 6 basic texts, concepts and methodologies.
Economists, statisticians and econometricians(many, though not all of them, men), responding to the growth in
demand from major development bureaucracies for research and | analysis to inform their new 'gender-aware' policy
directions, have taken up research into gender issues. This recent body of research has tended to look at
gender as an interesting statistical variable, although certainly not a defining or universally relevant one (e.g. Appleton et al.,
1990; Haddad, 1991). Elson (1995) refers to this as 'the gender-disaggregation approach'. Drawing heavily on the
neoclassical economic paradigm, it tends to a static and reductionist definition of gender (as woman/man) stripping away consideration of the relational aspects of gender, of power and ideology and of how
The contradictions generated by mainstreaming resonate closer to home.
therefore more respectable and fundable field of research, new
patterns of subordination are reproduced. To the extent that such approaches do consider the factors underlying gender disadvantage or
inequality, they tend to look to information problems (e.g. women's ten- dency to follow female role models) or to 'culture' (defined as outside
the purview of mainstream economics) as explanatory factors (see Lockwood, 1992 on Collier, for example). While such research may be of
great inter- est and can provide invaluable insights and empirical evidence, it can
under-specify the power relations
maintaining gender inequalities, and in the process de-links the investigation of gender issues from a
feminist trans- formatory project. Bureaucratic requirements for information tend to strip away the political content of
information on women's interests and reduce it to a set of needs or gaps, amenable to administrative decisions about the allocation of
resources. This
distillation of information about women's experiences is unable to accommodate or
validate issues of gender and power. Women are separated out as the central problem and isolated
from the context of social and gender relations. Furthermore, bureaucracies tend to privilege certain kinds of information
perceived as relevant to dominant develop- ment paradigms and attribute significance to information in proportion to the perceived social
and political status of the informer. Thus
the infor- mation provided by western feminists has tended to get a
better hearing than the perspectives of southern women (Goetz, 1994). It now appears thatthe quantitative
expertise of male economists on gender is gaining increasing weight as the discourse becomes more
technocratic, with the danger that in-depth, qualitative, feminist research may be devalued.
AT: Keohane
Keohane’s arguments are unfounded – embodies male paranoia
Weber ’94 – Assistant Professor of Political Science at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA (Cynthia,
“Good Girls, Little Girls, and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane's Critique of Feminist International
Relations,” Millennium Journal of International Studies, 1994, http://people.reed.edu/~ahm/Courses/Reed-POL240-2012-S1_IP/Syllabus/EReadings/05.1/05.1.zFurther_Weber1994Good.pdf)//SS
In his 1989 Millennium essay, 'International Relations Theory: Contributions of¶ a Feminist Standpoint',
Robert Keohane takes
feminist international relations¶ theory as the object of his analysis. Keohanecontextualises his
remarks at the¶ conclusion of his essay, making it clear that his comments are both an invited¶
contribution to an emerging conversation and a presentation of his preliminary¶ impressions on the
topics discussed.2¶ His text is a powerful one¶ which-however much its author may have intended it to complement and¶ encourage
efforts by feminist scholars-works against his (presumed) intentions.¶ Leaving Robert Keohane to one side. my analysis engages only
Robert¶Keohane's text.) What
concerns me is how Keohane's text constructs two¶ bodies-the feminist body
of literature which is the text's object of analysis and¶Keohane's authorial body which views, writes
about, and disciplines its object¶ of analysis from an empowered subject position. I pay particular
attention to¶ moments of male paranoia in Keohane's text. Male paranoia refers tothe fearful¶
response of patriarchy to the loss of boundaries endemic to the condition of subjectivity in
contemporary, so-called postmodern, American life.I argue that Keohane's critique of feminist
International Relations is symptomatic of male paranoia, for wherever the feminist body of literature
threatens to overflow the boundaries within which the discipline of International Relations has sought
to confine it, Keohane's critique works to reimpose these boundaries or invent new ones around and
within the feminist body of literature.
AT: Adam Jones
Jones’s accusations are unfounded—did not actually engage with feminist literature
Steans, Senior Lecturer in International Relations Theory at the University of Birmingham 03 (Jill, “Engaging from the margins: feminist
encounters with the ‘mainstream’ of International Relations”, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 5:3, 8/03, Wiley Online
Library)//AS
Jones began by acknowledging what he saw to be the key achievement of feminist IR, bringing a gender dimension to the study of IR by
reclaiming women as subjects of history, politics and international relations. He then turned to the shortcomings of the
feminist literature.Feminist IR, claimed Jones, limited its contribution to our understanding of the
relevance of gender to IR by equating gender with women/femininity only and neglecting the study of
men/masculinity (Jones 1996; Weber 2001). Jones later identified Cynthia Enloe as a prime culprit in perpetuating a partial and perverse
view of gender in IR, by refusing to recognise men as victims and systematically marginalising the male subject (Jones 1998, 303). Jones
claimed that the concern with women only rendered the entire feminist IR project suspect since
‘partisanship and scholarship do not easily mix’ (Jones 1996). Jones later defended his position by arguing that it was not his intention to take
issue with the normative feminist IR project, but only to point out that it had been ‘one sided, selective and incomplete’ (Jones 1998, 301). This
limitation and distortion could be rectified, however, if feminists (and others) asked broader questions about gender that incorporated both
male and female experiences. Seeking a ‘more balanced feminist IR’ that addressed the position of men and masculinities was, in Jones’ view,
the first step in identifying a gender variable in IR. It
is questionable how much of the feminist IR literature Jones had
read before embarking on his critique, since he made a number of claims that were without
foundation. First, the central contention that feminist IR was concerned only with women, and so was unbalanced in its treatment of
gender, could not be substantiated by reference to the feminist IR literature. As noted above, feminists recognised that ‘women’
and women's activities were constituted through the social relations in which they were situated, so
the question immediately arose as to whether ‘we should be concentrating on relocating/locating
women within IR or should we concentrate instead on the functions of gender?’ (Zalewski 1994, 428; see also
Zalewski 1999).Nor were feminists guilty of ignoring men and masculinities; far from it . Enloe had used Bananas as
a vehicle to illustrate how putting sustained effort into understanding the lives of women and asking questions about gender would lead to a
deeper understanding of structures and processes which underpinned gender inequality and the complex way power worked in international
politics. However, to
understand the position of women and how gender relations worked, one had to look
at ‘when and where masculinity was politically wielded’. In turn, the ways in which masculinity worked to sustain
inequalities in power could only be fully understood ‘if we took women's lives seriously’. Thus, we learned a great deal about ‘state anxieties
about masculinity from paying attention to military wives’ (Enloe 2001, 663). Second,
feminist IR scholars resisted the rather
simplistic, essentialisedcategorisations of ‘male’ and ‘female’, ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ that Jones
appeared to be working with. During the 1980s, academic feminism had grappled with issues of identity and differences among
women and had explicitly sought to problematise universal and stable categories, so it was unsurprising that feminists in IR also broached
unsettling questions about ‘who are “women”, what is the difference and why does it matter?’ (Zalewski 1994, 1).Enloe, often cited as a rather
unsophisticated liberal empiricist or standpoint feminist, explored ‘multiple masculinities’ and how they ‘got manipulated, the manipulators’
motives and the consequences for international politics’ (Enloe 2001, 663; see also Cooke and Woollacott 1993; Skjelsbaek and Smith 2001).
Jones called for more attention to men and masculinities, but was seemingly unreflective about how his approach
rested on a conventional and essentialist conception of gender that was at odds with much of the
contemporary social science literature on men and masculinities (see, for example, Connell 1995; Carver, Cochran and Squires
1998). His critics later pointed out that to employ gender as a variable was to miss looking ‘analytically and imaginatively at the who, how and
why of power in the international context’ (Carver, Cochran and Squire 1998, 297). Men and masculinity were generally treated and critiqued
as privileged categories in society because women had been shown in feminist analysis to be a category of oppression (ibid., 295). Moreover,
Jones was deeply critical of postpositivism, engaging in what was becoming a familiar attack on the ‘bad girls’ of feminist IR. Jones
acknowledged as valid efforts to make knowledge claims in the name of women's experiences (the legitimacy of standpoint), because the
epistemological assumptions of standpoint feminism could ‘mesh with the classical tradition’, the standard by which feminist contributions to
IR should be judged (ibid.; Jones 1998). Feminist empiricism was also to be welcomed, providing the research agenda made both men and
women visible. Postpositivism was, however, explicitly rejected even though it was ‘this form of feminist theorising that had arguably done
most to address the tendency to collapse the categories “women” and “gender” ’ (Carver, Cochran andSquire 1998, 294). Ultimately
Jones’ intervention into the gender/IR debate did little to advance understanding or encourage
further dialogue between feminists and the mainstream. In charging feminists with partiality, selectivity and bias,
Jones presented a selective, partial and rather distorted view of feminist IR, while his own project to ‘gender IR’
by identifying the gender variable in war and conflict did not go far beyond a crude measure of impacts or amounted to little more than
‘stacking up dead male bodies against female bodies’ (Carver, Cochran andSquire 1998, 296).
AT: Realism
Realism is a self-fulfilling prophecy that creates its own truths—it can never offer an
accurate vision of the world
Runyan and Peterson, professor of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at the University of Cincinnati and Professor of
International Relations School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona 91 (Anne Sisson and V Spike, “The Radical Future
of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 16:1, Winter 1991, JSTOR)//AS
This need to "police" identities, to "do away with difference" in the interest "of mastery, of sense-control"10 is,
ironically, what realists have accused idealists of doing when they advocate subsuming all international actors and
interests under one authority, guided by a universal value system and code of conduct. As at least one feminist international relations theorist
has pointed out,11 idealism
is, interestingly, construed under the realist paradigm as a "feminine" ideology
that is too soft and Utopian for the mighty clash of states pursuing their self-interest in the "real"
world. From a poststructuralist perspective, idealism cannot escape criticism for its attempts to impose a single order (and a decidedly
Western one at that) on a world of diversity. But, from a feminist perspective, neither can realism escape criticism
for its own attempts to contain and repress difference. Under the patriarchal paradigm of realism,
woman" - the other, the outsider, the madness - is created and then construed as the enemy to be
coerced and brought under the man/state's control at any cost. The goal of this exercise, once again in Felman's
words, is "recognition."12 She, the other, must "acknowledge" him, the man/state, in the way that Virginia Woolf argued in The Three
Guineas15 that women act as mirrors for man's self-image, reflecting him as twice his size. So, too, must international relations theorists and
practitioners "recognize" the ideology of realism as the "truth" about international relations, giving itpower and preeminence in international
relations discourse and practice. Realism
maintains this dominance by its very ability to define and, thus,
create what is "real." As such, it is "designed as a stimulus not for knowledge and cognition, but for
acknowledgement and 're-cognition,' not for the 'production* of a question, but for the
'reproduction' of a foreknown answer."14 Realism'sforeknown answers arise from its assumptions about
the way the world is divided - inside-outside, strong-weak, rich-poor, peacewar, men-women. These
assumptions, in turn, inform the concepts it has developed to both explain and mediate these divisions, such as power, security, and
the dualisms
that realism assumes are patriarchal in character. They are "real" in the sense that these divisions in
the world have "come true" through the constant reproduction of them in narrative and practice in
sovereignty. More will be said about these concepts when we turn to feminist critiques of them, but for now we argue that
much the same way that Sandra Harding concedes that the "ideological distinctions" made by privileged men and Western imperialists of men
and women, European and African, First World and Third World take on "truth" when they become internalized by the oppressed.15 Thus, we
do not quarrel with realism's representation of a world of haves and have-nots that struggle with each other and among themselves. But we
do insist that it
is only a "re-presentation," locked in its own hermeneutic circle, unable to adequately
conceptualize or deliver the very things it says it is all about - security, power, and sovereignty, or,
more positively, safety, efficacy, and self-determination whether for states or people. In our view, the
main problem with realism is that, as a patriarchal discourse, it can offer nothing else but "representation," and representation only of a reality that maintains the haves over the have-nots,
although imperfectly and ultimately at the peril of both.
AT: Inev
Patriarchy is not inevitable—biologically and empirically proven
Hudson et. al, professor of political science at Texas A&M, 09 (Valerie M., Mary Caprioli, Bonnie BallifSpanvill, Rose McDermott, and
Chad F. Emmett, “The Heart of the Matter: the Security of Women and the Security of States”, International Security 33:3, Winter 08/09,
University of Michigan Libraries)//AS
Patriarchy and its attendant violence among human collectives are not inevitable, however; and this is not
simply a politically correct view—it is the view of evolutionary theorists. As Wrangham and Peterson note,
“Patriarchy is not inevitable.... Patriarchy emerged not as a direct mapping of genes onto behavior, but out of
the particular strategies that men [and women] invent for achieving their emotional goals. And the
strategies are highly flexible, as every different culture shows.”31 We offer three reasons why male dominance is not inevitable in
human society. First,other primate groups, such as bonobos, avoided it by developing strong female alliances—
male dominance is not order-wide among primates. Second, cultural selection modifies natural
selection through engineering of social structures and moral sanctions. Examples include how socially imposed
monogamy, posited as leading to the depersonalization of power through democracy and capitalism,
helped to open the way for improved status for women.32 Third, cultural selection for improved female
status in many human societies also changes females in both emotional and endocrinological ways, and
these changes have a good chance of being passed to their female offspring, making them less likely to submit and yield to
male coercive violence.33 This in turn may serve to make female alliances against males more likely
within such societies, providing an effective countervailing force to violent patriarchy . For example, Clarice
Auluck-Wilson reports how one female village organization in India, the MahilaMandal, was able to reduce domestic violence by having all the
women run as one to the home of any woman who was being beaten by her husband and protecting her from further abuse.34 The
MahilaMandal was also able to force domestic abusers to temporarily leave the home for a cooling-off period, rather than the victim having to
leave her home. By
such collective action, levels of domestic violence against women decreased.
AT: Cede the Political
Alternative does not cede the political—feminist movements explicitly engage with
the political sphere to alter it—essential to participatory democracy
Squires, Professor of Political Theory and Dean of the Faculty Social Sciences and Law at the University of Bristol 04 (Judith, “Feminism
and Democracy”, Chapter 41 of The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology, Wiley Online Library)//AS
The debates outlined above show the extent to which feminist
theory is closely connected to practice. In other branches of
democratic theory there is a growing perception that normative political theory needs to rethink its mode
of operation, and engage more directly in empirical enquiry if it is to remain truly relevant to the
challenges that we now face. It has been argued that there is a "˜dismal disconnection between theoretical
Endeavour and empirical investigation' (Stears 2005: 326). The historically close connection between
feminist scholarship and activism, the commit- ment to normative goals and political change, and the
attention paid by feminists to the epistemic issues surrounding empirical inquiry, knowledge production and expertise all
work to ensure that this is not the case in relation to feminist democratic analysis. The emphasis of early
second-wave feminism on informal grassroots democratic practices has done much to draw attention, in both
theory and practice, to the limitations of defining politics too narrowly and locating democratic practice
within the formal institutions only. The democratization of everyday life has come to be seen as a central requirement for the
realization of active democratic participation for all. The more recent turn within feminist theory towards consideration about the mechanisms
for realizing full participation within the formal institutions of politics is now focusing attention on the equally significant issue of
democratization of the representative system itself. These two developments
combined highlight the dem- ocratic
significance of ensuring the active participation of all social groups in the various decision-making bodies of the
polity. The current reflections on mechanisms of fair representation invigorate existing democratic
theory and suggest new, more inclusive, forms of democratic practice.
We don’t cede the political – the personal is political.
Tungohan, PhD Candidate in Political Science and the Collaborative Program in Women and Gender
Studies at the University of Toronto, 2012 (Ethel, “Reconceptualizing Motherhood, Reconceptualizing
Resistance,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 15, no. 1, page 43-44, July 24, 2012,
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfjp20#.UeL3542cdqU)//CS
Not all civic activities are oriented towards policy change. The other women I interviewed resisted the
LCP by taking part in activities that does not directly engage with the state but rather engages society.
Specifically, they attended and testified in conferences and meetings that exposed migrant workers,
Filipino community members, policymakers, NGO activists and the Canadian public to the effects of the
LCP on migrant workers and their families; they were part of Filipino community and/or church-based
support networks that help migrant domestic workers and their children cope with separation¶ and
reunification; they sought and provided counselling services for live-in caregivers feeling lonely and
isolated; some have even participated in community performances that allowed them to ‘act out’ their
experiences as migrant domestic workers. An example of how migrant women channeled their
identities as mothers and as migrant workers for political purposes can be seen during the Mother-ofthe-Year contest that was organized by the Association of Filipino Women Workers in May 2011.
During this event, migrant domestic workers told their life stories. Most performances exposed their
‘hidden’ hardships by showcasing the emotional turmoil associated with migration, with various women
highlighting the challenges of migrating abroad and meeting maternal responsibilities as a single mother,
their fraught relationships with their children and their resilience. In all cases, transnational motherhood
became a politicized act. All of these performances emotionally resonated with the other migrant
domestic workers in the audience, helping both performers and audience members to feel connected.
Because of the public nature of these performances, all participants felt that their experiences were
publicly validated. This may not necessarily translate to tangible improvements in their lives, yet
having an event that put migrant mothers’ experiences front and centre gave migrant mothers
political recognition. At the very least, having a Mother-of-the-Year contest that acknowledged that
migrant women are good mothers despite being physically separated from their children encouraged a
discursive shift in conceptions of ‘good mothering’ and may allow us to question what ‘good mothering’
constitutes. The women in my sample saw these activities as being cathartic. In ‘being there’ for other
live-in caregivers through support networks, counselling groups and performances, they were able to
combat the societal indifference to their needs, underscoring their resilience. In publicly acknowledging
the commonalities of live-in caregivers’ experiences - particularly their experiences undergoing family
separation and reunification - they affirmed that the ‘personal is political’ and forced recognition of
their situations. It should be noted that differences exist between the women on ways to rectify the
harms posed by LCP, and on solutions to the problems faced by migrant women and their children. Some
of the women sought reform through policies that gave migrant domestic workers and their families
landed status upon arrival. Other women felt that the LCP itself should be abolished because it allows for
the continuous availability of ‘captive’ labour whose needs are repeatedly ignored. Despite these
differences, however, everyone sought improvements. Taken collectively, their efforts show that migrant
domestic workers resist imposed family separation by drawing attention to their experiences under the
LCP and by seeking to change the programme. In this way, they contest the image of migrant domestic
workers as being subjugated and docile.
Nationalism and democracy promotion perpetuate a state of total war that
dehumanizes women and life in general for the glory of the State
Papic, founder of the Belgrade Women’s Center, 06 (Zarana, “Nationalism, patriarchy and war in ex-Yugoslavia”, Women’s History Review
3:1, 1994, Taylor and Francis Online)//AS
In Eastern Europe, the swing from totalitarian socialism has now gone to another extreme – towards a
nationalistic, simple-minded
concept of ‘democracy’. So many suppressed, forbidden or restricted dimensions of oursociety under socialism are now being released
and expressed in an extreme form – such as aggressive nationalism, religious fundamentalism, antisocialist democracy. And because of its multi-national, multi-ethnic structure, ex-Yugoslavia has faced an enormous growth of
nationalisms and chauvinisms so that we now have the ‘Other Enemy Nations’. In such a divided country as that in which I now live, travelling is
no longer safe, let alone life and residence in your own home. And with
the media-war propaganda specific to each
Nation, we are subjected in the media to a shamelessly edited and adapted version of events which
only worsens the situation and makes the gaps between Nations even deeper. No one actually knows for sure
what is really happening on the ‘Other Side’. The media-manipulated messages cut the truth mercilessly in order to
prove one point – that ‘We’, our ‘Nation’ and our ‘Cause’ has a moral duty to defend and fight for our
rights. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind the position of women in our so-called new ‘democracies’.
What is striking is the absence of women from political decision-making processes, even on those topics (such as abortion) which directly
concern them. Thus in the now freely-elected parliaments, women form 13% of the members in Slovenia, 4.5% in Croatia, 4% in Monte-Negro,
3.3% in Macedonia, 2.9% in Bosnia and Herzegovina and only 1.6% in Serbia. Women, however, make up a substantial number of the hundreds
of thousands of refugees. The reasons for the absence of women from political life are many, and I will focus here upon three. First of all, 50
years of socialism has sedated women and made them passive. Women were given some substantial rights, e.g. to work, to divorce, to
abortion, and also told that socialism had solved the ‘woman question’. But, as we all know, socialism did not liberate women but adapted
them to the dominant patriarchal system on which socialism was grounded. Socialism was a conglomeration of various social and ideological
elements that were communist, male, patriarchal and authoritarian. It offered women a very specific mixture of progressive legal rights and a
very real and persistent patriarchy which governed their destinies and everyday lives. Consequently, women had no effective political
experience, no political tools or strategy that they could utilise when the new democratic transformations began to take place. Secondly, an
autonomous and powerful women’s movement, which could have offered an alternative training in political skills, did not develop in exYugoslavia either. Although some feminist groups were established, especially from the mid-1970s, these were marginal to the political
structure and attracted only a minority, not the majority, of women. Thirdly, and more importantly, the majority of the newly
emerging
political parties advocated an extreme form of nationalism that was militant and sexist and, indeed,
above human life. Anyone opposing this new kind of totalitarianism was labelled a traitor. Witch-hunting of
independent-minded individuals became common, on the grounds that they were not serving the Nation’s interests. This ex-country was once
rich with its multi-national, multi-ethnic mixture of cultures and identities. It was also less totalitarian than other socialist societies in the
Eastern Bloc. Now it
has become a country of Hell, of dead and mutilated bodies. And these bodies cannot
even be left in peace but must be shown on the television to prove how devilish the ‘Other Side’ is
while the atrocities committed by ‘Our Side’ are carefully hidden. This is a war that respects no rules,
a war where everything is possible – except mere humanity. Human lives have no value at all, that is the
monstrous side of it. And when human rights are annihilated like this, women’s rights are especially deleted
because in every nationalist ideology women are reduced to being only the mothers and guardians of
little children and the vital breeding stock for producing more and more young men who will be the defenders of the Nation.
Any concept of women’s liberty has gone, because men are now at the battlefield. The nightmare we did not
imagine in our wildest dreams, is happening to us. We are minimally human; our existence is reduced to try (and pray) to stay alive, and expect
the worse. The
unbelievable irrationality, cruelty, shamelessness and lunacy of this media-war
propaganda has the sole aim of misinforming in order to provoke hostility towards the other Nation.
The objective is to force ordinary people to lose their own minds in order to accept and internalise a
higher ideal – the Nation’s cause. And such nationalist ideologies are grounded on a purposefully
constructed aggressive and violent masculinity. This type of masculinity is the vital source for the recruitment of individual
men who are capable of doing all kinds of atrocities – in the name of the ‘higher’ National cause. To be able to rape, to kill and
cut, to burn human bodies, to destroy everything on sight, cannot be done as an ‘autonomous’ human
being. To be able to do this deadly brutality, ‘normal’ men have to lose their own individuality, ethical
codes and own self-consciousness. Although some women take part in battles, shooting and the military way of life, the vast
majority of women in this war are here, as stated earlier, as wives and mothers. A gender order has clearly developed in which men and women
are separated into opposite zones – battlefields and sheltered fields. As
women we are completely unimportant and invisible, except in our
domestic roles. We are not seen or heard as possible individuals who have the right to speak their own
minds. The war is men’s world. But its victims are mostly women and children.
AFF
FW
Feminist scholars fall prey to the “Myth of Framework” and exclude valuable
research—reinforce the things they’re trying to eliminate—including empirics is
valuable
Caprioli, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota at Duluth 04 (Mary, “Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative
Methodology: A Critical Analysis”, International Studies Review 6:2, June 2004, JSTOR)//AS
Conventional feminists
appear to make several errors in creating a dichotomy be- tween what is
considered "feminist" research and what would be called quantitative research. First, by maintaining
that a dichotomy exists between methodologies, conventional IR feminists create and perpetuate a
hierarchy. Second, conventional IR feminists commit the same error they accuse IR scholars of making by
limiting the definition of legitimate scholarship based on methodology. Third, conventional feminists
routinely accept the socially constructed belief in the superiority of quan- titative methodology rather
than deconstructing this notion and accepting quan- titative methodology as one of many imperfect
research tools. There is little utility in constructing a divide if none exists. As Thomas Kuhn (1962) argues, common measures do exist
across paradigms that provide a shared basis for theory. It seems overly pessimistic to accept Karl Popper's "Myth of
Framework," which postulates that "we are prisoners caught in the framework of our theories, our
expectations, our past experiences, our language, and that as a consequence, we cannot
communicate with or judge those working in terms of a different paradigm" (Neufeld 1995:44). Some
feminists (for example, Tickner 1996, 2001; Peterson 2002; Steans 2003) appear to embrace this "Myth of
Frame- work" by accentuating the differences between the perspectives of feminist and IR theorists
based on their past experiences and languages and criticize IR theorists for their lack of
communication with feminist IR scholars. Ironically, the "Myth of Framework" shares a number of assumptions
with Hob- bes's description of the state of nature that feminists routinely reject. The "Myth of Framework"
assumes no middle ground-scholars are presumably entrenched in their own worldviews without hope of compromise or the ability to
understand others' worldviews. If
this is the case, scholars are doomed to discussions with like- minded
individuals rather than having a productive dialogue with those outside their own worldview.
Scholars who accept the "Myth of Framework" have essentially cre- ated a Tower of Babel in which
they choose not to understand each other's language. The acceptance of such a myth creates conflict
and establishes a hierarchy within international relations scholarship even though conventional
feminists theoretically seek to identify and eradicate conflict and hierarchy within society as a whole.
The purported language difference between feminist and IR scholars appears to be methodological. In general, feminist IR scholars2
are skeptical of empiricistmethodologies and "have never been satisfied with the boundary
constraints of conventional IR" (Tickner 2001:2). As noted above, conventional international re- lations is defined on the basis of
methodology as a commitment "to empiricism and data-based methods of testing" (Tickner 2001:149). Ironically, some feminist IR
scholars place boundary constraints on feminist IR scholarship by limiting its def- inition to a criticalinterpretive methodology (see Carpenter 2003:ftn. 1). Rather than pushing methodological boundaries to expand the field and to
promote in- clusiveness, conventional IR feminists appear to discriminate against quantitative research. If
conventional feminists are willing to embrace multicultural approaches to feminism, why restrict
research tools?There would seem to be a lack of con- sistency between rhetoric and practice. Especially
at the global level, there need not be only one way to achieve feminist goals. Hence, conventional feminist IR scholars might
benefit from participating in mainstream IR scholars' evolving embrace of methodological pluralism
and epistemological opportunism (Bueno de Mesquita 2002; Chan 2002; Fearon and Wendt 2002). One must assume that
feminist IR scholars support the pursuit of research that broadens our understanding of international relations. Such a research agenda must
Theorizing, case study evidence (specific details),
and external validity (generality) are all necessary components of research-only through a
include both evidence and logic (Bueno de Mesquita 2002; Chan 2002).
combination of all three modes of inquiry can we begin to gain confidence in our understanding. "And
still we debate what seems to have been obvious to our predecessors: to gain under- standing, we need to integrate careful empirical analysis
with the equally careful application of the power of reason" (Bueno de Mesquita 2002:2). Different types of scholarship "make different
contributions that can be mutually beneficial, as when historical studies isolate immediate causes that act as catalysts for the general ten-
Without logic and theory, the general tendencies identified
through quantitative analysis are incomplete. "In the absence of guidance from such logic, the data exercises degenerate
dencies identified in aggregate analyses" (Chan 2002:754).
into mindless fishing expeditions and are vulnerable to spu- rious interpretations" (Chan 2002:750). Most scholars concerned with gender certainly owe a debt to Jean BethkeElshtain (1987), Cynthia Enloe (1989), and Ann Tickner (1992). These IR feminists shattered the publishing
boundary for feminist IR scholarship and tackled the difficult task of deconstructing IR theory, including its founding myths, thereby creating
the logic to guide feminist quantitative re- search. It is only through exposure to feminist literature that one can begin to scientifically question
the sexist assumptions inherent in the dominant paradigms of international relations.
Their rejection of differing schools of thought destroys the validity of their
epistemology
Spegele 02 - obtained his MA and PhD from the University of Chicago, and has published several articles in international
theory. (Roger D., “Emancipatory International Relations: Good News, Bad News or No News at All?”, International Relations,
12/1/02, http://ire.sagepub.com/content/16/3/381)//js
One of the central difficulties of the recent shape of IR theory lies in its disposition to de facto
relativism; that is, the disposition not to engage with theories, approaches and conceptions that are not
one’s own, resulting in the automatic replication of theoretical structures that would not pass
epistemological muster on a reasonable close scrutiny. This leads to a tacit understanding, possibly
for sociological and psychological reasons, and to the kind of fragmentation and non-dialogue that spur unproductive debates
in the discipline that are just occasions for self-aggrandizement via the pages of certain well-known journals. Since I have been guilty
of precisely this practice but look forward to partial redemption, I now believe that such debates will commit the error
of dogmatism about which Kant warns us in the Critique of Pure Reason. Dogmatism, Kant says, is ‘the presumption that it is
possible to make progress with pure knowledge, according to principles, from concepts alone . . .’24 He goes on to warn, in ways that
are crucial to rethinking the way we international relationists do our theorizing, that in warding off dogmatism we must not fall into
the ‘loquacious shallowness, which assumes for itself the name of popularity, nor yet to scepticism, which makes short work with all
metaphysics’.25 In my rendering of this wise advice for this different context, I claim that we – allof us and not just those of us
who take up at least a partially external perspective to the theory – will
need to make judgements and to do so in a
way which is as transparent as possible (i.e. which deploys an accessible vocabulary and as much clarity as the
complexity of the subject matter permits). Without that, we will not only fall into dogmatism, hardly
something to write home about, but will produce scepticism when the dogmatic claims are found indefensible.
Those familiar with the history of the debates in international relations since the debate between
idealism and realism in the 1950s will understand how deflationary it was to discover that this
or that approach – behavioralism, systems theory, cybernetics, simulation theory, bureaucratic politics theory, democratic
zone theory, etc. – could not fulfil its promissory note of bringing international relations into science, at least as this is understood in
the natural sciences.26 It may be that the criteria suggested below – 394 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 16(3)
Dialogue between frameworks is key—the neg talks past differing ideas and so
produces nothing of value—discussing the topic at hand and incorporating both
perspectives is key to meaningful discussion
Kornprobst, Chair in International Relations at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna 09 (Markus, “International Relations as Rhetorical
Discipline: Toward (Re-)Newing Horizons”, International Studies Review 11, 2009, JSTOR)//AS
How can we use this overlap across horizons to further a community of International Relations scholars and learn from one another across
different perspectives? Monologues
are counter-productive. The one-sidedness of communication makes
horizons drift apart. The overlap diminishes, making communication across horizons more and more difficult. Modes of
communication in which the participants exclusively aim for defending their own stance suffer from
the same problem. They are quasi-monologues, in which participants fail to engage with one another. Ultimately, they listen
only to themselves and not to their fellow communicators. This decreases the overlap of horizons instead of increasing
it. Dialogue, by contrast, makes the most out of the communicative potential offered by the overlaps of horizons. Gadamer is very optimistic
about the potential of dialogues. He contends that the participants
of a dialogue, through rounds and rounds of
arguments and counter-arguments, find a common language. They extend their horizons, ultimately
even fusing them. It is the fusion of horizons that, according to Gadamer, constitutes understanding (Gadamer 1972:159). Yet, one does
not have to be as optimistic as Gadamer to recognize the potential of dialogue. Bakhtin, Bernstein and Ricoeur emphasize that communication
failures are always possible and even communicative successes rarely ever lead to the fusion of horizons (Bernstein 1991:65–66; Bakhtin
1986:142). Furthermore, they caution that horizons—old, renewed or new—are never politically innocent. Horizons always need to be
questioned and defamiliarized (Bakhtin 1994; Ricoeur 1998:93). Yet, this more cautions account, too, emphasizes the importance of dialogues.
They make it possible to learn from other horizons and question one’s own. It
depends on the communicators’ commitment
to dialogue to what extent dialogue is able to live up to its potential. A firm commitment to five rules is of particular
importance: First, the participants approach the dialogue with an open mind (Gadamer 1972:345). A dialogue is not a battle in
which each participant tries to make his or her own horizon win a contest of competing perspectives .
Indeed, the goal of a dialogue is not a homogenization of horizons at all. Instead, participants accept the
multiplicity of horizons and the shortcomings of their own. They are eager to revisit the prejudgments that constitute
their own horizons and understand that this requires meaningful communication across horizons. This meaningful communication is a constant
challenge. It
is not something that we can take for granted or that we should attempt only periodically. It
is a neverending task and participants of a dialogue have to be persistent in actively striving for it.
Second, the participants are committed to inclusivity. Excluding perspectives from dialogue impoverishes the
dialogue and diminishes opportunities for (re-)newing one’s horizon. A dialogue is only able to live up
to its potential if participants dare to build meaningful communication across perspectives that, at
first glance, seem different and alien. The proper place for the curious mind is the borderland between the familiar and the
unfamiliar (Gadamer 1972:279). Grappling Markus Kornprobst 101 with the seemingly radically different is particularly well suited to revisit all
kinds of prejudgments, including one’s prejudices against other perspectives. It offers a rare opportunity to defamiliarize oneself with one’s
own horizon (Bakhtin 1994; Ricoeur 1998:93). Third, the participants engage
each others’ arguments. Being interested
in understanding and not in outmanoevering other participants of the dialogue, they listen carefully
what the other side has to say. Both sides ask the other questions and provide clarifying answers. They ask questions that develop
out of their attempts to understand the other side. Their counterparts try their best to answer these questions in a manner that is
comprehensible to those asking the questions. If the questioner discovers what seems to him or her a weakness in the statement of the
answerer, the questioner seeks to make the answerer’s case stronger. Instead of using such a weakness to dismiss the other side, the
questioner tries to get deeper into the horizon of the other and proposes, based on his or her reading of the other’s background, ways to
overcome it (Gadamer 1972:363). This is a crucial step for understanding. In this way, a perceived weakness does not foreshadow the end of
dialogue but its intensification and the increasing familiarization of the questioner with the background of the answerer (Gadamer 1972:349;
Bernstein 1991:338). Fourth, the
participants focus on an issue domain. Dialogue is about generating insight
into something (Gadamer 1972:345). This something may be key components of horizons and ⁄ or particular
linkages between these key components. It may be explicitly connected to an empirical topic or not. Such a focus has to be on
the minds of questioner and answerer. Without it, a structured interplay of questions and answers cannot develop. The participants speak past
one another. They confuse one another with the questions they ask and the answers they provide. This bewilderment may contribute to
horizons drifting even further apart instead of increasing their overlap or even fusing them. As a result, understanding becomes even more
difficult.
Link
Link Turn: General
Globalization and integration open up critical zones of contestation for feminist
politics
Kardam, Professor of Gender Equality and Development and the Monterey Institute of International Studies, 04 (Nuket, “The Emerging
Global Gender Equality Regime from Neoliberal and Constructivist Perspectives in International Relations”, International Feminist Journal of
Politics 6:1, 3/04, JSTOR)//AS
According to Sassen, gender
regimes may change in particular circumstances where globalization gives rise
to sites of contestation (Sassen 1998). Such sites involve economic disruptions such as multinational
corporations operating in developing countries and producing goods for export, or global cities where
the powerful and powerless live side by side. Bayes and Kelly have examined ‘two strategic sites of globalization’ Chiapas,
Mexico and the US–Mexico border to assess how particular circumstances arising as a result of, or as a concomitant of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), can change gender regimes in particular institutions and raise
political consciousness among Mexican women to impel them to act politically to change gender
relations in these situations (Bayes and Kelly 2001: 147). They conclude that forces of globalization that create new
institutions (such as maquiladoras) alter gender relations in other institutions to create a diversity of
gender regimes in the institutions in a society, contributing to the possibility for change in the gender
order of the entire society. But this does not occur automatically; it depends on activists and organizers to generate identity change.
Globalization may contribute to creating political spaces for women by opening legal and political
contestation between powerful institutions with regard to differences in their respective gender
regimes (Bayes and Kelly 2001: 170). Yakin Ertu¨ rk and I tried the same approach in a recent article on expanding gender accountability in
Turkey (Kardam and Ertu¨ rk 1999). In it we argued that several conditions contributed to the promotion of gender accountability in Turkey:
these were the rise of global gender networks and donor assistance for gender equality, and the move toward relatively greater openness in
Turkish society partly due to the effects of the post-Cold War international system, where economic and technological globalization processes
go hand in hand with fragmentation and the redefinition of ethnic, religious and gender identities. But given this structural context, the Turkish
state, and women’s groups have exercised their own choices: that is they have both chosen to engage with each other in a limited way. The
state has chosen to offer some compromise through greater openness and accountability for gender issues, while women’s groups have
matured, begun to engage with each other, as well as to overcome their traditional mistrust of the state, especially in working with the new
Directorate for Women’s Status and Problems. Furthermore, transformation
of sovereignty under the impact of
globalization has opened political space for women (and other invisible actors) to become visible
participants in international relations and subjects of international law (Sassen 1998: 81). According to Sassen,
sovereignty and territoriality have become unbundled so that various components of sovereignty
have been relocated onto supranational, nongovernmental or private institutions: This brings with it a
potential strengthening of alternative subjects of international law and actors in international
relations, for example, the growing voice of NGOs and minorities in international forums can facilitate the ascendance of women whether
individuals or collectives, as subjects of international law and the formation of cross-border feminist solidarities. (Sassen 1998: 92–3) Sassen
makes a strong argument that a
feminist critique of sovereignty should be developed because globalization is
creating new openings for the participation of nonstate actors and subjects. Once the sovereign state is no longer
viewed as the exclusive representative of its population in the international arena, women and other nonstate actors can gain more
representation in international law and contribute to its making (Sassen 1998: 94). An example is the Optional Protocol to CEDAW allowing
complaints to be filed with the United Nations against states that do not protect the human rights of women. (This mechanism may only be
used against states that have separately ratified the optional protocol treaty.) The Protocol allows individual women or groups to submit claims
of violations to the Committee on CEDAW and a procedure that allows the Committee to initiate inquiries. This is an example where human
rights begin to impinge on the principle of nationbased citizenship – thus membership in nation states
ceases to be the only ground for the realization of rights.
Link Turn: Cuba
The embargo is damaging to Cuban feminism and identity politics—increased
interaction solves
Dowler and Sharp, Professors in the Department of Geography at Pennsylvania State and the Department of Geography and
Topographic Science at the University of Glasgow respectively 01 (Lorraine and Joanne, “A Feminist Geopolitics?”,Space& Polity 5:3, 2001,
EBSCO)//AS
Another illustration of the problematic relationship between colonial and feminist theory was made apparent during Lorraine Dowler’s recent
field work in Cuba. Cuban
feminist scholars argued that the US embargo not only prevents the exchange of
material goods but also the growth of a Cuban identity politics. Cuban feminists point with pride to the
accomplishments of the revolution in terms of gender equity, citing statistics demonstrating that more than 60
per cent of the professional workforce are women. Cuban women benefit from superior maternity and daycare policies,
which would be envied by most of the nations in the developed world. However, as a result of the economic crisis brought
about by the US embargo and the special period following the end of the Soviet Union, discussions in regard to issues of
identity and representation were disregarded as frivolous. Western feminists have argued that the needs of women are
often ignored for the greater goal of national solidarity thereby relegating feminist agenda’s to a back-burner (see Yuval-Davis, 1997;
McClintock, 1993). Interestingly, in Cuba this was not the case; feminist
and revolution- ary discourses became
imbricated and women were active and equal members of the nation. However, their identities were and
are still relegated to the domestic arena as `mothers of the revolution’. As a result, Cuba benefits from a social
system which is highly favourable to women while the political landscape, museums, monuments and other representations of the nation are
rendered masculine. Cuban
feminists have recently started to embrace feminist critiques of the
representation and are challenging both the gender and racial stereotyping of individuals in the local
media. The feminist community of Cuba is indeed welcoming of US academic interest; however, Lorraine Dowler was consistently concerned
with issues of positionality in her fieldwork for two reasons. First, given the long history of US colonial interference in Cuba, she was concerned
with committing an academic form of colonial appropriation. Secondly, given the strides that Cuban feminists have made in social equality, she
had to ask herself if US feminist scholars should take a lesson from the Cubans and instead question issues of gender equity in the US while
allowing a Cuban identity politics to emerge in its own time.
Turn: your feminist scholars submit to the same dichotomies they criticize—they
homogenize and objectify women in the Third World
Kim-Puri, Professor of Sociology at Wheaton College and Director of Graduate Program in Gender/Cultural Studies and Professor of
Sociology at Simmons College respectively,05 (Hyun Sook and Jyoti, “Gender-Sexuality-State-Nation: An Introduction”, Gender and Society
19:2, 4/05, JSTOR)//AS
At its core, transnational
feminist cultural studies highlights the asymmetries and inequalities that are
inevitably produced by the flows of global capital and geo- politics and, in turn, help sustain them. It is deeply
cynical of dualisms, including East and West, tradition and modernity, local and global, power and
powerlessness, margin and center, and rationality and irrationality. These dualisms homogenize both the Third World and the West.
One egregious outcome of dualistic approaches in feminist scholarship has been long-standing
feminist representations of "Third World Women" (Bulbeck 1997; Mohanty 1991, 2003; Narayan 1997; Oyewumi 2002).
The problem is not just the limitations of essentialist and binary categories but also the assignment of
unequal values. Divisions of North and South, of West- ern modernity and Third World lack, organize
how women in the so-called Third World are made into objects of Western feminist discourse. The
vantage point and the benchmark for representations of the other remain Euro-American-centered.
Link Turn: Globalization
Globalization is better for women’s inclusion and advancement—hire the best
workers rather than being limited by gender hierarchies
Meyer, professor of sociology at SUNY 03 (Lisa B., “Economic Globalization and Women's Status in the Labor Market: A Cross-National
Investigation of Occupational Sex Segregation and Inequality”, The Sociological Quarterly 44:3, Summer 2003, JSTOR)//AS
In addition to spurring the creation of new jobs, trade and investment liberalization increases
competition among businesses worldwide. Some scholars have argued that this intense competition motivates
companies to use all of the best human resources avail- able, thus becoming more amenable to
employing women, especially as managers (Adler and Izraeli 1994; Gothaskar 1995; Mears 1995; Sim and Yong 1995). While the
proportion of women holding managerial positions falls dramatically short of that of men cross-nationally, Nancy J. Adler and Dafna N. Izraeli
(1994) find that transnational
corporations are more likely to be, and have been, more successful in
placing women in higher level management assignments than domestic organizations for several reasons.
First, they can have hiring practices that do not coincide with those of the local culture and thus can
and do hire women managers. This is the case even in those countries where local firms rarely hire women
to fill management positions. Second, TNCs have begun to send women abroad as expatriate
managers. Third, whereas domestic and multidomestic firms have been characterized as structural
hierarchies, TNCs are increas- ingly characterized by networks in which women work particularly
well.4 Lastly, TNCs have identified diversity-including gender diversity-as a form of innovation that is
crucial for global competitiveness.
Link Turn: Democracy
Democratization leads to women involvement
Nazneen and Mahmud, ’12 –Nazneen is an Associate Professor, Department of International Relations,
University of Dhaka, Mahmud is Co-ordinator, Center for Gender and Social Transformation, BRAC
Development Institute (Sohela and Simeen, “Gendered Politics of Securing Inclusive Development”,
ESID, September, 2012, http://www.effectivestates.org/_assets/documents/
esid_wp_13_nazneen-mahmud.pdf )//CC
In addition, the discussion in the previous section on case study countries shows that during critical
moments of state formation, women were able to claim political inclusion because of their
participation in independence or anti- colonial or antiauthoritarian struggles and armed conflicts.
Women’s roles in these struggles created ‘legitimized’ entitlements for their inclusion into politics/
and representative institutions. For India and South Africa, women’s active participation and role in
sustaining the national struggles influenced how women came to demand inclusion in electoral
bodies or political institutions when the both of these nation states were reforming political structures
(Agarwal, 2011). In Rwanda and Nepal, women’s participation in armed conflict provided legitimacy for
claiming equal constitutional rights and also for quotas in the system in the post conflict scenario
(Burnet, 2008; Tamang, 2004). In Bangladesh, Chile, Uganda, Brazil, Mexico transition to democracy and
women’s participation in antiauthoritarian struggles created scope for women to demand inclusion in
political institutions (Nazneen and Sultan, in press; Goetz and Hassim, 2003; Waylen, 1997; Soras,
1995; Basu, 1995). Case study analysis of how women gain political entitlements in the first place
during moments of state formation, and how the nature of this entitlement influences their inclusion
into politics may be useful for unpacking gendered nature and impact of political settlement from a
gender perspective.
No Link
War is not inherently gendered – both male and female attributes are necessary in
military, strengthening the role of women
Ortega 12- doctorate candidate in political science at theUniversity of Vienna, Austria. She has worked as a Gender and DDR
consultant for the United Nations Development Programme , BA in international relations (Luisa Maria Dietrich, “Looking Beyond
Violent Militarized Masculinities”, International Feminist Journal of Politics, October 2012,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2012.726094)//js
Militants of the M-19 and from other insurgent forces, not only in Colombia,but also in other political-military
organizations characterized the operations of theM-19 as ‘feminine’ procedures. Asked about the
possibility of expressingemotions, a young militant recalls that ‘affection was a major issue, and very complex,
and there is a great empathy for the texts on the “chain of affection” and those type of things ’
(Man, M-19, Colombia), while a former cadre ofthe EPL understands the M-19 as feminine because ‘it was different, theyplayed with
subtlety, with intelligence’ (Woman, PCC-ML/EPL, Colombia) tobalance the asymmetry of power.In the same vein, traditionally
feminine-coded traits, such as the ethic of care, display of emotions, spirit of sacrifice and
comrade solidarity, were considered a strategic insurgent repertoire and were thus made
accessible to different areas of militancy. In practice, insurgent organizations not only detach
insurgent femininity from weakness, but encourage female militants to incorporate a
stereotypically masculine-coded behaviour, such as engaging inarmed combat, roughening the tone of voice while
issuing a command anddeveloping an appetite for power. In turn, men are also supported in adopting femininecoded characteristics into their insurgent repertoires without a threat of emasculation, but
making these elements integral to the construction of a complete militant. The particular guerrilla
gender regime impacts upongender relations and generates manifold consequences for expected rolesand behaviour that are
enforced by different mechanisms inherent to militarizedcontexts, requisition of capacities and skills for armed struggle and
thehierarchical structure of military organizations.Depending on the operational setting, whether serving in rural guerrillaunits of
high mobility or engaging in clandestine urban struggles (to nameonly two extremes among a series of different scenarios), the
existence of aprivate household is significantly disrupted. Although women did engage in stereotypically female-
coded tasks, such as caring for the wounded or cooking, they did so within a collective political
project that transcended private familial spheres (LelievreAussel et al. 2004). With the exception ofhigher
command levels, cadres and militants were compelled to take care of their own needs:The comrades
learned to cope on their own. Many comrades, at the end of the war, were able to do many
things we women do. Which have been off limits for (civilian) men, to cook, to wash their
clothes. They have learned all this. But insociety yet to be transformed, these activities are not as valued . . . before theywere
dependent on a woman on those aspects. Or to go round looking for awomen who takes care of these issues for them. (Woman,
PRTC, El Salvador)
Militarism doesn’t reinforce subjugation and oppression – they actual reinvent
gender identities
Ortega 12- doctorate candidate in political science at theUniversity of Vienna, Austria. She has worked as a Gender and DDR
consultant for the United Nations Development Programme , BA in international relations (Luisa Maria Dietrich, “Looking Beyond
Violent Militarized Masculinities”, International Feminist Journal of Politics, October 2012,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2012.726094)//js
Within the organization,
there are different expressions of insurgent masculinity beyond the
‘revolutionary fighter’, as military skills are only one possible way (not necessarily the most effective one) to
negotiate masculinity in this militarized context. Being a member of the Special Forces may yield
importantrespect, rests on important physical strength and is open to young people,predominantly male, but is a highly dangerous
endeavour. Those combatantsperceived as possessing only military skills are often seen as just obeying andskilfully executing orders.
Functions of masculinities vary across type of militarized setting (clandestine, mass
organization, intelligence), area of deployment and tasks assigned and allowed. The organizational
strengtheningof trade unions required political analytical and oratory skills, while carryingout clandestine operations demanded
knowledge of the terrain and a reliablenetwork. Thus, capacities and skills would become more relevant than
individual backgrounds or differences, including gendered differences. In the urgencyof a combat
situation, you trusted the comrade next to you with your life,regardless of the constructed differences. In this sense, the
incorporation ofindigenous militants into the MRTA guerrilla army in Peru was valued forthe militants’ knowledge of the area and
their agility in the hostile terrain,while significant language barriers were overcome.On an ideological level, the concept
of ‘vanguard’, key tomany of the insurgent organizations analysed, operates on the idea of a
selected group of ‘progressive’ people, class conscious militants, with sound theoretical understanding
who set out to lead, organize and prepare themasses for uprising and eventual overthrowof the Government.
The insurgent gender regime also installs mechanisms that encourage militants conscientiously
to leave traditional inequality patterns behind, for example using practices like ‘criticism and self-criticism’ as
amethod for exposing contradictions in order to overcome diversions and to liveup to the expectations of the ‘new man’ in
transformed society. Although notexplicitly understood in terms of ‘newmasculinity’, this disposition to take a critical
stance towards one’s own thinking and behaviour impacted insurgent gender roles. A PCP-SL cadre
in Peru recalls that he was sweating facing the extremepressure of these criticismand self-criticismsessions, and the more
responsibilityone had, the more intensity with which these exercises were employed.In addition to self-control and peer pressure,
the organizations had an active part in establishing norms and in controlling, regulating and
sanctioning. Asone interviewee remarks,With the rules and increasing institutionalization there was an increasing
‘mystique’ around order, command structures, the founding nucleus, respect towardsthe leadership,
respect towards the founding group and in general. After thetransformation from the foundational phase towards guerrilla army,
amongthe first regulations was the instant execution of the member of the army incase of abuse of a woman. (Man, RN, El
Salvador)As one middle-ranking female commander recalls: It continued to be a machista culture, but there was
more control and there were more things to lose, not material things, such as a house, but to be
a commander of a squad, commander of a company or commander of the special forces, that
was something. (Woman, FPL, El Salvador)
Perm
Perm
Analysis of gender can be integrated into policymaking—proven effective
Murphy, Research Professor; Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global Governance at the University of
Massachusetts, 96 (Craig N., “Seeing Women, Recognizing Gender, Recasting International Relations”, International Organization 50:3,
Summer 1996, JSTOR)//AS
Skocpol's work also exemplifies one way that the value of "looking
concerns of a field. While Skocpol is
for the women" can be integrated with the central
critical of fellow political sociologists who attempt to explain major changes in modern industrial
societies by looking only at the roles of women, her
immersion in "the rich, recently created, literature" in
American women's history led her to look for the role of women in creating the modern welfare
state. In the process of doing so she found thather "state-centric approach had evolved into a 'politycentered approach'" as she "grappled with a central issue in the study of any nation's identity: the
transformations over time in the issues, social identities, and styles of politics that succeed (or fail) at
influencing agendas of political debate and public policy making."32 Similarly, consider- ation of the roles
of women in the formation and disintegration of modern international orders would probably lead
international relations away from a state-centric approach toward one that allows scholars to see the
interplay of national (and other) identities in the formation of international policy. In large part this is because, as
Skocpol argues, consideration of the role of women leads us immediately to recognize the constitutive power of a ubiquitous form of identity:
gender.
Feminist critiques are exclusionary and submit to the same qualities they criticize—IR
can integrate feminist perspective
Caprioli, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota at Duluth 04 (Mary, “Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative
Methodology: A Critical Analysis”, International Studies Review 6:2, June 2004, JSTOR)//AS
Conventional feminist
IR scholars misrepresent the field of international relations in arguing that IR
scholarship as popularly accepted excludes alternative expla- nations of state behavior, including
feminist inquiry, that go beyond structural, state-focused models. Feminist IR theorists, among others, critique the IR
field for its state-centric approach and argue that "a world of states situated in an anarchical international system leaves little room for analyses
of social relations, including gender relations" (Tickner 2001:146). As a result, they
appear to set up a straw man by refusing
to recognize the variety within "conventional" IR research. Indeed, as Jack Levy (2000) has observed, asignificant
shift to societal-level variables has occurred, partly in response to the decline in the systemic imperatives of the bipolar era.
Certainly the democratic peace literature, particularly its normative explana- tion (Maoz and Russett 1993; Dixon 1994), among
other lines of inquiry, recognizes the role of social relations in explaining state behavior . The normative explanation
for the democratic peace thesis emphasizes the soci- etal level values of human rights, support for the rule of law, and peaceful conflict
resolution in explaining the likelihood of interstate conflict. Furthermore, dyadic tests of the democratic peace thesis rely "on an emerging
theoretical framework that may prove capable of incorporating the strengths of the currently predom- inant realist or neorealist research
program, and moving beyond it" (Ray 2000:311). In addition,
theorizing and research in the field of
ethnonationalismhas highlighted connections that domestic ethnic discrimination and violence have
with state behavior at the international level (Gurr and Harff 1994; Van Evera1997; Caprioli and Trumbore 2003a, 2003b).
Contrary to the argument that conventional IR theory excludes feminist inquiry, space exists within
the field of international relations for feminist inquiry even allowing for a state-centric focus, just as room
exists for scholars interested in exploring the democratic peace and ethnonationalism. International relations fem- inists make
the same mistake that they accuse IR scholars of making: narrowing the space for various worldviews,
thereby creating competition and a sense of exclusion among the so-called others. If the role of "feminist
theory is to explain women's subordination, or the unjustified asymmetry between women's and men's social and economic positions, and to
seek prescriptions for ending it" (Tickner 2001:11), then
feminist IR scholarship ought to allow for an explanation of
how women's subordination or inequality has an impact on state behavior, assuming a state- centric
focus, while at the same time challenging the predetermination of a struc- turalanalysis. If domestic
inequality does affect state behavior, or even perpetuates the existence of states, then policy
prescriptions should be sought
Integrating feminist IR into the traditional discipline is key to spaces of productive
dialogue rather than talking past each other—total rejection is antiproductive
Carver, Professor of Political Theory at the University of Bristol, 03 (Terrell, “Gender/Feminism/IR”, Gender and International Relations,
International Studies Review 5, 2003 JSTOR)//AS
Gender is not going to be ‘‘an explanatory framework’’ (Carpenter 2002:154). Rather, it is going to figure
into the explanatory frameworks that people already have, and into the ones that international
relations (IR) theorists think that they should have. Gender is not either explanandum (the thing to be
explained) or explanans (whatever does the explaining). It could be either or both, on its own or in
conjunction with other factors. Clearly some researchers are going to need persuading that gender
matters at all in what they study. Typically gender is going to be in both explanandum and explanans, rather as cause and effect
are linked, and, indeed, that linkage is likely to play a part in what convinces us that the explanation is a good one. For example, voting
Republican or Conservative (an effect) is probably going to have something to do with having Republican or Conservative values or beliefs (a
cause), but of course it could also be explanatorily linked with income and wealth as well as with parental voting (Republican or Conservative),
with geographical residence (where there are lots of Republicans or Conservatives), and so on. Gender can function within a framework, but it
is not the framework itself. Putting gender into the explanandum or explanans, or having it figure in some different way in both, may be said
‘‘to gender’’ a study and ‘‘to gender’’ an explanatory framework. The above is intended to explain some shorthand usage and to help clarify
situations in which researchers talk past one another (Carver forthcoming). It does not, of course, describe the only situation in which
researchers talk past one another. Consider another. For some researchers the fact-value dichotomy is central and a cornerstone of science and
objectivity whereas for others the dichotomy is not only nonexistent but an illusion with an ideological function. Communication across this
divide is notoriously difficult. Few philosophers of social science today hold to anything like the Humean orthodoxy that ‘‘you cannot derive
values from facts’’ and that ‘‘true facts are value-neutral.’’ Such would require facts to be established by researchers who are (through some
means or procedure) objective and detached in their professional roles. Weaker senses of objectivity rely on disclosure of values, concepts of
balance, and a belief that literal language can exclude values sufficiently to offer a universality of truth to any and all who are rational and
open-minded. This position obviously relies on views about language (that it can be literal and therefore value-free) and consciousness (that it
can be detachedly objective apart from privately held views) that are well understood in theory but controversial in principle and in practice.
The opposite viewFthat no literal language is possible and that value-free consciousness as a scientist is not only impossible but perniciously
ideological relies on philosophical positions that are rather more recent (post-‘‘linguistic turn’’), overtly critical rather than disengaged, and
even more controversial to defend intellectually and politically. The debates continue, and the divide persists. The
methodological
divide sketched above is a major one in IR and directly affects the gender question precisely because raising
gender as an issue has been regarded as a major challenge to the discipline as such. Any discipline has
boundaries setting out its self-definition. Arguably IR has been substantively defined at such a level of generality and
abstraction that gender (as human sexual 288 Gender and International Relations difference, we might say for the moment) could
simply be ruled out altogether. Conversely those arguing that gender should be substantively included in
explanandum or explanans (indeed that all previous IR content should be ‘‘gendered’’) have been perceived as radical
challengers to an agreed upon or traditional core in the field (agreed upon by whom and when are, of course, further relevant difficulties
here). Indeed, some of those arguing for the necessity and sometimes the centrality of gender have adopted the role of challenger quite
selfconsciously. For unsurprising reasons, the ‘‘gendering’’ of IR has been associated with, and the project of, a number of feminists, who have
generally (though not completely) fallen on the side of the methodological divide that views the fact–value dichotomy with grave suspicion and
overt hostility. Conversely those inclined to defend the so-called standard substance of IR have tended (though not exclusively) to be those
using a methodology founded on the fact–value distinction (see Jones 1996, 1998; Carver, Cochran, and Squires 1998). The upshot here is that
the ‘‘gendering’’ of IR has been attacked by disciplinary guardians and by guardians of scientific
objectivity, whereas ‘‘gendered’’ IR has generally been pursued by feminists usually avowing an
intrinsic connection between their work and their values, and often arguing for a transformation of the discipline in
terms of substance. ‘‘Gendering IR’’ is thus a project; ‘‘gendered’’ IR is an outcome. Nonetheless, some brave attempts at dialogue
and crossover have occurred. To some extent this space is occupied by newish methodologies (for example,
constructivism), containing and maintaining ambiguities that bridge the divides of substance and methodology. These meeting places
allow newish topics to accrete to IR as a discipline and, thus, to gain inclusion of a sort (which may mean
marginalization). There is, in effect, a kind of practical getting-on-with-it that may not please ruthlessly
logical philosophers of science (who like to emphasize unbridgeable logical differences) or stern guardians of the
discipline (who dislike accretions, particularly that one). But as a form of liberal pressure group and transformative
identity politics, it clearly has advantages. Even though this account has emphasized (and oversimplified) intellectual issues,
additional generational, geographical, cultural and, dare we say, gender issues about IR as a profession have considerable salience in the story
(Carver 1998:351).
Perm solves – make them prove why the affirmative can’t incorporate gender into
their lens of IR issues
Carpenter ’2 – Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of MassachusettsAmherst (R. Charli, “Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist Standpoint?” International
Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002), p. 162, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186468)//SS
Paraphrasing Sandra Whitworth, Tickner claims theories that incorporate gender must satisfy three
criteria:"1) they must allow for the possibility of talking about the social construction of meaning; 2)
they must discuss historical variability; and 3) they must permit theorizing about power in ways that
uncover hidden power relations"(p. 27).¶ Nothing in this formula requires gender theories to be
explicitly normative , as Tickner and others claim feminism must be (p. 2).15 Moreover, although Tickner begins by situating all IR
scholarship on norms and social values in IR as "constitutive" versus "explanatory" theory (p. 27), much of the social constructivist work on
norms and identities actually claims to share an epistemological framework with those traditions Tickner considers conventional while
possessing the ontological orientation that Whitworth claims is necessary for¶ gender theory. 16
If
gender as an explanatory
framework is to be incorporated into main-¶ stream IR epistemologies, conventional constructivism-or
what Tickner later calls "bridging theories"(p. 46)-appear to be the obvious entry point. Scholars such as
Ronald Jepperson, Peter Katzenstein, and Alexander Wendt are¶ committed to an identity-based ontology but, according to Tickner,"stay
within the traditional security agenda, a focus on states and explanatory social science" (p. 45). Given constructivism's emphasis on norms and
identity in world¶ politics, it is surprising that this school has not already begun to build on feminist gender theories; this may reflect, as Tickner
argues, a systematic gender bias.
Perm solves – key to creating a productive dialogue
Carpenter ’2 – Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of MassachusettsAmherst (R. Charli, “Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist Standpoint?” International
Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002), p. 162-163, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186468)//SS
Conceptually, a conversation between nonfeminist and feminist gender theories would help refine
much of the loose and inconsistent terminology pertaining to gender as a concept. For example, one outcome
of such a conversation¶ might be to clarify the sex/gender distinction. Much feminist theory routinely conflates these two concepts, either for
theoretical reasons 19 or because of the¶ way gender has been appropriated in colloquia lusage.20Yet to destabilize the assumption that
embodied men and women correlate to gendered ascriptive and¶ prescriptive notions, it seems that sex and gender must be discussed
separately in scholarly literature.¶ Although operationalizing sex versus gender in this way does abstract away from some of the issues that
postmodernists point to, and from certain anomalies in human biology, it usefully maps on to the constructivist distinction between¶ "material
forces" and "ideas." For example, John Searle has distinguished¶ between "brute facts" (objects that exist in the real world like tanks, nuclear¶
weapons, or people with uteruses) and "social facts" like money, Christmas,¶ marriage, or misogyny, which require intersubjective agreement
on their exis- tenceandconstitution.21It is
an empirical fact that human beings are divided¶ into roughly two
categories based on biological roles and reproduction; this would still be true whether gender
ideologies that assign social importance to¶ this distinction exist or not. The existence and nature of those gender
ideologies¶ are separate from the sheer physiology of humans; gender ideologies, institutions, and identities built on them are social facts.¶
That the social and material interrelate does not mean, as Goldstein insists, that the distinction is
analytically irrelevant. It may be true, for example, that nuclear weapons would have no actual
destructive power without institutional¶ and social arrangements that make it possible to actually
deploy them.22But this does not mean that nuclear weapons are not objectively real. It is an analysis
of the mutual interaction of the social and material worlds that is the task of constructivist IR in its
critical and explanatory versions. An engagement of conventional constructivists with these
operationalization questions is certain to generate interesting dialogue between mainstream and
feminist IR.¶ Substantively, "gender constructivism" can fill some of the niches left by IR¶ feminism mentioned above. Beyond expanding
the study of gender to men,¶ children, and
nonfeminist women's issues, nonfeminist social constructivists'¶ main
niche to be filled is in generating a richer body of literature in which the¶ international system is the
dependent variable. Feminist IR has already created¶ a large body of work to draw on in this capacity, emphasizing links between¶
masculinism and militarism, the role of gender in constructing national identities and interests, the embeddedness of gendered thinking in
foreign policy¶ discourses and its influence on political action, and the importance of gender¶ beliefs in sustaining the international political
economy. But
the key purpose of¶ feminist theory is to investigate and argue for improvements in the
well-being of women. As Tickner emphasizes, it is women, not interactions between states, that are the primary dependent variable in
feminist IR (p. 139). Conversely, gender constructivists can use the analytical category feminists have
developed to understand the IR agenda as conventionally defined.
Perm: AT “Can’t Add”
Derision against “adding gender” is equally biased—a balanced approach solves best
Caprioli, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota at Duluth 04 (Mary, “Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative
Methodology: A Critical Analysis”, International Studies Review 6:2, June 2004, JSTOR)//AS
The derision with which many conventional feminists view feminist quantitative studies persists to the detriment of both feminist and other
types of IR scholarship. As Jan JindyPettman (2002) has argued, however, no
single feminist position exists in international
relations. One of the most common feminist critiques of feminist quantitative research is that scholars cannot
simply "add gender and stir" (Peterson 2002; Steans 2003), for gender is not just one of many variables. Yet, gender is one
of many variables when we are discussing international issues, from human rights to war . As Fred Halliday
(1988) has observed, gender is not the core of international relations or the key to understanding it.Such a
position would grossly overstate the feminist case.Gender may be an important explanatory and
predictive component but it certainly is not the only one. Such a critique only serves to undermine the feminist
argument against a sci- entific methodology for the social sciences by questioning the scholarship of those who employ quantitative
methodologies. One
does not pull variables "out of the air" to put into a model, thereby "adding and
stirring." Variables are added to models if a theoretical justification for doing so exists : the basic method of
social science remains the same: make a conjecture about causality; formulate that conjecture as an hypothesis, consistent with established
theory (and perhaps deduced from it, at least in part); specify the observable implications of the hypothesis; test for whether those
implications obtain in the real world; and overall, ensure that one's procedures are publicly known and replicable. Relevant evidence has to be
brought to bear on hypotheses generated by theory for the theory to be meaningful. (Keohane 1998:196) Peterson (2002:158)
postulates that "as long as IR understands gender only as an empirical category (for example, how do women
in the military affect the conduct of war?), feminisms appear largely irrelevant to the discipline's primary
questions and inquiry." Yet, little evidence actually supports this contention--unless one is arguing that
gender is the only important category of analysis.If researchers cannot add gender to an analysis, then
they must necessarily use a purely female-centered analysis, even though the utility of using a purely
female- centered analysis seems equally biased. Such research would merely be gender- centric based on women
rather than men, and it would thereby provide an equally biased account of international relations as those
that are male-centric. Although one might speculate that having research done from the two opposing worldviews might more fully
explain international relations, surely an integrated approach would offer a more comprehensive analysis of
world affairs.
Alt
Alt Fails
Their demand for consideration of impoverished “other” women masks American
interventionism and attitudes of superiority
Chowdhury, Associate Professor of Women's Studies at the University of Massachusetts, 09 (EloraHalim, “Locating Global Feminisms
Elsewhere: Braiding US Women of Color and Transnationa; Feminisms”, Cultural Dynamics 21:51, 2009, Sage Publications)//AS
Making central the plight of African, Middle Eastern, and Asian women while not questioning its own
interventionist desires, global feminism aids the US government’s political strategy of positioning
America as the site of authoritative enunciations of freedom and rights whose representatives can
judge the immoral practice of other nation states. Using the logic of global feminism, female US government
representatives support US foreign policy strategies and interventions in the name of women’s rights
activism. Through their examination of leading human rights reports, including Human Rights Watch World Report and Amnesty
International Annual Reports between 1993 and 2002, Farrell and McDermott (2005) reveal that the attention of human rights
advocates followed the same trajectory as US foreign policy interests during that era.
Discourses of gender have already become institutionalized and are antiproductive
Baden and Goetz, Researcher and Policy Analyst specialising in Agricultural Development, Food Security and Gender Equality and
Chief Advisor of Governance, Peace and Security at UNIFEM respectively 97 (Sally and Anne Marie, “Who Needs [Sex] When You Can Have
[Gender]? Conflicting Discourses on Gender at Beijing”, Feminist Review 56, Summer 1997,
http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/developpement/shared/developpement/mdev/soutienauxcours0809/verschuur_rights/E742_Baden_
Goetz.pdf)//AS
One of these, early on in the Forum, was entitled 'Feminism: from movement to establishment', convened by the Applied Socio-economic
Research (ASR) organization of Pakistan. Nighat Khan, Director of ASR and a panellist at this workshop, argued that gender
analysis had
become a technocratic discourse, in spite of its roots in socialist feminism, dominated by researchers,
policy-makers and consultants, which no longer addressed 5 issues of power central to women's
subordination. She identified factors underlying this shift as the professionalization and 'NGOization' of the women's movement and the
consequent lack of accountability of 'gender experts' to a grassroots constituency. A more radical perspective on the z Beijing process and
associated discourse on gender came from the Revolutionary Women of the Philippines, whose pamphlet 'The Gender Trap: an imperialist
scheme for co-opting the world's women', attacked
gender mainstreaming as a scheme to buy off once
committed activists (Makibaka 1995: 5). NighatKhan asserted that the focus on gender, rather than women,
had become counter-productive in that it had allowed the discussion to shift from a focus on women,
to women and men and, finally, back to men.This latter point was echoed by others at the NGO Forum. Eugene Barriteau,
presenting on a panel for Development Alternatives with Women in a New Era (DAWN), described how in Jamaica the shift in discourse from
women to gender had resulted, in policy circles, in a focus away from women, to 'men at risk,' reflecting concern about men's failure in
education and in securing employment, while women perform much better educationally and many support families alone. This view is also
reflected in other accounts. A Bangladeshi development worker is quoted by Kabeer as saying: 'Do you think we are ready for gender in
development in Bangladesh when we have not yet addressed the problems of women in development?' It transpired that 'the
new
vocabulary of gender was being used in her organization to deny the very existence of women specific
disadvantage and hence the need for specific measures which might address this disadvantage' (Kabeer,
1994: xii). According to Razavi and Miller, in their recent review of conceptual shifts in the women and development discourse: Although
the gender discourse has filtered through to policy making institutions, in the process actors have reinterpreted the concept of gender to suit their institutional needs. In some instances, 'gender' has
been used to side-step a focus on 'women' and on the radical policy implications of overcoming their
disprivilege. (Razavi and Miller, 1995a: 41)
The alt fails at being emancipatory – it doesn’t connect theory and practice
Spegele 02 - obtained his MA and PhD from the University of Chicago, and has published several articles in international
theory. (Roger D., “Emancipatory International Relations: Good News, Bad News or No News at All?”, International Relations,
12/1/02, http://ire.sagepub.com/content/16/3/381)//js
Feminist International Theory is another emancipatory modality in international relations . To be
sure, although we have no reason to suppose that all feminist theories of international relations are
emancipatory, there has been, as one wouldexpect, a strong tendency towards liberationist modes of thinking in
feministinternational relations thinking. Notwithstanding great differences in feministperspectives, there is general
agreement that their unproblematic aim is radical improvement in the lives of women and that
the route to that improvement is partially contained in hooking up certain theoretical structures
with certain social practices. Still, a distinction needs to be made between feminist theories which
call for radical improvement in the condition of women, and theories which attempt to bring
theory and practice into unison. In terms of our characterizationof emancipatory international relations, only the
latter sort of theory counts as emancipatory.
The alt fails – multiple factors will overwhelm the ability of women to change foreign policy
Pollitt 99 – B.A. Philosophy @ Radcliffe College, M.F.A Writing @ Columbia University, former columnist
@ The New Yorker, NYT, The New Republic, former lecturer @ Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (Katha,
“Father Knows Best (Katha, “Fukuyama’s Follies” [“Father Knows Best”], 1999, Foreign Affairs Volume
78, No. 1, January/February, http://www.metu.edu.tr/~utuba/Ehrenreich%20etal.pdf,RSpec)
American women have had the vote for nearly 80 years. So far, they have not even won paid maternity leave or
affordable daycare, things taken for granted in other industrialized countries. In light of these failures,
the assertion that women will be transforming American foreign policy anytime soon, against the will of
those now in control, strikes me as a fantasy second only to the notion that genetics will bring it about. It is more likely that
as women become more enmeshed in politics and business, with all their compromises and rewards,
whatever modest inclination they may now possess toward nonviolent conflict resolution will be
swamped by other factors: vanity, greed, fear, percetions of national interest, lust for cheap oil.
The alt fails – feminism won’t be able to maintain a stable political structure – empirics
Tiger 99 – Professor of Anthropology @ Rutgers University, Ph.D @ U of London (Lionel,“Fukuyama’s
Follies” [“Prehistory Returns”], 1999, Foreign Affairs Volume 78, No. 1, January/February,
http://www.metu.edu.tr/~utuba/Ehrenreich%20etal.pdf, RSpe)
But though Fukuyama's forecast that political change will accompany changes in the sexual composition of leadership is
plausible, the picture remains conjectural. There is no empirical evidence of large-scale, long-term social
structures that have been created and maintained exclusively or even largely by females. The overworked
myth of matriarchy notwithstanding, we do not have good examples of groups of women engaged over
generations in creating and sustaining public organizations such as armies, religions, police forces, or
even international businesses. It remains an open question if there is a female equivalent to the
omnipresent male bonding that encourages the alloy of assertion and self-sacrifice at the heart of a
community's central power structure. The political gender gaps emerging in liberal democracies
certainly suggest the beginnings of such edifices.
Feminism will be resisted – it’s too widely misunderstood
Dean 11 – Lecturer in Political Theory @ University of Leeds, Ph.D (“Radical feminism: what it is and why
we're afraid of it”, The Guardian, 2/9/11,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/09/radical-feminism-assange-case, Spector)
Research suggests that, in the popular imagination, the feminist – and the radical feminist in particular – is seen as
full of irrational vitriol towards all men, probably a lesbian and certainly not likely to be found browsing
in Claire's Accessories. As an academic working on issues concerning gender and politics, I've had the good fortune of meeting lots of
inspiring feminist women – and men – but despite searching I've yet to locate a feminist matching that particular description. Perhaps I haven't
looked hard enough.
A more likely possibility is that the popular insistence that radical feminists – and often by
are all man-haters reflects wider misunderstandings about the history of
feminism and its impact on contemporary gender relations.
implication feminists in general –
The alternative fails – empirics prove.
Tungohan, PhD Candidate in Political Science and the Collaborative Program in Women and Gender
Studies at the University of Toronto, 2012 (Ethel, “Reconceptualizing Motherhood, Reconceptualizing
Resistance,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 15, no. 1, page 43, July 24, 2012,
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfjp20#.UeL3542cdqU)//SB
Upon the establishment of the Caribbean Domestics Scheme (CDS) in the 1950s, Canadians began seeing
women from developing countries as desirable migrant domestic workers. In contrast to British and Irish
domestics, women from Third World countries were deemed ‘captive’ labour who could be forced to
stay in domestic work for extended periods of time due to their dire economic situations (Schecter
1998). The advances of the second-wave feminist movement in the late 1960s and the 1970s led more
white, middleclass women to pursue careers, leading to an increased need for new childcare
arrangements that were cheaper and more widely available than public daycare. The Foreign Domestics
Movements (FDM), established in 1981, endeavoured to meet white, middle-class Canadian women’s
demand for migrant domestic workers. It made improvements to the CDS by entrenching labour
protections and by ‘rewarding’ migrant women and their families with Canadian permanent residency
after working as live-in caregivers for 24 months and an additional 12 months as ‘live-out’ carers (Bakan
and Stasiulis 1997; Schecter 1998). Once migrant women successfully met these terms and other
stipulations concerning their ability to successfully integrate into Canada (Arat-Koc 1989), they were able
to claim their families. The Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP), founded in 1992, replaced the FDM and
attempted to improve live-in caregivers’ situations through increased professionalization. Women who
entered the programme are seen as caregivers, not as domestics, and had to show educational
credentials and work experience. These changes occurred because migrant domestic workers formed
organizations like Intercede, and took the initiative to ask for reforms after so-called ‘progressive’
organizations in Canada did not want to be associated with them, an observation that my respondents
say is the case even today (Villasin and Phillips 1994). Despite these efforts, the changes were mainly
semantic. Live-in caregivers had the same reproductive responsibilities as women under the FDM.
They are tasked with housekeeping and child and elderly care, among many duties. The only decisive
changes that occurred worked to the disadvantage of caregivers. According to community leader Cecilia
Diocson, the transition to the LCP only made it more difficult for women to enter Canada, and also
contributed to migrant women’s deskilling. That the composition of migrant domestic workers shifted
during this time period is indicative of how race, class and gender constructions shift to accommodate
the demands of employers and receiving states. Changing perceptions of Caribbean women’s
‘suitability’ for domestic work because of their activism and their ostensible propensity for ‘trouble’
coincided with an increase in the numbers of Filipina migrant domestic workers. Whereas working-class
Caribbean women with elementary school educations dominated the FDM initially, the majority of the
women who were part of the FDM in its later years and the LCP are Filipina women with university
degrees (Bakan and Stasiulis 2005).
The alt fails – only a deconstruction of societal gender norms changes the
representation of IR
Cosgrove 3 – Associate Professor at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. She received her PhD in Clinical Psychology
from Duquesne University (Lisa, "Feminism, postmodernism, and psychological research." Hypatia 18.3 (2003): 85-112, JHU)//js
Susan Hekman (1999) maintains that it
is not just coincidence that both standpoint theorists and
empiricists have a tendency to succumb to essentialist thinking, for both approaches start from
an epistemological position that views gender as an innate characteristic or an independent
variable. Thus, another example of how feminist research can deconstruct difference but still leave
gendered norms intact can be found in the meta-analytic work of feminist empiricists. It will be recalled that in contrast to
standpoint theorists who emphasize gender differences, feminist empiricists work within the similarities tradition, view good science
as self-correcting and seek to "provide scientific justification for political and social equality" (Kimball 1995, 3). Briefly, metaanalysis allows for a quantitative synthesis of studies. A meta-analyst can compare a broad range of studies, regardless of sample
size, by statistically combining results in a particular area, thereby allowing for a comparison between male and female behavior for
each relevant study (Eagly 1995). This allows researchers to draw conclusions about sex differences in various domains of behavior
or intellectual abilities. 4 For example, feminist empiricists have used meta-analysis to challenge the belief that girls as a group are
less proficient in math than boys, and they have used meta-analysis to challenge the belief that there are significant gender
differences in empathic and aggressive behavior. Unfortunately, despite countless meta-analytic research demonstrating no (or
extremely small and insignificant) gender differences in math ability, aggressive or empathic behavior, these gendered stereotypes
remain (Caplan and Caplan 1994; Fausto-Sterling 1992, 2000; Kimball 1995; Tavris 1993). Moreover, these erroneous stereotypes
are perpetuated by the media (for example, "Guys and Dolls! Differences in behavior of boys and girls is normal," Men's
Health,Sommers 2000; "Boys and girls: Equal but not the same," Current Health, Arbetter 1991) as well as by scholarly journals. In
fact, it has been well documented that it is more difficult to publish research that does not find gender differences than it is to
publish research that supports gender stereotypes (Caplan and Caplan 1994; Hyde 1994; Kimball 1995). As this cursory review
suggests, despite heroic efforts and decades of research, feminist empiricists have not been able to change the
perception that males are better at math than females or that women are more empathic than
men. More [End Page 90] generally, the positivist tools of science have not been very effective in bringing about equality or in
changing gendered stereotypes. Until we consistently work towards the deconstruction of both difference
and gender norms, little progress will be made. For example, it has been argued that until we
address the fact that mathematics is symbolized as masculine (Kimball 1995; Walkerdine 1989), we will
not be able to bring about emancipatory changes in beliefs or school curricula. (Lest there be any doubt about
the symbolization of mathematics as masculine, it should be recalled that the first statement made by the original talking Barbie
was, "Math is hard.") The continued focus on gender difference research, together with the failure to address how gender is
symbolized and produced, have contributed to the belief that differences between men and women are essential, universal, and
ahistorical. However, it is important to emphasize that I am not equating empiricism with essentialism; as previously noted,
important differences exist among empiricist psychologists. For example, Hope Landrine's (1996), "contextual behaviorism" model,
while grounded in empiricism, incorporates a more context-dependent view of gender than is true of empiricists who conceptualize
gender as an independent variable. Similarly, Sandra Bem's more recent work (for example, Bem 1995) as well as that of Bernice
Lott and her colleagues (for example, Lott and Maluso 1993), advocate a constructionist and contextualized view of gender. Thus, the
problem is not with empiricism per se. Rather than "fault" empiricism or standpoint theory—and thereby
sustain rather than challenge the polarizing debate—I believe it is more productive to ask, "How
well have we (feminist psychologists) theorized gender?" "How well have we interrogated our epistemic
commitments before engaging in our research?" It is the lack of critical interrogation that has
led many contemporary feminist psychologists—whether they work within the differences or similarities
tradition—to unwittingly perpetuate old forms of domination and inadvertently contribute to a
victim-blaming perspective by essentializing women's problems. Michelle Fine makes a similar critique
based on her analysis of articles published in The Psychology of Women Quarterly. She states that the authors "psychologized the
structural forces that construct women's lives. . . and invited women to alter some aspect of self in order to transform social
arrangements. . . . Most feminist psychologists have yet to declare questions of power primary" (1992, 6-7). The disruptive,
decentering effects of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory can be achieved by developing more complex accounts of power
(that is, we must not reify power or see it as a simple stimulus variable) and by appreciating symbolic constructions of femininity. If
we are truly committed to challenging the masculine/feminine divide, we must move beyond a
paradigm that essentializes gender and limits us to two choices—refuting or celebrating gender
differences (Cosgrove and McHugh 2000; Hare-Mustin and Marecek 1994a; Kimball 1995). As Sondra Farganis notes, "If
gender is more varied [End Page 91] than we sometimes might imagine, might there not be within
science, a need to accommodate 'theoretical dissonances' (Bleier 1986, 15). . . . Can feminism accept a 'plurality
of discourses' (Rose 1986, 73)?" (1992, 218). I believe that feminist psychology can and should accept a plurality of
discourses about what constitutes effective and helpful research and that incorporating postmodern tenets
into feminist psychology will allow us to break away from the polarizing either/or
empiricism/standpoint debate. Postmodernism provides a powerful epistemological grounding for deconstructing,
rather than regulating, gender difference and gender norms; it can aid and abet feminist psychology by focusing attention on the
complex processes and matrices through which gender is produced. In the next section, I will elaborate on this point by discussing
how Butler's theory of gender performativity (1990a, 1990b, 1993, 1995) and Kristeva's focus on gender as positionality (1981a,
1981b) allow for a politics of subversion within the context of a radical critique of identity.
Generalizations about women as a group and their pacifist motivations reentrenches
patriarchy
Carter, Professor of Government at the University of Queensland, 96 (April, “Should women be soldiers or pacifists?”, Peace Review 8:3,
September 1996, EBSCO)//AS
There are several objections to the notion that women's maternal instincts make them naturally
pacifist. First, the implication would be that men are therefore aggressive by "nature" and drawn irresistibly to
deadly technology. This inappropriately pits men against women in the quest for peace. Second, this biological
determinism ignores the crucial role of culture in shaping personality. Even Sara Ruddick's more sophisticated
consideration of women's cross-cultural experiences of "maternal thinking" falls short. Being a mother does not necessarily
lead to a hatred of war and an empathy with mothers on the enemy side. A mother has a gut concern for the safety of her own
children; only if mother love becomes more generalized does it sustain a peace politics. Moreover, for the past 200 years feminists
have struggled to extend our notion of women's roles and experiences beyond simply motherhood.
Thus to define women's approach to war primarily in terms of that role provides a questionable feminist
position. Recent feminist developments, including political opposition to the dominance of feminist organizations by white
middle class women and challenges by postmodernists to all universalizing claims, cast doubt on the possibility of speaking
about "women" as a category at all. Feminism in the 1990s strives to respect the cultural and other differences among women,
both within and between countries, and thus many feminists hesitate to make general claims about women and
war based on maternal thinking. Radical feminist theorists such as Catherine Mackinnon, and some feminist international lawyers, address
rape in war as a universal issue specific to women. But a focus on rape only addresses women's suffering, not their
positive potential.
Feminist movements on national level fail because they are led by elitist who do not
face the problems of poverty
Nazneen and Mahmud, ’12–Nazneen is an Associate Professor, Department of International Relations,
University of Dhaka, Mahmud is Co-ordinator, Center for Gender and Social Transformation, BRAC
Development Institute (Sohela and Simeen, “Gendered Politics of Securing Inclusive Development”,
ESID, September, 2012, http://www.effectivestates.org/_assets/documents/
esid_wp_13_nazneen-mahmud.pdf )//CC
At the national level, particularly mobilization around policy processes have been led by women’s
groups which are largely composed of professional-middle class and elite women. Their leadership
results from the following: a) these women are able to put in unpaid voluntary time for activism; b) they
have the technical knowledge and capacity required for policy analysis; c) they also have access to the
policymakers and different forums where these issues are discussed. The elite and middle-class based
composition of women’s /feminist groups and their leadership in mobilization around policies have
led to debates on elite bias/ focus in women’s/ feminist movement. It has also raised questions
about whether women’s groups effectively represent interests of its grassroots members and their
accountability to this constituency (Basu, 2010). In fact, women’s movement organizations at the
national level in some of the case study countries, such as Bangladesh, have been successful in
mobilizing around violence against women and legal reforms and failed to mobilize around issues that
are pertinent to poor rural women, such as migration or needs of women in the informal sector etc. In
Brazil, Chile and Mexico, feminism took the form of ‘popular feminism’ only when the movement was
able to bring into the fold concerns of urban and rural working-class women’s concerns (Lamas et al;
1995; Frohman and Valdez, 1995; Soares et al., 1995). The elite and middle class bias in women’s
movement and whether it is able to represent the interests of poor women or create strong alliances
with grassroots and working women’s groups is a debate that is pertinent for unpacking political
settlement around gender from a feminist perspective.
Alt Fails – Identity Politics
Alt fails – can’t embrace feminism and respect defining aspects of culture at the same
time
Pettman ’4 – Professor and Director of the Centre for Women’s Studies at the Australian National University (Jan
Jindy, Feminist International Relations After 9/11, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 2004, pp. 92-93,
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/archive/10.2/Feminist%20Theory/Pettman.pdf)//SS
Feminism is not without its difficulties and dangers. Beyond the obvious exhaustion that results from
working constantly against the grain, confronting power relations where challenges to existing gender
relations and gender scripts threaten the identity and interests of the more powerful, feminists are also
caught in potentially deadly¶ dilemmas involving women’s rights and relations amongst women. While difference is¶ much attended to in
feminism, both in terms of difference between men/masculinity¶ and women/femininity and amongst women, it remains volatile and tricky.
International feminists have learned, often the hard way, about power and identity differences¶
between women too, becoming acutely aware of issues of location, situation, and privilege.47 Early on,
some IR feminists took race, culture, and colonialism into their accounts. Now feminist post-colonial critiques respond to
the recent intensification of¶ ‘cultural reassertion’ and reactionary political religion.48 These critiques
underline how¶ dangerous ‘culture’ can be to women, especially in its contemporary political
mobilizations. Now, culture and religion circulate as key, and always gendered, markers of¶ identity.
Feminists face the challenge of respecting cultural difference while not becoming complicit in culture’s
uses of women; nor abandoning those women who politic for women’s rights against national and
international hostility or disinterest. In this¶ context, international feminists seek to devise and sustain modes of practice
beyond¶ another false binary: ‘civilization’/Western superiority vs. cultural relativism.49¶In the wake of 9/11 feminists have much to contribute
to the account. Still
it¶ seems especially difficult for feminists to be heard, including in IR. Indeed, the very¶
features of international conflict, including the gender politics which feminists identify as shoring up
militarization and state right, work against feminist voices and gender justice.
Alt Worse/No Impact
Feminist theories ignore massive state-perpetuated violence against men—torture,
imprisonment, murder—alt lets these continue
Jones, political scientist, writer, and photojournalist based at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, 96 (Adam, “Does 'Gender' Make
the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations”, Review of International Studies 22:4, October 1996, JSTOR)//AS
We have noted that feminist explorations
of the 'private' sphere and 'security' issues have prompted a concern
with society-level issues of gendered violence and conflict. Certain types of violence, though, notably
murder and suicide, deserve different gender-sensitive investigation. For example, in the country with
by far the highest homicide rate in the world, Colombia, 88.2 per cent of victims are male. Patterns of
murder and suicide elsewhere also appear to be disproportionately weighted against males.74 The more
amorphous issue of health and life expectancy might also be examined under this rubric. It would be central, for instance, to any
understanding of the gendered social impact of political transition processes. Can any generalizations be drawn from the calamitous decline in
male life expectancy in the former Soviet Union? Why has it occurred in the midst of political trans formations that have ordinarily been
viewed as disproportionately harming women?75 Patterns of political violence also need to be explored for the light they might shed on how
'security' is gendered at the societal level. Preliminary investigation suggests hat political
violence by state agencies is
predominantly, even overwhelmingly, directed against males rather than females. To cite three
examples from the author's own area of primary interest: a survey commissioned by the revolutionary Sandinista government after the
1979 revolution in Nicaragua found that 93.4 per cent of those killed in the insurrection were male, a
'predominance . . . [that] is impressive', according to Carlos Vilas.76 Marysa Navarro's study of state terror in Argentina during the
era of the Dirty War found that 70 per cent of those killed or 'disappeared' were male.77 A recent report on state
terrorism (along with guerrilla and death-squad violence) in the Colombian banana-growing region of Urab? explicitly notes the combatants'
readiness to 'wage their escalating war by killing male civilians instead of each other'. '[A]n estimated 677 men . . . have been killed so far this
year', mostly unarmed banana workers; 'In this macho society, women are protected and only the men are murdered, leaving about a
Sub-categories of state violence would include:
torture; gender-selective punitive action (for instance, the rounding up by state authorities of young males, deemed
suspicious or potentially subversive as a group); and state violence against street children, in Brazil and elsewhere, along with
the phenomenon of child and adult homelessness itself.79 One wonders, for instance, whether Christine Sylvester
would employ the metaphor of 'homelessness' (as a desirable and 'creative' post-positivist standpoint) quite so
readily, were the real-life phenomenon gendered to the com parative detriment of women.
'Homelessness of all types is frightening to con template from a perspective of privilege'?indeed.80 It is possible that incarceration
and imprisonment should also be examined as sub-components of state violence. Intuition and casual
observation suggest that the vast majority of the world's incarcerated are male. This is a reality that I, for one,
have found difficult to reconcile with the radical-feminist interpretation of legal systems as
instruments of 'male' hegemony, unless the fissures in patriarchy are made central to our understanding of it and our normative
thousand widows in the region,' according to Church estimates.78
engagement with it. As with military conscription, one would need to be attuned to the societal 'ripple effects' of prolonged incarceration, and
to the epidemic of sexual violence against males that often seems to accompany it.81
Alt Fails: Absolutism
Feminist discourses are limited by their absolutist notions of patriarchy—become
blind to other violence
Jones, political scientist, writer, and photojournalist based at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, 96 (Adam, “Does 'Gender' Make
the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations”, Review of International Studies 22:4, October 1996, JSTOR)//AS
The self-imposed limitations on most feminist IR discourse are apparent, too, in Christine Sylvester's
assertion that 'states and their regimes connect with people called women only to ensure, tacitly at
least, that the benefits of regime participation will flow from "women" to "men" and not ever the other way
round'.64 This is an image of hegemonic gender-class that is impervious to nuance or paradox. It is a
striking bit of absolutist phrasing from one of the field's leading post-positivist theorists, who elsewhere,
rhetorically at least, emphasizes flexibility and empathy.65 And it leads, or ought to lead, to some hard questions. If
masculine privilege is so all-pervasive and absolute, we must ask (in a developed-world context at least) why it is
that men live substantially shorter lives than women, kill themselves at rates vastly higher than women,
absorb close to 100 per cent of the fatal casualties of society's productive labour, and direct the
majority of their violence against 'their own' ranks. All these features appear to be anomalous if not
unique in the history of ruling classes the world over. They surely deserve more sustained, non-dogmatic attention than
Sylvester, along with every feminist theorist I have encountered, grants them.66 'It is not valid and reliable', as Sylvester herself reminds us, 'to
build generalizable models ... on a partial base.'67 If
the feminist approach to gendered 'security' is to be taken
seriously, as it deserves to be, these powerfully gendered phenomena deserve closer investigation
than feminist commentary so far has been able or willing to provide.
Alt Fails: Dichotomies
Turn – framing the debate as a question of how the aff interacts with the lens of
feminism reinforces a false dichotomy that excludes voices that find feminist
arguments compelling but not fully subscribe to them – which prevents the theory
from being taken seriously.
Carpenter ’2 – Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of MassachusettsAmherst (R. Charli, “Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist Standpoint?” International
Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 155-157, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186468)//SS
If gender is seen as synonymous with feminism,1 this suggests that to take gender seriously means to subscribe to the prescriptive agenda of
feminism, an
implication that surely plays a role in silencing comments about gender by those who do
not self-identify as feminists within the discipline. Moreover, it¶ does not logically follow: the explanatory claim "gender
matters" need not constitute a feminist prescriptive claim and in fact can do the opposite. For example, the claim that beliefs about sexual
difference affect social behavior underlies antifeminist arguments for the exclusion of women from nuclear sub- marine duty.¶ Framing
gender analysis as feminism, in which Tickner is not the only participant, has reduced incentives for
scholars not committed to feminism to take gender seriously.2 The mainstream IR scholar, even if
s/he finds arguments about gender compelling, faces an apparent choice between adopting¶ feminist
theory to study gender (migrating from establishment to fringe) or¶ joining in the collective
marginalization of gender as an explanatory variable and feminism as a normative perspective.
Scholars who have engaged or even¶ used gender in their work without subscribing to the feminist
agenda have received an icy reception from feminists.3It may be, in addition to the limited interest from the mainstream
Tickner cites, that not all feminist scholars are as open-minded as Tickner about the utility of cross-turf dialogue. Perhaps this is one
impediment to conversations about gender with nonfeminists that Tickner¶ has underemphasized.¶ The
need to fit scholarship on
gender into the axiological mold of feminist¶ theory not only has kept nonfeminists out, but also has
affected both the sub- stance of IR gender research and its discursive structure. Women's subordination and
victimization is too often assumed by feminists rather than examined on textually, and there is little substantive work on how
gender constrains the life chances of "people called men" in different contexts or affects political
outcomes more generally. A reading of Tickner's text, with an eye to the hidden assumptions within feminist discourse, reveals a
perpetuation rather than a questioning of certain gender stereotypes. This is indicative not so much of Tickner's substantive summary but of
the linguistic and philosophical structure of the feminist subfield.¶ For example, the notion that women but not men are located as caretakers¶
(pp. 50, 106) is a gendered construction that should be destabilized, perhaps through an emphasis on "parents" rather than "mothers." The
trope "civilians now account for about 90 percent of war casualties, the majority of whom are women and children"(p. 6) is a gendered
construction of the "civilian" that flies in the face of, among other things, refugee statistics and the widespread targeting of civilian men and
boys for massacre in armed conflicts around the world.4Men
as gendered subjects seldom appear in feminist work: of
the now numerous IR feminist books on "gender and world politics," almost none deal explicitly with
men and masculinity.5When "masculinities"are dealt with,¶ they are conceptualized as a social
problem; conversely, "femininities" have been greatly undertheorized, often dropping out of phrase like "men and masculinities ... and
women" (p. 134).6
Feminist scholars use the same dichotomies they criticize—perpetuate academic
divides that prevent achievement of feminist policy goals
Keohane, Professor of International Affairs at Princeton University, 98 (Robert, “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between
International Relations and Feminist Theory”, International Studies Quarterly 42:1, March 1998, JSTOR)//AS
Taking scholarly work seriously, however, involves not only trying to read it sympathetically, but also offering criticism
of arguments that do not seem convinc- ing. My starting point is to accept an insight of much feminist
writing: conceptual dichotomies create misleading stereotypes. Professor Tickner mentions four: rational/irrational, fact/value, universal/particular, and public/private. As feminists point out, gender-the social
construction of sexual differences-operates
largely through the use of such stereotypes. What I will argue here is that
herself relies too much on three key dichotomies, which seem to me to have misleading
implications, and to hinder constructive debate. The first of these dichotomies contrasts "critical theory" with
"problem-solving"• theory. "Problem-solving [theory] takes the world as it finds it and implicitly accepts the prevailing order as its
Professor Tickner
framework"• (1997:6l9). The second dichotomy pits "hermeneutic, historically-based, humanistic and philosophical traditions" against positivist
epistemologies modeled on the natural sciences. Fi- nally, Tickner
contrasts a view that emphasizes the social
construction of reality with an atomistic, asocial conception of behavior governed by the laws of
nature (l997:616, 618-9). International relations theory is portrayed as problem-solving, positivist, and
asocial; feminist theory as critical, post-positivist, and sociological. These dichotomies have some rhetorical force;
arguably, recent international relations theory has been insufficiently critical, too committed to covering law epistemology, and too mechanistic
and asocial, in its reliance on states as actors and on economic logic to analyze their behavior. But few
major IR theorists fit the
stereotype of being at the problem-solving, positivist, and asocial ends of all three dichotomies. As
Tickner herself points out, Hans j. Morgenthau had a deeply normative purpose: to prevent the recurrence of
war generated by ideologies such as fascism and communism. Since Morgenthau was a refugee from Nazism, he hardly
accepted the prevailing world order of the late 1930s and early 1940s as the framework for his analysis! Kenneth N. Waltz, the leader in
neorealist theory, has famously relied on "socialization"• as a major (although insufficiently specified) process in world
politics, which makes him a poor candidate for a proponent of "asocial"• theories. And Stephen Walt-one of Tickner's targets-has
been highly critical of game-theoretic methodology. The problem with Tickner's dichotomies, however,
goes much deeper. The dichotomies should be replaced by continua, with the dichotomous charac- terizations at the
poles. Each analyst of world politics has to locate herself or himself somewhere along the dimensions between critical and problem-solving
theory, nomothelic and narrative epistemology, and a social or structural conception of international relations. In my view, none
of the
ends of these continua are the optimal places to rest one's perspective. Criticism of the world, by
itself, becomes a jeremiad, often resting implicitly on a utopian view of human potential. Without
analysis, furthermore, it constitutes merely the opinion of one or a number of people. On the other hand, implicit
or complacent acceptance of the world as it is would rob the study of international relations of much
of its meaning. How could one identify "problems"• without criticism at some level? 'l`he issue is not problem-solving vs.
critical theory-a convenient device for discarding work that one does not wish to accept-but how deeply the criticism
should go. For example, most students of war study it because they hope to expose its evils or to control it in some way: few do so to
glorify war as such. But the depth of their critique varies. Does the author reject certain acts of warfare, all warfare, all coercion, or the system
of states itself? The deeper the criticism, the more wide-ranging the questions, Narrowly problem-solving work, as in much policy analysis,
often ignores the most important causal factors in a situation because they are not manipulable in the short run. However, the
more
critical and wide-ranging an author's perspective, the more difficult it is to do comparative empirical
analysis. An opponent of some types of war can compare the causes of different wars, as a way to help to eliminate those that are regarded
as pernicious; but the opponent of the system of states has to imagine the counterfactual situation ofa system without states.
Feminist international relations create a gendered war-peace dichotomy.
Shepherd, Associate Professor of International Relations at the School of Social Sciences and
International Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW, 2009 (Laura J., “Gender, Violence and
Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies,” Political Studies Review, 2009 vol. 7,
pages 208-209)//CS
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. 15–6) – 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. 240–1). 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. 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.
Alt Fails: Specificity/Empirics
Specific proposals and empirical proof are essential for acceptance of feminist IR
theory—absent this false assumptions cause the alt to end in war
Keohane, Professor of International Affairs at Princeton University, 98 (Robert, “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between
International Relations and Feminist Theory”, International Studies Quarterly 42:1, March 1998, JSTOR)//AS
Since we know that intentionality and consequences are not tightly linked in international relations, we should
not assume that the
consequences in international relations of more egalitarian practices within some societies will
necessarily be benign. Supposing that increased gender equality leads to less aggression, we might well expect that
countries with relatively less hierarchical internal structures would not fight each other. But their
relationships with states with more inegalitarian gender relationships would need to be investigated.
Perhaps states with less gender hierarchy could resolve conflict more easily; but it is also possible that they would be more
easily bullied, or would become more moralistic, leading eventually to more serious crises and
perhaps warfare. 'l`o continue with the democracy analogy, democracies are quite warlike toward nondemocracies, although they are
disin- clined to light other democracies. It would be worthwhile to explore such questions, with an open mind about what the answers will be.
Comparable questions could be posed about transnational relations. To what extent do gendered
inequalities within societies extend to transnational rela- tions-as, for instance, in tolerating or even encouraging the
operation of brothels near military bases, or in the hiring practices of japanese-based multinational enterprises operating in the United States?
Once again, however, questions
will not be enough: feminist IR scholars will need to supply answers that
will convince others-including those not ideologically predisposed to being convinced. Specifying their
propositions, and providing systematically gathered evidence to test these propositions, will be essential:
scientific method, in the broadest sense, is the best path toward convincing current nonbelievers of the validity
of the message that feminists are seeking to deliver . We will only "understand"• each other if IR scholars
are open to the important questions that feminist theories raise, and if feminists are willing to formulate their hypotheses
in ways that are testable-and falsifiable-with evidence.
Alt Fails: Universalizing
Alt fails--notions of one feminist project are universalizing and defeat the goals of
diverse schools of feminist thought
Zalewski, Head of the School of Social Science at Aberdeen University, 03 (Marysia, “’Women’s Troubles’ Again In IR”, Gender and
International Relations, International Studies Review 5, 2003 JSTOR)//AS
We know feminism
is really feminisms. Its boundaries, such as they exist, are supple and pliant; its remit
unbounded. Yet, two conjoined practices endure within IR: one involves the restriction of feminism’s possibilities; the other relates to its
necessary abandonment. Put another way, despite the widespread acknowledgment of feminism’s unbridled
diversity, the aspiration to confine it within distinct and ‘‘proper’’ parameters appears irresistible,
evoking the ensuing logical affirmation that feminism is ultimately futile. Despite the lively
controversy within feminism regarding its relationship to and with ‘‘woman,’’ as Helen Kinsella notes in this forum, it is this category
that draws the disciplinary attention of those who crave feminism’s containment. Feminism becomes, simply, about women.
As Charli Carpenter (2002:159) comments, ‘‘feminist approaches, even though rich, diverse, and a much needed
critique- , are substantively narrow as their emphasis is women.’’ Similar references to ‘‘the’’ feminist
project (Carpenter, this forum), or feminism’s ‘‘focus on women’’ (Carver, this forum), or that ‘‘feminism is an on-going
political project about gender oppression’’ (Carver, this forum) reinforce the vision of feminism’s
limitations.
Even the most inclusive feminist theories are constrained by their female focus—
dooms alt to failure
Jones, political scientist, writer, and photojournalist based at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, 96 (Adam, “Does 'Gender' Make
the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations”, Review of International Studies 22:4, October 1996, JSTOR)//AS
I have suggested that the most important, and surely a lasting, contribution of feminist critiques has been to add a gender dimension to
analyses of international relations. Few scholars will be able, in future, to analyze international divisions of labour, or peace movements, or
(pace Enloe) the activities of international diplo mats, without attending to feminist perspectives on all these phenomena. But feminists'
success in exploring the gender variable remains, at this point, mixed. And until feminist frameworks are
expanded and to some extent reworked, it is hard to see how a persuasive theory or account of the gendering
of international relations can be constructed. Feminist attempts to incorporate a gender variable into
IR analysis are con strained by the basic feminist methodology and all feminists' normative commit ments. A
genuinely 'feminist approach' by definition 'must take women's lives as the epistemological starting
point'.53 And a defining element of feminist approaches, as noted earlier, is a social project aimed at ameliorating women's structured lack
of privilege and emancipating them as a gender-class. The result is a defacto equating of gender primarily with
females/femininity. It is, in its way, a new logocentrism, whereby (elite) male actions and (hegemonic) mas
culinity are drawn into the narrative mainly as independent variables explaining'gender' oppression.
Even those works that have adopted the most inclusive approach to gender, such as Peterson and
Runyan's Global Gender Issues, betray this leaning. Peterson and Runyan do acknowledge that 'our attention to gender . . . tends to
underplay the considerable differences among men and among women', and note that 'it is not only females but males as well
who suffer from rigid gender roles'.54 For the most part in their analysis, though, 'gender issues' are presented as coequal with
women's issues. The plight of embodied women is front and centre throughout, while theattention paid to
the male/masculine realm amounts to little more than lip-service.
Alt Fails: Splits
Feminist theorists have splintered from the main IR discipline—prevents meaningful
conversation and innovation in research
Kornprobst, Chair in International Relations at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna 09 (Markus, “International Relations as Rhetorical
Discipline: Toward (Re-)Newing Horizons”, International Studies Review 11, 2009, JSTOR)//AS
The field, however, does not meet these expectations. All
too often adherents to different perspectives make very
little effort to listen to what the other side has to say, or, even more common, refuse to talk to one another
altogether. The deepest and most consequential disagreements in the field are epistemological. Both the socalled ‘‘third debate’’ (Lapid 1989) between positivists and postpositivists and the ‘‘communicative stasis’’ (Lapid
2003:130) that has succeeded it, speak volumes about the divisiveness of assumptions on how to produce
knowledge. The ‘‘third debate,’’ or, by Waever’s count, the ‘‘fourth debate,’’ has been much more ‘‘war’’ than ‘‘debate’’ (Waever
1996:167). The current grand silence is testimony that, in the eyes of most scholars, the last grand debate was futilea nd that it is pointless to
communicate across the great divides in the field. As a result, scholars
have withdrawn into burgeoning subcommunities—with their own journals, workshops, conference sections, etc.—and International Relations has
become an ‘‘administrative holding company’’ (Herrmann 1998:605) instead of a lively community of
scholars. This is a deeply troubling development. Sub-communities eclipse the heterogeneity that is to be expected by any
scholarly community. Within them, communication is easy. But this ease comes at a great cost. Four
interrelated problems come immediately to mind: First, sheltered from different perspectives, communication within
sub-communities entrenches cherished assumptions. Communication in an open scholarly community, by contrast,
enables scholars to reflect upon, question, change and at times even revolutionize otherwise taken-for-granted (meta-)theoretical and
methodological assumptions. Second, sub-communities
stifle innovation because they impede fusions across
different perspectives. Communities allowing for the exchange across different perspectives, by contrast, allow for such fusions, which
are often the most important sources for (meta-)theoretical and methodological innovations. Scholarly ideas, after all, are hardly ever new. But
their linkages sometimes are. Third, communication
in sub-communities streamlines research questions. They
become repetitive and big questions remain bracketed. Communication in an open scholarly community, by contrast,
provides chances to uncover and rediscover previously neglected big questions for research. Finally, sub-communities become too
easily too comfortable with their research findings. Mechanisms for questioning findings, such as peer review, lose their
edge when they are in the hands of a sub-community. All too often, the reviewers come from the same camp as the author, which does not
make them very reliable jurors. Heterogeneous scholarly communities, by contrast, provide for much more demanding standards for evaluating
research findings.
Alt Fails: Latin America
Feminist movements in Latin America empirically fail—state too strong and women
remain devoted to traditional roles
Bruno, PhD Candidate at the University of Texas at Austin, 06 (Javier Pereira, “Third World Critiwues of Western Feminist Theory in the
Post-Development Era”, University of Texas at Austin, January 2006,
http://www.ucu.edu.uy/facultades/CienciasHumanas/IPES/pdf/Laboratorio/Critiques_to_Western_Feminism_JPereira.pdf)//AS
Some of the above mentioned considerations gain clarity and precision in the light of Molyneux's work about the relationship between
women's movements and the State in Latin American history. Drawing upon recent feminist historiography, Molyneux's analysis claim that
women's agency played a significant role in Latin America to obtain and advance women's right in the
domain of the state. The emphasis on the contribution of women's movement, however, needs to acknowledge the
favorable contexts and political alliances usually articulated around gains in women's status. Additionally,
the case of Latin America also reflects an equally important and passionate presence of anti feminist activism, though it has not received as
much scholar attention as the first one. (Molyneux, 2000) But
even accounting for all changes attained during the
twentieth century, Molyneux assesses these concessions as mere "piecemeal, usually minimal"• since
"the social organization of power, not only in the state but in much of civil society, retained a predominantlv
masculine character. " (Molyneux, 2000, p. 68). ln her perspective, no one state in Latin America was able to
achieved gender equality in the political sphere, being incapable to dismantle the masculine bias in
the organization of society. Though the author is not totally certain about the reasons for the relatively slow advance in women's
rights in Latin America, she provides some explanations that are particularly relevant for our comparative analysis with Western feminist
activism. Unlike feminist movements in the United States and Europe, women's
activism in Latin America never fully and
enthusiastically embraced "equality feminism"•. This may be the result of a strong identification of
women with their family responsibilities and motherhood as a still essential female role. However,
feminists efforts to reconcile motherhood requirements with women's rights and social justice in Latin
America, resulted - in Molyneux's analysis- in too much concession to masculine privilege. ln many of the case studies
discussed later in the book, governmental agencies tend to promote egalitarian approaches to gender relations, while also assuming the role of
protecting and defending "family values"•, reflecting some of the tensions and ambiguities present in the prevailing gender ideology.
AT: Inclusionary Alt
Inclusionary approaches fail – assumes a productive discourse
Robinson ’11 – Carleton University, Canada (Fiona, “Stop Talking and Listen: Discourse Ethics and Feminist Care
Ethics in International Political Theory,” Millennium – Journal of International Studies, March 2011,
http://mil.sagepub.com/content/39/3/845)//SS
If we start from a feminist ethics of care, the normative goal of achieving an ever more inclusive and
ultimately fully universal communication community is misplaced.¶This goal assumes that if all formal
barriers to inclusion were removed, the result would be a ‘universal dialogic community ’.8 This
approach to normative/criticalinternational political theory assumes three things. Firstly, that modes of
exclusion – experienced by, for example, minorities, women and migrants – are formal/legal in nature and that they can
be legislated away in order to eradicate dependence and achieve equality among all persons. Secondly, it assumes an
individualistic ontology whereby individuals are autonomous agents who are ‘free’ to participate in
open dialogue once these barriers are removed. Finally, it assumes that participants in the dialogue understand, and are
able to practise, what is required for effective communication; in particular, it assumes that participants know how to listen. Listening in this
sense means not just hearing the words that are spoken, but being attentive to and understanding the concerns, needs and aims of others in
the dialogue.¶I will argue, in contrast, that the feminist relational moral ontology specific to feminist care ethics – where our moral selves
emerge through our relations of responsibility and care for particular others – leads to a very different understanding of dialogue in
international ethics. From this perspective,
the idea of ethics as consisting of setting up procedures to be followed
so that individuals are equally free to express their moral claims is incoherent. Those ‘moral claims’
are constituted by our relations with others; thus, there can be neither procedures for ethical
deliberation nor needs and interests prior to, or in the absence of, moral relations. It is through immersion in
the day-to-day moral activities of these relations, moreover, that one learns how to act morally – how to listen, exercise patience, understand
and be attentive to needs, and consider and reconsider one’s moral decisions in the light of the needs and demands of others.
Alt can’t solve – sources of exclusion inevitable and ignores oppression
Robinson ’11 – Carleton University, Canada (Fiona, “Stop Talking and Listen: Discourse Ethics and Feminist Care
Ethics in International Political Theory,” Millennium – Journal of International Studies, March 2011,
http://mil.sagepub.com/content/39/3/845)//SS
On this view, focusing only on barriers to exclusion ignores other sources of oppression. As Tronto points out,
‘exclusion is not the only way to rig the outcome of a circle of responsibility. Another way is to absent oneself or one’s group from the “people”
whose roles are under discussion in the responsibility-setting game.’56 This point is of obvious relevance to the question of responsibility for
care work, as Tronto explains:¶Thus,
when it comes to dividing up the responsibilities for managing a household, the
‘pass’ from most
daily domestic duties because he has already brought home the money that organizes the household.
But it is important to see this mechanism both from a moral perspective (as a way to shirking responsibility by
claiming that one’s own responsibilities lie in some other circle of responsibility) and from a political perspective (as a kind of
traditional bread-winner model allows the head of the household (usually the husband in this traditional model) a
power by which one is able to force others to accept responsibilities – perhaps even too many responsibilities – without having actually to make
the case for one’s own exclusion from the discussion).57¶On
this view, dialogue remains ‘exclusionary’ despite the full
inclusion of all individuals and groups. If we see dialogue at all levels – from the household to the international community – as
primarily an exercise in ‘responsibility-setting’, we can quickly see how the outcomes of these dialogues can be affected in a number of
different ways. Even
in cases of ‘full inclusion’ in dialogue, questions regarding the issues under discussion,
the responsibilities to be distributed, and the question of eligibility for those responsibilities¶ are
often de facto sources of exclusion because they have already been ‘decided’ by the background
norms and assumptions which precede the dialogue. While the privatisation and feminisation of care is not the only
example of this, the relative lack of dialogue about care provision and care work in public spheres demonstrates the tenacity of these ‘informal’
sources of exclusion. This suggests that it is necessary to address, chal- lenge and possibly transform the norms and discourses that constitute,
for example, dominant or hegemonic forms of masculinity and femininity, before effective dialogue can take place. Ironically, dialogue may be
required to achieve this; but, in all cases, that dialogue must be supplemented by prior or concurrent attention to the structuring and
composition of institutions, and the ways in which gender essentialisms and the public– private dichotomy are constitutive elements of the
liberal social and political order.
Cedes the Political
Discursive focus only reproduces gendered paradigms and cedes the political.
Shepherd, Associate Professor of International Relations at the School of Social Sciences and
International Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW, 2009 (Laura J., “Gender, Violence and
Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies,” Political Studies Review, 2009 vol. 7,
pages 208-209)//CS
Enloe’s analytical remit is similarly wide-ranging to Roberts’, in that she focuses on processes –
globalisation and militarism – that are inherently violent. However, although Enloe also insists that all
violences should count in the study of global politics, she grounds this claim in an analysis of specific
sites of violence and demonstrates with startling clarity just how everyday items – for example, sneakers
– are both globalised and militarised: Threaded through virtually every sneaker you own is some
relationship to masculinized militaries. Locating factories in South Korea [in the 1960s and 1970s] was a
good strategic decision in the eyes of those Oregon-headquartered male Nike executives because of the
close alliance between male policymakers in Washington and Seoul. It was a relationship – unequal but
intimate – based on their shared anticommunism, their shared commitment to waging the ColdWar, and
their shared participation in an ambitious international military alliance (Enloe, 2007, p. 28). 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.
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.
No Root Cause: General
No root cause – their kritik is a reductionist attempt at describing a complex
system
Kavalski 7 – doctoral training in international politics at Loughborough University (UK), held the Andrew Mellon Fellowship
position at the American Institute for Indian Studies (New Delhi, India), the Killam Postdoctoral position at the Department of
Political Science, University of Alberta (Canada), and research positions at Aalborg University (Denmark) and at the Institute for the
International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict, Ruhr Universität-Bochum (Germany). (Emilian,“The fifth debate and the emergence
of complex
international relations theory: notes on the application
of complexity theory to the study of international life,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, September 2007, EBSCO)//js
These instances draw attention to the issue of causality in complex systems. Owing to the
unpredictability of interactions, it is impossible to discern ‘the causal arrows, precisely because in
feedback loops causal arrows are directionless or circular’ (Hoffman and Riley 2002, 311). In this respect,
complex systems indicate sensitivity to alterations in initial conditions and random events.
Thus, actions have indirect and complicated effects and outcomes may not correspond with the
intentions of any of the actors. Interactions are more likely than not to call up unintended consequences that can defeat
purposive behaviour, because, in a system, the fates of the units and their relations with others are strongly
influenced by interactions at other places and at earlier periods of time ... [and] it is hard to treat
issues separately: disputes that would be small if they could be isolated are highly consequential
because the world is tightly interconnected. (Jervis 1997, 17–24) It is this density of self-organization
that makes complex systems—like the pattern of international politics—hard to understand (Snyder and
Jervis 1993, 5). The following sections address the frameworks for understanding and explanation implied in the use of CT to the
study of international life and the ways in which it constitutes a complex system.
Their attempts to identify a root cause is a result of flawed epistemology
Kavalski 7 – doctoral training in international politics at Loughborough University (UK), held the Andrew Mellon Fellowship
position at the American Institute for Indian Studies (New Delhi, India), the Killam Postdoctoral position at the Department of
Political Science, University of Alberta (Canada), and research positions at Aalborg University (Denmark) and at the Institute for the
International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict, Ruhr Universität-Bochum (Germany). (Emilian,“The fifth debate and the emergence
of complex
international relations theory: notes on the application
of complexity theory to the study of international life,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, September 2007, EBSCO)//js
In this respect, although
most IR scholars would agree that the world of their investigations is
complex, they would still insist that the proper way for acquiring knowledge about it is through the
modelling of linear relationships with homogeneous independent variables that distinguish between discrete
stochastic and systemic effects (Hoffmann and Riley 2002, 308; Johnston 2005). Such ontological commitment bears the
stamp of Hans Morgenthau’s insistence on ‘the science of international politics’ (Gaddis 1992/1993, 7), which has led
conventional IR into a ‘misleading’ measuring of the effects an ‘independent variable’ has on the
‘dependent variable’ (Hoffman and Riley 2002, 311). The shadow of such intellectual reductionism in the
tradition of IR has driven it into the rut of hylomorphism—‘the doctrine that production is the
imposition of formal order on chaotic or passive matter’ (Parfitt 2006, 421). This attitude of traditional IR has
led it to adopt a mindset of continuities that makes it difficult to address randomness and has convinced a number of its
representatives of the utility of ignoring the complexity of interactions (Richards 2000, 3). The ambition of traditional
to control reality epitomizes its ‘closure of political thought, by reliance upon a technologized
instrumentalization of it as representative-calculative thought’; whereas the endeavour of complexity
IR
research to account for articulations between the disciplinary fields concerns itself with the ‘philosophy of the limit’, which concerns
itself with the operation of boundary—that is, the making of the human thought through the advent of boundary by thinking ‘the
very “inter” of the interval of being and not-being’ (Dillon 1996, 4). In this respect, the insistence of CIR theory that complex systems
such as international politics are self-organizing allows it to account for endogeneity (whose random feedback loops pose a serious
challenge to traditional IR approaches) and treat it as a normal ingredient of international life (Hoffmann and Riley 2002, 311). This
inclusive ontological purview presents a number of analytical challenges, which have led CIR proponents to adopt distinct
methodological responses. Epistemologically, all of them seem united in their rejection of conventional IR methodology. For
instance, Jack Snyder insists that the worldviews promoted by IR orthodoxies obfuscate the understanding of complexity (Snyder
and Jervis 1993, 18). Thus, what are assumed to be ‘commonsense methods’ are deemed fallacious (Jervis
1997, 79). At the same time, many proponents of CIR theory acknowledge that studying the complexity of international life rests on
‘intuitive judgment or “gut feel”’ (Bradfield 2004, 35; Cederman 1997, 10). Thus, Harlan Wilson asserts that the ‘analytical
complexity’ of studying the complexity of international life should reflect the interdependence of
conceptual factors, variables and components, that relate in systemic ways (in LaPorte 1975, 282).
Patriarchy’s not the root cause
Bell, 6 - senior lecturer – Department of Politics and International Studies @ Cambridge
University
(Duncan, “Beware of false prophets: biology, human nature and the future of International
Relations theory,” International Affairs 82, 3 p. 493–510)//SMS
Writing in Foreign Affairs in 1998, Francis Fukuyama, tireless promulgator of the ‘end of history’ and now a member of the
President’s Council on Bioethics, employed EP reasoning to argue for the central role in world politics of ‘masculine values’, which
are ‘rooted in biology’. His argument starts with the claim that male and female chimps display asymmetric behaviour, with the
males far more prone to violence and domination. ‘Female chimps have relationships; male chimps practice realpolitik.’ Moreover,
the ‘line from chimp to modern man is continuous’ and this has significant consequences for international politics.46 He argues that
the world can be divided into two spheres, an increasingly peaceful and cooperative ‘feminized’ zone, centered on the advanced
democracies, and the brutal world outside this insulated space, where the stark realities of power politics remain largely masculine.
This bifurcation heralds dangers, as ‘masculine policies’ are essential in dealing with a masculine world: ‘In anything but a totally
feminized world, feminized policies could be a liability.’ Fukuyama concludes the essay with the assertion that the form
of politics best suited to human nature is—surprise, surprise—free-market capitalist democracy, and that other
political forms, especially those promoted by feminists and socialists, do not correspond with our biological
inheritance.47 Once again the authority of science is invoked in order to naturalize a particular political objective. This is a pattern
that has been repeated across the history of modern biology and remains potent to this day.48 It is worth noting in brief that
Fukuyama’s argument is badly flawed even in its own terms. As anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson
states, Fukuyama’s claims about the animal world display ‘a breathtaking leap over a mountain
of contrary evidence’.49 Furthermore, Joshua Goldstein concludes in the most detailed analysis of the
data on war and gender that although biological differences do play a minor role, focusing so
heavily on them is profoundly misleading.50 The simplistic claims, crude stereotyping and
casual use of evidence that characterize Fukuyama’s essay unfortunately recur throughout the
growing literature on the biology of international politics.
No Root Cause: War
Masculinity is not the root cause of war
Ehrenreich 99 – Ph.D Cellular Immunology @ Rockefeller University, author of 21 books,
political activist (Barbara, “Fukuyama’s Follies” [“Men Hate War Too”], 1999, Foreign Affairs
Volume 78, No. 1, January/February, http://www.metu.edu.tr/~utuba/Ehrenreich%20etal.pdf,
Spector)
If Fukuyama had read just a bit further in the anthropology of war, even in the works of some scholars he cites approvingly, he would
there is little basis for locating the wellspring of war in aggressive
male instincts—or in any instincts, for that matter. Wars are not barroom brawls writ large, but, as social
theorist Robin Fox puts it, "complicated, orchestrated, highly organized" collective undertakings that
cannot be explained by any individual impulse. No plausible instinct would impel a man to leave
his home, cut his hair short, and drill for hours under the hot sun. As anthropologists Clifton B. Kroeber
and Bernard L. Fontana have pointed out, "It is a large step from what may be biologically innate leanings
toward individual aggression to ritualized, socially sanctioned, institutionalized group warfare."
Or as a 1989 conference on the anthropology of war concluded, "The hypothesis of a killer instinct is.. . not so much
irrelevant as wrong." In fact, the male appetite for battle has always been far less voracious than
either biologically inclined theorists of war or army commanders might like. In traditional
societies, warriors often had to be taunted, intoxicated, or ritually "transformed" into animal
form before battle.zs Throughout Western history, individual men have gone to near*suicidal lengths to
avoid participating in wars— cutting off limbs or fingers or risking execution by deserting. Prior to
the advent of the nationalist armies of the nineteenth century, desertion rates in European armies were so high
that, according to historian Geoffrey Parker, “at certain times, almost an entire army would vanish into
thin air.” SO unreliable was the rank and file of the famed eighteenth-century Prussian army that military manuals forbade
camping near wooded areas. Even in the supposedly highly motivated armies of the twentieth-century democracies, few men
can bring themselves to shoot directly at individual enemies—a fact, as Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman
have discovered that
writes in On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, that has posed a persistent challenge to the
Pentagon.
Serious problems with feminist studies of violence—individual variance, not
patriarchy, is the root cause
Dutton, Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia, 94 (Donald G., “Patriarchy and Wife Assault: the Ecological Fallacy”,
Violence and Victims 9:2, 1994, http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DUTTON.-1994.-PATRIARCHY-AND-WIFE-ASSAULTTHE-ECOLOGICAL-FALLACY..pdf)//AS
A final problem is that structural inequality and patriarchal norms were not associated in this study. ln
fact. the reported correlation was "near zero"• (op. cit p. 395). This result is problematic for feminist analysis
because patriarchal structure is frequently implicated as a cause of assaultiveness, yet still must
operate through the ideology of individual men. The "slippage"• between structural patriarchy and individual male ideology
is an example of the ecological fallacy (Dooley & Catalano, 1984) described above. Broad macrosystem features cannot
strongly predict the thoughts or actions of individuals "nested"• under the system. Moderating variables from the
exosystem, from the microsystem, and from the indi- vidua1s'own developmental history are necessary to complete the predictive picture.
With the Yllo and Straus (1990) study, a safer conclusion is tint societal power imbalances are associated with more violence against women.
The mechanism whereby that violence is generated is unknown. Smith (1990) also conducted a test of patriarchy by asking 604 Toronto women
to guess their male partner's response to a series of questions about "patriarchal beliefs" and then correlating these responses with
socioeconomic factors and, finally, with that woman's responses to the CIS measure of wife assault. Through this method, Smith argued that he
was assessing "patriarchal ideology"• and that this measure, in combination with sociode- mographic factors, could predict wife assault.
However, the responses that these women supplied for their male partners described a very nonpatriarchal group of males, with the majority
disagreeing with the patriarchal statements of the measure in all cases except one, that "sometimes it’s important for a man to show his
partner that he's the head of the house." One
conclusion that could be drawn from these attitudinal data (as with Yllo
the patriarchal structure of North American society has a weak effect on the
"patriarchal ideology" of most men. Smith does not draw this conclusion. As Smith puts it, "When all the socioeconomic risk
& Straus's data) is that
markers and indexes of patriarchal ide- ology were combined in a single model assessing the extent to which these variables pre- dicted wife
beating, the combination of husband's educational attainment, patriarchal beliefs and patriarchal attitudes parsimoniously explained 20% of
the variance in wife beating" (p. 268). It seems to me that such a conclusion clearly accentuates the paradigmatic aspect of cur- rent family
violence research. A
predictive study using women's CTS self-reports on hus band violence by Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, and
Bartholomew (1994) found that a brief (16-item) assessment of the husbands' anger and identity problems also
explained 20% of wife assault (and 50% of domination) reported by one sample of battered wives. In other words,
some brief measures of psychological factors have as much or greater predictive weight than the
attitudinal and sociodemographic assessments of "patriarchal ideology"• reported by Smith (1990).
Accusations of root cause are methodologically flawed—violence is not solely
sociopolitical
Dutton, Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia, 94 (Donald G., “Patriarchy and Wife Assault: the Ecological Fallacy”,
Violence and Victims 9:2, 1994, http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DUTTON.-1994.-PATRIARCHY-AND-WIFE-ASSAULTTHE-ECOLOGICAL-FALLACY..pdf)//AS
Another tenet of feminist thought is that male violence is part of a wider repertoire of con- trol tactics
men use to dominate women. In the literature on "feminist therapy" (Adams, 1988), emphasis is placed on "male control and
domination." However, in one of the few studies to examine controlling behaviors and psychological abuse, Kasian and Painter
(1992) found that females were more jealous, more verbally abusive, and more controlling than males in a sample of 1,625 dating
undergraduates! Use
of controlling behaviors and ver- bal abuse appears to be bi-directional in intimate
relationships. If controlling behaviors are bi-directional and feminist therapy seeks to reduce control tactics in men who already feel
powerless in intimate relationships, a positive therapeutic outcome is contraindicated. Feminist definitions of power and status
can be an impediment to understanding male assaultiveness because these definitions are based
upon and often restricted to the sociopo litical. Feminist analysts are acutely aware of the
sociopolitical powerlessness of women and have taken important steps to initiate a remedy.
However, what defines powerlessness for a politicized woman and what defines it for a nonpoliticized
man are not the same. For a man, sociopolitical comparisons with women or with a woman are irrelevant. What is experienced,
especially in intimate relationships, is the power advantage women appear to have in their ability to introspect, analyze, and describe feelings
and process. Transference from early relationships in which a female (mother) had apparently unlimited power still affects male assessments of
power in adult relationships (Dutton & Ryan, 1992). Hence, assaultive males
report feeling powerless in respect to their
intimate partners (Dutton & Strachan, 1987). One is reminded of Eric Fromm's definition of sadism as the conversion of feelings of
impotence to feelings of omnipotence. Although batterers may appear powerful in terms of their physical or
sociopolitical resources, they are distinctly impotent in terms of their psychic and emotional
resources, even to the point of depending on their female partner to maintain their sense of identity (Dutton, 1994).5 1 do not
suggest by this that we should excuse or exonerate batterers. However, to view men's violence simply
as a defense of sociopolitical power is erroneous. Only a minority of batterers are misogynisitic (Dutton & Browning, 1986),
and few are violent to nonintimate women; a much larger group experiences extreme anger about intimacy. If there is a politic at
work, it exists primarily in the microsystem of the dyad.
Feminism Can’t Solve War
Feminism will not create global peace – women commit numerous violent
atrocities
Pollitt 99 – B.A. Philosophy @ Radcliffe College, M.F.A Writing @ Columbia University,
former columnist @ The New Yorker, NYT, The New Republic, former lecturer @ Harvard, Yale,
and Princeton (Katha, “Fukuyama’s Follies” [“Father Knows Best”], 1999, Foreign Affairs
Volume 78, No. 1, January/February, http://www.metu.edu.tr/~utuba/Ehrenreich%20etal.pdf,
Spector)
He argues that men are more violent than women. Someday he may provide actual evidence that this is a biological rather social
But even if women are innately less violent, they are plenty violent enough to call
into question Fukuyama’s claim that more female political power would mean more peace.
Women commit infanticide, abuse and kill children, mutilate the genitals of little girls, and
cruelly tyrannize daughters, daughter-in-law, servants, and slaves. They have also been known
to encourage and defend male violence—egging on personal, family, or gang vendettas, blaming
victims of rape and wife-beating, and so on. Historically, cultures organized around war and
displays of cruelty have had women’s full cooperation: Spartan and Roman women were famed
for their “manly” valor. Did Viking women stand on Scandinavian beaches begging their
husbands not to pillage France? Did premodern European women shun public executions and
witch burnings? As these examples suggest, even defining violence raises questions: The same act
tendency.
can be regarded as wrong, psychopathic, glorious, or routine, depending on its social context.
Women are empirically responsible for mass violence
Ehrenreich 99 – Ph.D Cellular Immunology @ Rockefeller University, author of 21 books,
political activist (Barbara, “Fukuyama’s Follies” [“Men Hate War Too”], 1999, Foreign Affairs,
Volume 78, No.1, January/February, http://www.metu.edu.tr/~utuba/Ehrenreich%20etal.pdf,
Spector)
Whatever our genetic and prehistoric cultural legacies, women in the past two centuries have more
than adequately demonstrated a capacity for collective violence. They have played a
leading role in nonmilitary violence such as eighteenth- and nineteenth-century bread riots and
revolutionary uprisings, in which they were often reputed to be "foremost in violence and
ferocity." In World War II, the Soviet military deployed them as fighter pilots and in ground
combat. Since then, women have served as terrorists and guerrilla fighters in wars of national
liberation. More to the point, women have proved themselves no less susceptible than men to
the passions of militaristic nationalism: witness feminist leader Sylvia Pankhurst, who set aside the struggle for
suffrage to mobilize English support for World War I by, for example, publicly shaming men into enlisting. Fukuyama concedes that,
among heads of government, Margaret Thatcher is an exception to his gender dichotomy but ignores the many exceptions on the
male side of the ledger—such as the antimihtaristic, social-democratic Olaf Palme and Willy Brandt. Nor does he mention the gender
of the greatest pacifist leaders of the twentieth century, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mohandas K. Gandhi.
Turn – Causes Violence
Feminist control triggers violent male retaliation
Tiger 99 – Professor of Anthropology @ Rutgers University, Ph.D @ U of London
(Lionel,“Fukuyama’s Follies” [“Prehistory Returns”], 1999, Foreign Affairs Volume 78, No. 1,
January/February, http://www.metu.edu.tr/~utuba/Ehrenreich%20etal.pdf, Spector)
It is possible, even if unlikely, that one response to greater female influence will be greater
male belligerence and even violence against them. At the same time that the Taliban restricts
women from kindergarten, radical activists restrict women from abortion in the United States. In
the contemporary world, there is nowhere for women and children to go. We receive daily bulletins
about the bewilderingly lethal intransigence of male leaders committed to some program of
desperate importance to them. The struggle for social control may be one that women choose not
to take up.
Turn – Alt Turns Itself
The alt turns itself – it advocates the view of all women that it does not represent – this replicates
patriarchy
Harding 86 – Professor Social Sciences, Comparative Education, and Gender Studies @ UCLA, Ph.D
Philosophy @ NYU, (Sandra, “The Instability of the Analytical Categories of Feminist Theory”, JSTOR,
Published by The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 11, No. 4, Summer, 1986, pages 645-646, RSpec)
Furthermore, once we understand the destructively mythical character of the essential and universal “man”
which was the subject and paradigmatic object of non-feminist theories, so too do we begin to doubt
the usefulness of analysis that has essential, universal woman as its subject or object—as its thinker or
the object of its thought. We have come to understand that whatever we have found useful form the perspective
of the social experience of the Western, bourgeois, heterosexual, white women is especially suspect
when we begin our analyses with the social experiences of any other women. The patriarchal theories
we try to extend and reinterpret were created to explain not men’s experience but only the experience of those men
who are Western, bourgeois, white and heterosexual. Feminist theorists also come primarily from
these categories —not through conspiracy but through the historically common pattern that it is people in these
categories who have had the time and resources to theorize, and who—among women—can be heard at all. In trying
to develop theories that provide the one true (feminist) story of humane experience, feminism risks replicating in theory
and public policy the tendency in the patriarchal theories to police thought by assuming that only the
problems of some women are human problems and that solutions for them are the only reasonable
ones. Feminism has played an important role in showing that there are not now and never have been
any generic “men” at all—only gendered men and women. Once essential and universal man dissolves, so does his hidden
companion, women. We have, instead, myriads of women living in elaborate historical complexes of class,
race, and culture.
Turn – Theorizing Is Patriarchal
The theory of the kritik itself is patriarchal – turns the kritik
Harding 86 – Professor Social Sciences, Comparative Education, and Gender Studies @ UCLA, Ph.D
Philosophy @ NYU, (Sandra, “The Instability of the Analytical Categories of Feminist Theory”, JSTOR,
Published by The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 11, No. 4, Summer, 1986, pages 647-648, RSpec)
However, we sometimes claim that theorizing itself is suspiciously patriarchal, for it assumes separations between
the knower and the known, subject and object, and the possibility of some powerful transcendental,
Archimedean standpoint from which nature and social life fall into what we think is their proper
perspective. We fear replicating-to the detriment of women whose experiences have not yet been fully
voiced within feminist theory-what we perceive as a patriarchal association between knowledge and
power.2 Our ability to detect androcentrism in traditional analyses has escalated from finding it in the content of knowledge
claims to locating it in the forms and goals of traditional knowledge seeking. The voice making this proposal is
itself super-Archimedean, speaking from some "higher" plane, such that Archimedes' followers in contemporary
intellectual life are heard as simply part of the inevitable flux and imperfectly understood flow of human history. (And this is true even when
the voice marks its own historical particularity, its femininity.) When it is unreflective, this kind of postmodernism-a kind of absolute relativismitself takes a definitive stand from yet further outside the political and intellectual needs that guide our day-to-day thinking and social practices.
In reaction we wonder how we can not want to say the way things really are to "our rulers" as well as to ourselves, in order to voice opposition
to the silences and lies emanating from the patriarchal discourses and our own partially brain- washed consciousnesses. On the other hand,
there is good reason to agree with a feminist postmodernist suspicion of the relationship between
accepted definitions of "reality" and socially legitimated power.
Realism
Prefer the aff’s realism – it’s the prerequisite to human behavior.
Thayer, Ph.D., a political scientist, is a tenured professor and Head of the Department of Political
Science at. Utah State University, 2004 (Bradley A., Darwin and International Relations: On the
Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict, pages 10-12)//CS
Bringing Darwin into the study of international relations means examining its major questions and
issues through the lens of evolutionary biology Of course, scholars of international relations have
imported ideas from other disciplines before. They have used both psychological theories and formal
modeling largely borrowed from economics to advance our understanding of important issues in the
discipline. The application of evolutionary biology may generate equally important insights." The central
question of this book is to show how evolutionary biology and, particularly evolutionary theory can
contribute to some of the major theories and issues of international relations. While the discipline of
international relations has existed for many years without evolutionary biology, the latter should be
incorporated into the discipline because it improves the understanding of warfare, ethnic conflict,
decision making, and other issues. Evolution explains how humans evolved during the late-Pliocene,
Pleistocene, and Holocene epochs, and how human evolution affects human behavior today All
students of human behavior mustac knowledge that our species has spent over 99 percent of its
evolutionary history largely as hunter-gatherers in those epochs. Darwin's natural selection argument
(and its modifications) coupled with those conditions means that humans evolved behaviors well
adapted to radically different evolutionary conditions than many humans for example, those living in
industrial democracies face today. We must keep in mind that the period most social scientists think of
as human history or civilization, perhaps the last three thousand years, represents only the blink of an
eye in human evolution. As evolutionary biologist Paul Ehrlich argues, evolution should be measured in
terms of "generation time," rather than "clock time."" Looking at human history in this way hunting and
gathering was the basic hominid way of life for about 250,000 generations, agriculture has been in
practice for about 400 generations, and modern industrial societies have only existed for about 8
generations. Thus Ehrlich Ends it reasonable to assume "that to whatever degree humanity has been
shaped by genetic evolution, it has largely been to adapt to hunting and gathering-to the lifestyles of our
pre-agricultural ancestors. Thus, to understand completely much of human behavior we must first
comprehend how evolution affected humans in the past and continues to affect them in the present.
The conditions of 250,000 generations do have an impact on the last. Unfortunately; social scientists,
rarely recognizing this relationship, have explained human behavior with a limited repertoire of
arguments. ln this book I seek to expand the repertoire. My central argument is that evolutionary biology
contributes significantly to theories used in international relations and to the causes of war and ethnic
conflict."•The benefits of such interdisciplinary scholarship are great, but to gain them requires a precise
and ordered discussion of evolutionary theory an explanation of when it is appropriate to apply
evolutionary theory to issues and events studied by social scientists, as well as an analysis of the majorand misplaced-critiques of evolutionary theory I discuss these issues in chapter. In chapter 2,1 explain
how evolutionary theory contributes to the realist theory of international relations and to rational
choice analysis. First, realism, like the Darwinian view of the natural world, submits that international
relations is a competitive and dangerous realm, where statesmen must strive to protect the interests
of their state through an almost constant appraisal of their state's power relative to others. In sum,
they must behave egoistically, putting the interests of their state before the interests of others or
international society. Traditional realist arguments rest principally on one of two discrete ultimate
causes, or intellectual foundations of the theory." The first is Reinhold Niebuhr's argument that humans
are evil. The second, anchored in the thought of Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau, is that humans
possess an innate animus dominant-a drive to dominate. From these foundations, Niebuhr and
Morgenthau argue that what is true for the individual is also true of the state: because individuals are
evil or possess a drive to dominate, so too do states because their leaders are individuals who have
these motivations. I argue that realists have a much stronger foundation for the realist argument than
that used by either Morgenthau or Niebuhr. My intent is to present an alternative ultimate cause of
classical realism: evolutionary theory The use of evolutionary theory allows realism to be scientifically
grounded for the first time, because evolution explains egoism. Thus a scientific explanation provides a
better foundation for their arguments than either theology or meta-physics. Moreover, evolutionary
theory can anchor the branch of realism termed offensive realism and advanced most forcefully by John
Mearshcimer. He argues that the anarchy of the international system, the fact that there is no world
government, forces leaders of states to strive to maximize their relative power in order to be secure."• I
argue that theorists of international relations must recognize that human evolution occurred in an
anarchic environment and that this explains why leaders act as offensive realism predicts. Humans
evolved in anarchic conditions, and the implications of this are profound for theories of human behavior.
It is also important to note at this point that my argument does not depend upon "anarchy"• as it is
traditionally used in the discipline-as the ordering principle of the post-1648 Westphalian state system.
When human evolution is used to ground offensive realism, it immediately becomes a more powerful
theory than is currently recognized. lt explains more than just state behavior; it begins to explain
human behavior. lt applies equally to non-state actors, be they individuals, tribes, or organizations.
More over, it explains this behavior before the creation of the modern state system. Offensive realists
do not need an anarchic state system to advance their argument. They only need humans. Thus, their
argument applies equally well before or after 1648, whenever humans form groups, be they tribes in
Papua New Guinea, conflicting city-states in ancient Greece, organizations like the Catholic Church, or
contemporary states in international relations.
Case Solves
Economic engagement solves hegemonic masculinity
Torres et al. 12 (*Virgilio Mariano Salazar Torres, Ph.D, MSc, MD, post-doctoral fellow @
Umea University, Public Health and Clinical Medicine, researches masculinity in Nicaragua,
*Isabel Goicolea, Researcher @ Umea University, Public Health and Clinical Medicine, *Kerstin
Edin, Researcher @ Umea University Public Health and Clinical Medicine, MPH, Ph.D,
researches gender, *Ann Ohman, Professor @ Umea University in Public Health Sciences,
special reference to gender research, 2012, “‘Expanding your mind’: the process of constructing
gender-equitable masculinities in young Nicaraguan men participating in reproductive health or
gender training programs”,
http://www.globalhealthaction.net/index.php/gha/article/view/17262/html, RSpec)
In Latin America, machismo has historically been viewed as a set of hegemonic masculinities that legitimizes
patriarchy in this setting (16, 17). Rather than a single set of defined behaviors, several authors (17–20) have proposed that
machismo can be expressed differently in different men, with their behavior oscillating within a continuum of positive and negative
characteristics. In a quantitative study of Latino men living in the United States, five different types
of machismo were identified: contemporary masculinity, machismo, traditional machismo, compassionate machismo,
and contemporary machismo (18). These types differed in key characteristics such as whether or not they were authoritarian, the
degree of demands regarding women's obedience, different levels of competitiveness, and, most important, different degrees of
flexibility regarding traditional gender relations. In a review of studies exploring masculinities in Latin
America, Gutmann (21) also highlights the multiplicity of masculinities in this region. This
diversity has been documented in Mexico by Ramirez Rodriguez (22), who found that young
men's attitudes toward gender relations can range from conservative to ambiguous to flexible.
Gutmann (21) proposes that Latin American masculinities have been in a process of
change, suggesting that these transitions have been influenced by global economic
changes that have led to increasing modernization and urbanization, new job
markets for women, and a growing feminist activism in the region. These changing patterns of
masculinity may also have been influenced by ongoing interventions in a number of Latin
American countries, such as Program H in Brazil, which have been actively promoting more gender-equitable forms of
masculinities (23–26).
Alt Links to the K
Turn – lacking a pragmatic alt not only takes out solvency, but also links back to
the kritik
Spegele 02 - obtained his MA and PhD from the University of Chicago, and has published several articles in international
theory. (Roger D., “Emancipatory International Relations: Good News, Bad News or No News at All?”, International Relations,
12/1/02, http://ire.sagepub.com/content/16/3/381)//js
Another feature of an emancipatory conception of international relations is that any theory under
this rubric has to have a certain relation to practice (i.e. a relationship in which the theory has to
give some indication of how the radical change required by the critique is to be achieved). If
emancipatory international theory is to go beyond merely endorsing progress and
recommending reforms – which it must do if it is to make good on its claim to embody a distinctively radical understanding
of international relations – it will have to showhow the theory it proposes provides a basis for thinking that radical
change is not just notionally possible but actually possible; that there is not simply an adventitious relationship
between accepting the theory and something’s happening which would help make the theory come out true. If it fails to
provide such a basis, the theory would be in grave danger of slipping into the very positivism it
roundly rejects(i.e. into the idea that we study international relations to gain scientific
understanding, and doing so is logically unrelated to change). Retreating to a voluntaristic view of change, to
some vague, speculative hope for the future, would so weaken its internal coherence that emancipatory international relations would
be hard pressed to sustain its liberationist modality or provide a basis for radically opposing the status quo. An emancipatory
theory in this sense must show how the theory becomes accessible to the subjects so that they
will be motivated, or perhaps self-compelled, to change the structures and conditions which serve as
obstacles to political transformation. On this view, atheory must not only describe the world but
indicate how it can (or will) be changed for the better. It is along this dimension, in particular, that there are to
be found large differences in emancipatory theories in international relations. Certain theoretical structures will relate theory to
practice only in an oblique or marginal way (e.g. postmodernist theories and postmodernist feminist theories), whereas others will
relate theory to practice in a robust way (e.g. Kantian Cosmopolitan Theory and Critical International Theory). Nonetheless, all
emancipatory theories will have understandings, however attenuated, of how theory and
practice are bound up with from one another in such a way that if the theory is true, correct or
warrantedlyassertible, the current practices in international relations will (or will probably) radically
change for the better. Thus, if the theory is Kantian, the connection between theory and practice will be such that if the
theory is true, then it will yield access to the motivations of the agents and agencies which the theory addresses in such a way that
the agents and agencies will be inclined to change their present policies. For example, Onora O’Neill’s theory of obligation claims to
be accessible to agents and agencies in this sense.27 On the other hand, if the theorist is a postmodernist feminist,
theory’s task might be construed, for example, as moving men and women from their present
power struggles via ‘empathetic concern’ to a world in which relations between men and women
will be thoroughly new.
SQ Solves
The status quo solves the kritik.
Cole and Phillips, Professor of Anthropology at Concordia University and Professor at Amherst
University, 2008 (Sally and Lynne, “The Violence Against Women Campaigns in Latin America: New
Feminist Alliances,” Feminist Criminology 2008 3: 145, pages 150-151, April 8, 2008)//SB
The widely held position throughout Latin America is that the MillenniumDevelopment Goals should in
no way diminish the international agreements made inBeijing and through the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of DiscriminationAgainst Women, where language about the importance of
eliminating violenceagainst women is made clear (see Lara, 2006). Recognition of the centrality of
violence against women to MDG 3 has also been introduced through the reports coming from the
Millennium Project, which was launched as a 3-year project to identify the best strategies for meeting
the Millennium Development Goals with the help of 10 task forces, one of which was the Task Force
on Education and Gender Equality. This task force not only recommended adding two additional targets
for MDG 3 butsuggested three additional indicators for assessing whether the targets were beingmet,
one of which is the prevalence of domestic violence (see United NationsDevelopment Fund for Women,
2002, p. 52). At the 2005 World Summit, which tookstock of the progress toward the Millennium
Development Goals, it was noted that“Heads of State and Government identified violence against
women as one key factorthat has to be addressed in order to achieve gender equality and achieve the
MillenniumDevelopment Goals” (Heyzer, 2006).International and national organizations and
movements pressured the UnitedNations regarding the silence and lack of progress on violence against
women. In 1993 the UN General Assembly had passed a Declaration on the Elimination of Violence
against Women (A/res/48/104) and in 1999 had declared November 25 as the International Day for
the Elimination of Violence Against Women. After itsDeclaration on the Millennium Development
Goals, the Assembly began addressingthe question of violence against women on an annual basis (see
United Nations,2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). In 2004 it adopted a specific resolution on the elimination of
domestic violence against women and in early 2007 it accepted a strongly worded and comprehensive
resolution to intensify efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, broadening the
discussion to include “all forms of gender-based violence”(A/res/61/143). To quote:[The General
Assembly] Strongly condemns all acts of violence against women andgirls, whether these acts are
perpetrated by the State, by private persons or by non-Stateactors, calls for the elimination of all forms
of gender-based violence in the family,within the general community and where perpetrated or
condoned by the State, andstresses the need to treat all forms of violence against women and girls as a
criminaloffence, punishable by law. (United Nations, 2007, p. 3)The 2007 resolution, based on an
extensive report written by then–UN Secretary-General Koffi Annan (2006), recognizes the importance
of diverse strategies to combatviolence against women, given the intersection of gender with other
factors, andit acknowledges the great diversity in women’s unequal status based onnationality,
ethnicity, religion or language, indigenous women, migrant women, statelesswomen, women living in
underdeveloped, rural or remote communities, homelesswomen, women in institutions or in detention,
women with disabilities, elderly women,widows and women who are otherwise discriminated against.
(Annan, 2006, p. 4)The resolution points to the need for the creation of training programs aboutgenderbased violence for a wide range of social groups, including health workers,teachers, the police, the
military, judges, and community leaders. It also encouragesmen and boys “to speak out strongly against
violence against women.” It specificallynotes the importance of integrating efforts to eliminate genderbased violence innational action and development plans, “including those supported by
internationalcooperation” (Annan, 2006, p. 3), which would include the Millennium DevelopmentGoals,
though they are not specifically mentioned.The UN’s 2007 resolution followed on the heels of an
international campaign, the16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence.7 The campaign in 2006 had
specificallymobilized organizations around the world to answer Koffi Annan’s call forresponse on issues
related to gender-based violence. The range and number of actions organized throughout Latin
America during the 2006 16 Days of Activism Campaign (United Nations Development Fund for
Women, 2006) is an example of the skillful way women’s movements in the region choose to engage
with the international level to press for change at times when it may have particular resonance. For its
part, although the UN was responsible for promoting public awareness in many countries around the
world, it still had to be prodded to take more serious action against violenceagainst women as an
integral aspect of its own declarations on gender equalityand human rights.
The kritik is useless – successful Latin American feminist movements exist in the status
quo.
Cole and Phillips, Professor of Anthropology at Concordia University and Professor at Amherst
University, 2008 (Sally and Lynne, “The Violence Against Women Campaigns in Latin America: New
Feminist Alliances,” Feminist Criminology 2008 3: 145, pages 150-151, April 8, 2008)//SB
The mobilization of Latin American feminists working for gender equality through economic
transformation has a long history prior to the founding of REMTE in 1997.Discussions had been taking
place at the Feminist Encuentros since 1981 In the1990s, Flora Tristan, a women’s group in Peru
working on small-scale incomegeneratingprojects, had begun to work with the idea of
economiasolidária (thesolidarity economy) as both an anticapitalist critique and a project of building
analternative economy. Informal discussions of what was then called “populareconomy” had taken
place among Latin American feminists at the parallel alternativeNGO conference that had occurred
alongside the United Nations Conference inBeijing in 1995. These discussions were continued at a
workshop “The Globalizationof Neoliberalism and Economic Justice for Women” at the 7th Feminist
Encuentro inChile in 1996. A year later in Lima, a seminar-workshop was organized to discuss theimpact
of structural adjustment programs on women. At the end of this meeting,REMTE—the Network of
Women Transforming the Economy—was formallyfounded. The founding members were women’s
organizations in Chile, Colombia,Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru. By 2007, the Network comprised feminist
organizationsin 11 Latin American countries including REMTE-Ecuador and REF, theFeminism and
Economy Network, in Brazil. It is a transnational network that hasbuilt on and reinforces previously
existing women’s networks and organizations atnational and grassroots levels. REMTE works to make
visible the links between themacroeconomy and women’s lives and is especially concerned to develop
criticalanalysis and popular education around the impact of free trade on women (Diaz,2007).
Coordination of the Network rotates among the participating national organizationsand is currently
based in São Paulo, Brazil, where REMTE has allied its activitieswith the much larger transnational
feminist movement, the World March ofWomen, with which it shares office space. The World March of
Women was founded in Montreal, Quebec, in 1998 where it was based until 2007 when its
international coordination was moved to Brazil. The March is a transnational feminist movementthat
works at local and international levels and within other social movements tofocus on women’s everyday
lives and specifically the roots of the poverty and violencewomen experience. REMTE and the World
March of Women work in alliance to ensure that women’s issues and a gender critique are in place in
the agendas, workshops, campaigns, and declarations of the World Social Forum, the anti-Free Trade
campaign and other “mixed” (i.e., with men) movement spaces in which they are active. In Brazil, they
also work together on the presidential advisory councils for policyfor women and for policy on the
solidarity economy and on the organizing committeefor the National Conferences on Policy for Women
in 2004 and 2007.Our interviews with activists in REMTE member organizations in both Ecuadorand
Brazil underlined the strategic role the issue of violence against women hasplayed in mobilizing women
and developing experiences of collaboration andleadership that many are now bringing to other issues
such as land reform and minimumwage legislation. In the words of REMTE’S coordinator: “Our urgent
task is tolink the fight against violence against women with the global struggle against
neoliberalcapitalism” (Faria, 2005, p. 28; our translation). REMTE is simultaneously engaged in building
a feminist movement around a critique of neoliberal globalization that has retrenched class, race, and
gender inequality to produce new forms of violence against women and in coalition building to ensure
that violence against women is addressed within the antiglobalization and other alternative social
movements.
Empiricism Good
Post-positivist critiques fail to realize the progress that science has made in taking into
account the social—policy cannot operate without empirics
Keohane, Professor of International Affairs at Princeton University, 98 (Robert, “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between
International Relations and Feminist Theory”, International Studies Quarterly 42:1, March 1998, JSTOR)//AS
The second dichotomy-positivist vs. post-positivist-is also misleading. There is a wide range of adherence, in
international relations, to more or less nomothetic theoretical claims, and to aspirations of greater or less adherence to canons associated with
natural science, Scientific
success is not the attainment of objective truth, but the attainment of wider
agreement on descriptive facts and causal relationships, based on transparent and replicable methods. Even those
who seek scientific generalization recognize the importance of descriptive work, and of investigating issues that
are not amenable to statistical analysis, due to their complexity, contingency, and lack of homogeneity between the units to be com- pared
(King, Keohane, and Verba, 1994). No
serious students of international relations expect to discover meaningful
universal laws that operate deterministi- cally, since they recognize that no generalization is
meaningful lwithout specification of its scope conditions. 'l`he point is that a sophisticated view of science
overcomes the objectivist-subjec- tivist dichotomy, and forces the investigator to make interrelated
choices about purposes, subject matter, and methods. One can recognize that knowledge is socially
constructed without giving up on efforts to widen intersubjective agreement about important issues ,
and to specify more fully the conditions under which some impor- tant outcomes are more or less likely to occur. For instance, our current
knowledge of the conditions under which various strategies in international crises lead to war or settlement (Gelpi, 1997; Huth, 1996) is surely
an advance over aphorisms such as " to achieve peace, prepare for war,"• or "deterrence does (or does not) work."• But it would be foolish to
believe that one could understand the Cuban Missile Crisis simply on the basis of generalizations, however valid, about crisis management.
Narratives, and an understanding of personal psychology, play an essential role in understanding unique events. Finally, the
socialasocial dichotomy is misleading because social behavior consists of individual choices constrained by
social, eco- nomic, and political structures, and by institutions. Choices are made on the basis of normative,
descriptive, and causal beliefs, all of which are deeply socially con- structed. It is a platitude that our beliefs are culturally
conditioned and transmitted. Hence all human action is in a profound sense social. Yet as Marx said, people make their own history,
but not "as they please."• Choices are made within structures of demography, material scarcity, and powerand within institutions that affect the incentives and opportunities available to actors, as well as
constraining them. It seems ill-advised to locate oneself on the extreme end of any of these three
continua: it is not sensible to choose between critical and problem-solving theory; commitment to
nomothetic, objective science and attention to particularity; empha- sis on social construction of
reality and on constraints-material, political, and institutional. Aspects of all of these foci of attention can enrich the
study of international relations. On each continuum, trade-offs exist: movements along the continuum achieve gains on one dimension, but
incur losses on another. Where
to locate oneself depends, among other things, on the condition of world
politics at the moment, the state of our knowledge of the issues, and the nature of the problem to be
investigated.
Feminist Scholarship Bad
Feminist scholarship is rife with errors they refuse to correct—no basis for their
assumptions
Sommers, former philosophy professor in Ethics at Clark University and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research 09 (Christina Hoff, “Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 6/29/09,
http://chronicle.com/article/Persistent-Myths-in-Feminis/46965)//AS
"Harder to kill than a vampire." That is what the sociologist Joel Best calls a bad statistic. But, as I have discovered over the years, among
false statistics the hardest of all to slay are those promoted by feminist professors. Consider what
happened recently when I sent an e-mail message to the Berkeley law professor Nancy K.D. Lemon pointing
out that the highly praised textbook that she edited, Domestic Violence Law (second edition, Thomson/West,
2005), contained errors. Her reply began: "I appreciate and share your concern for veracity in all of our scholarship. However, I would
expect a colleague who is genuinely concerned about such matters to contact me directly and give me a chance to respond before launching a
public attack on me and my work, and then contacting me after the fact." I confess: I had indeed publicly criticized Lemon's book, in campus
lectures and in a post on FeministLawProfessors.com. I had always thought that that was the usual practice of intellectual argument.
Disagreement is aired, error corrected, truth affirmed. Indeed, I was
moved to write to her because of the deep
consternation of law students who had attended my lectures: If authoritative textbooks contain
errors, how are students to know whether they are being educated or indoctrinated? Lemon's book has been
in law-school classrooms for years. One reason that feminist scholarship contains hard-to-kill falsehoods is that
reasonable, evidence-backed criticism is regarded as a personal attack. Lemon's Domestic Violence Law
is organized as a conventional law-school casebook —a collection of judicial opinions, statutes, and articles selected,
edited, and commented upon by the author. The first selection, written by Cheryl Ward Smith (no institutional affiliation is given),
offers students a historical perspective on domestic-violence law. According to Ward: "The history of
women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of
Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. … The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod
or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as
'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe." Where
to
begin? How about with the fact that Romulus of Rome never existed. He is a figure in Roman
mythology —the son of Mars, nursed by a wolf. Problem 2: The phrase "rule of thumb" did not originate with
any law about wife beating, nor has anyone ever been able to locate any such law. It is now widely
regarded as a myth, even among feminist professors. A few pages later, in a selection by Joan Zorza, a domestic-violence expert,
students read, "The March of Dimes found that women battered during pregnancy have more than
twice the rate of miscarriages and give birth to more babies with more defects than women who may suffer from any immunizable
illness or disease." Not true. When I recently read Zorza's assertion to Richard P. Leavitt, director of science information at
the March of Dimes, he replied, "That is a total error on the part of the author. There was no such
study." The myth started in the early 1990s, he explained, and resurfaces every few years. Zorza also informs readers that
"between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there
because of domestic violence." Studies by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, indicate that the figure is closer to 1 percent. Few
students would guess that the Lemon book is anything less than reliable. The University of California at Berkeley's online faculty profile of
Lemon hails it as the "premiere" text of the genre. It is part of a leading casebook series, published by Thomson/West, whose board of
academic advisers, prominently listed next to the title page, includes many eminent law professors. I mentioned these problems in my message
to Lemon. She replied: "I have looked into your assertions and requested documentation from Joan Zorza regarding the March of Dimes study
and the statistics on battered women in emergency rooms. She provided both of these promptly." If that's the case, Zorza and Lemon might
share their documentation with Leavitt, of the March of Dimes, who is emphatic that it does not exist. They might also contact the Centers for
Disease Control statistician Janey Hsiao, who wrote to me that "among ED [Emergency Department] visits made by females, the percent of
having physical abuse by spouse or partner is 0.02 percent in 2003 and 0.01 percent in 2005." Here is what Lemon says about Cheryl Ward
Smith's essay on Romulus and the rule of thumb: "I made a few minor editorial changes in the Smith piece so that it is more accurate. However,
overall it appeared to be correct." A few minor editorial changes? Students
deserve better. So do women victimized by
violence. Feminist misinformation is pervasive. In their eye-opening book,Professing Feminism: Education and
Indoctrination in Women's Studies(Lexington Books, 2003), two once-committed professors of women's studies, Daphne
Patai and Noretta Koertge, describe
the "sea of propaganda" that overwhelms the contemporary feminist
classroom. The formidable Christine Rosen (formerly Stolba), in her 2002 report on the five leading
women's-studies textbooks, found them rife with falsehoods, half-truths, and "deliberately misleading
sisterly sophistries." Are there serious scholars in women's studies? Yes, of course. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an anthropologist at the
University of California at Davis; Janet Zollinger Giele, a sociologist at Brandeis; and Anne Mellor, a literary scholar at UCLA, to name just three,
are models of academic excellence and integrity. But they are the exception. Lemon's book typifies the departmental mind-set. Consider The
Penguin Atlas of Women in the World (2008), by the feminist scholar Joni Seager, chair of the Hunter College geography department. Now in its
fourth edition, Seager's atlas was named "reference book of the year" by the American Library Association when it was published. "Nobody
should be without this book," says the feminist icon Gloria Steinem. "A wealth of fascinating information," enthuses The Washington
Post.Fascinating, maybe. But the information is misleading and, at least in one instance, flat-out false. One color-coded map illustrates how
women are kept "in their place" by restrictions on their mobility, dress, and behavior. Somehow the United States comes out looking as bad in
this respect as Somalia, Uganda, Yemen, Niger, and Libya. All are coded with the same shade of green to indicate places where "patriarchal
assumptions" operate in "potent combination with fundamentalist religious interpretations." Seager's logic? She notes that in parts of Uganda,
a man can claim an unmarried woman as his wife by raping her. The United States gets the same low rating on Seager's charts because, she
notes, "State legislators enacted 301 anti-abortion measures between 1995 and 2001." Never mind that the Ugandan practice is barbaric, that
U.S. abortion law is exceptionally liberal among the nations of the world, and that the activism and controversy surrounding the issue of
abortion in the United States is a sign of a vigorous free democracy working out its disagreements. On another map, the United States gets the
same rating for domestic violence as Uganda and Haiti. Seager backs up that verdict with that erroneous and ubiquitous emergency-room
factoid: "22 percent-35 percent of women who visit a hospital emergency room do so because of domestic violence." The critical work of 21stcentury feminism will be to help women in the developing world, especially in Muslim societies, in their struggle for basic rights. False
depictions of the United States as an oppressive "patriarchy" are a ludicrous distraction. If American women are as oppressed as Ugandan
women, then American feminists would be right to focus on their domestic travails and let the Ugandan women fend for themselves. All books
have mistakes, so why pick on the feminists? My
complaint with feminist research is not so much that the authors
make mistakes; it is that the mistakes are impervious to reasoned criticism. They do not get corrected.
The authors are passionately committed to the proposition that American women are oppressed and
under siege. The scholars seize and hold on for dear life to any piece of data that appears to
corroborate their dire worldview. At the same time, any critic who attempts to correct the false
assumptions is dismissed as a backlasher and an anti-feminist crank. Why should it matter if a large
number of professors think and say a lot of foolish and intemperate things? Here are three reasons to be concerned: 1) False
assertions, hyperbole, and crying wolf undermine the credibility and effectiveness of feminism . The
United States, and the world, would greatly benefit from an intellectually responsible, reality-based women's movement. 2) Over the
years, the feminist fictions have made their way into public policy. They travel from the women's-studies textbooks
to women's advocacy groups and then into news stories. Soon after, they are cited by concerned political leaders. President Obama recently
issued an executive order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls. As he explained, "The purpose of this council is to ensure
that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy." He and Congress are also poised to use the celebrated Title IX
gender-equity law to counter discrimination not only in college athletics but also in college math and science programs, where, it is alleged,
women face a "chilly climate." The
president and members of Congress can cite decades of women's-studies
scholarship that presents women as the have-nots of our society. Never mind that this is largely no
longer true. Nearly every fact that could be marshaled to justify the formation of the White House Council on Women and Girls or the new
focus of Title IX application was shaped by scholarly merchants of hype like Professors Lemon and Seager. 3) Finally, as a philosophy
professor of almost 20 years, and as someone who respects rationality, objective scholarship, and
intellectual integrity, I find it altogether unacceptable for distinguished university professors and
prestigious publishers to disseminate falsehoods. It is offensive in itself, even without considering the harmful
consequences. Obduracy in the face of reasonable criticism may be inevitable in some realms, such as partisan politics, but in academe it
is an abuse of the privileges of professorship.
Western Feminism Turn
The Neg employs Western feminism that makes false presumptions about Third World
women and impedes change
Bruno, PhD Candidate at the University of Texas at Austin, 06 (Javier Pereira, “Third World Critiwues of Western Feminist Theory in the
Post-Development Era”, University of Texas at Austin, January 2006,
http://www.ucu.edu.uy/facultades/CienciasHumanas/IPES/pdf/Laboratorio/Critiques_to_Western_Feminism_JPereira.pdf)//AS
Encounters between Westem and non Westem feminists surrounding the ongoing debate about the role of women in
development tend to unveil differentiated approaches and strategies, some of which deserve particular attention. The
rhetoric of Westem feminist groups as expressed in the world conferences celebrated in the l980s and 1990s
emphasize the ideas that: a) sex inequality constitute the main problem faced by women in the Third
World, b) patriarchal power takes priority in the analysis of women status (vis a vis other marginalizing forces), c) other
analytical categories such as race, class or position in national structures are less important than gender,
d) a sisterhood between First World and Third World groups will become an effective tool to advance sex
equality (Sen and Grown, 1987), e) women activism and feminist mobilization is an effective tool to promote
changes in the sphere of women's rights. In relation with the last feature, Westem feminism enthusiastically tends to
conceive the advancement in women's rights as the result of mobilization at the base and increasing
pressure from below. Among all possible factors, it is the activism of feminist movements what forces the political system to make
concessions around women's rights. In this view, Third World women were frequently seen as lacking sufficient
feminist ideology and appeared to be too aligned to their local establishments and subordinated to the
(patriarchal) power of the State (Mazumdar, I977). Criticisms to Westem feminist theories have come from different
theoretical and geographical backgrounds. Diversity in feminist theories in the US has also been paralleled by a prolific
production of non Westem feminist thought. The multifaceted nature of feminism that has characterized both sides the developed and developing world- makes difficult any sort of simplification or generalization about coincidences and differences. However,
drawing upon the selected work of a group of scholars we have attempted to elicit what we consider are the
most significant and
compelling present criticisms to Westem feminist theory in the field of development. Thus, the rest of our paper will
introduce some of these critiques as originally discussed by their authors in the following terms: a) the altemative constmction of
women as subjects in the Third World feminist literature, as discussed in Saunders (2002), b) the differentiated
approach to the State in the strategies of Latin American feminist movement as analyzed by Molyneux (2000), c)
the limitations of Westem "change from below"• paradigm, as discussed in Htun (2003) and Charrad (2001), d) the
debates around the notion of sisterhood as stated in Bergeron (2001), e) the colonialist implications of Westem feminist as
suggested by Moller Olkin (1999) and Aguilar (1995), and D the need to bring the actor's perspective back as discussed in Long (2001) ,
Kandiyoti (2000) and Hoodfar (1997).
Their Western feminism sees Third World women as victims without agency and
refuses to acknowledge the multiplicity of their oppression
Bruno, PhD Candidate at the University of Texas at Austin, 06 (Javier Pereira, “Third World Critiwues of Western Feminist Theory in the
Post-Development Era”, University of Texas at Austin, January 2006,
http://www.ucu.edu.uy/facultades/CienciasHumanas/IPES/pdf/Laboratorio/Critiques_to_Western_Feminism_JPereira.pdf)//AS
An important difference between western and third world feminism is found in their
conceptualization of women as the subject of struggles. While western feminists make equality between
men and women the center of their struggles, third world feminism "stressed satisfaction of basic material
needs as a pressing issue in the context of disadvantageous international economic order."• (Saunders, 2002, p.6). Here, the situation
of women is perceived not only as the result of unequal gender relations, but as the consequence of a
wide range of oppressive situations that transcend gender categories and are also related to race, class, and
citizenship cleavages. The perspective of Third World feminism can be reflected in the agenda and desires articulated by a well know
network of activists, researchers and policy makers spread across different countries referred to as DAWN - Development Alternatives with
Women for a New Era. In the view of their members, the principal struggle of Third World women should be centered around the satisfaction of
basic needs, understood as basic rights. They
believe women should attain freedom not only from gender related
inequalities, but also from those related to race, class and national asymmetries, since these categories are
mutually intertwined in the concrete and real lives of women. For a vast majority of women in the Third World, injustice
as a result of class, race and nationality divisions is closely related to the oppressive situations that
they experience as women. (Sen and Grown, 1987). In consequence, many Third World women activists -such as those nucleated in
DAWN- tend to reject the notion of a single and uniform feminist movement, acknowledging the heterogeneity that derives from diverse
sources of oppression. In their view, feminism is more widely defined as a struggle against all forms of injustice, also requiring changes across
the different fronts in order to attain advancements in women's rights. However, differences in the ground should not opaque the battle to
alter gender subordination which remains -among others- a relevant form of oppression. (Sen and Grown, 1987) This need
to take in
to consideration other forms of oppression is a crucial difference when contrasting feminism across
western and non Western worlds, one that have important theoretical and practical implications. On the one hand, if woman as
subject is conceptualized as the locus for many oppressive situations, then the name Women in itself does not account for all sources of
exploitation, becoming an obstacle or -at least- a constrain to fight against other forms of oppression. On the other hand, the
notion that
Western feminism has promoted about a Third World Women as an autonomous and sovereign subject (in its
Foucaultian sense) seems to fail when we acknowledge its limitations. As participants in the development process,
women are not to be seen as the revolutionary and sovereign actors through which changes should be
attained, but as "a symptom of the overdetermined acts and resistances to multiple oppressions and
exploitative process. " (Saunders, 2002). Overall, the enlightened vision of women as a sovereign subject with agency typical in Western feminism- has great potential to challenge existing inequalities and oppressions in the realm of gender relations.
However, as it happens with other centered categories such as the proletariat in Marx, its totalizing parameters may exclude
the recognition of other important sources of oppression, limiting the possibilities for justice.
AT
AT: Threat Con
No impact – threat construction isn’t sufficient to cause wars and proximate
causes outweigh
Kaufman, 9 - Prof Poli-sci and IR – U Delaware (Stuart J, “Narratives and Symbols in Violent
Mobilization: The Palestinian-Israeli Case,” Security Studies 18:3, 400 – 434)//SMS
Even when hostile narratives, group fears, and opportunity are strongly present, war occurs only
if these factors are harnessed. Ethnic narratives and fears must combine to create significant ethnic hostility
among mass publics. Politicians must also seize the opportunity to manipulate that hostility, evoking
hostile narratives and symbols to gain or hold power by riding a wave of chauvinist mobilization. Such mobilization is often spurred
by prominent events (for example, episodes of violence) that increase feelings of hostility and make chauvinist appeals seem timely.
If the other group also mobilizes and if each side’s felt security needs threaten the security of the other side, the result is a security
dilemma spiral of rising fear, hostility, and mutual threat that results in violence. A virtue of this symbolist theory is that symbolist
logic explains why ethnic peace is more common than ethnonationalist war. Even if hostile narratives, fears, and
opportunity exist, severe violence usually can still be avoided if ethnic elites skillfully define
group needs in moderate ways and collaborate across group lines to prevent violence: this is
consociationalism.17 War is likely only if hostile narratives, fears, and opportunity spur hostile
attitudes, chauvinist mobilization, and a security dilemma.
No impact to threat construction
Gray, 7—Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies and Professor of International Relations
and Strategic Studies at the University of Reading, graduate of the Universities of Manchester
and Oxford, Founder and Senior Associate to the National Institute for Public Policy, formerly
with the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Hudson Institute (Colin, "The
Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A Reconsideration", SSI, July,
http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ssi10561/ssi10561.pdfhttp://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ssi10561/ssi10561.pdf)//SMS
Most controversial
policies contain within them the possibility of misuse. In the hands of a paranoid or boundlessly ambitious political
leader, prevention could be a policy for endless warfare. However, the American political system, with its
checks and balances, was designed explicitly for the purpose of constraining the executive from
excessive folly. Both the Vietnam and the contemporary Iraqi experiences reveal clearly that
although the conduct of war is an executive prerogative, in practice that authority is disciplined
by public attitudes. Clausewitz made this point superbly with his designation of the passion, the sentiments, of the people as
7. A policy that favors preventive warfare expresses a futile quest for absolute security. It could do so.
a vital component of his trinitarian theory of war.51 It is true to claim that power can be, and indeed is often, abused, both personally
and nationally. It is possible that a state could acquire a taste for the apparent swift decisiveness of preventive warfare and overuse
the option. One might argue that the easy success achieved against Taliban Afghanistan in 2001, provided fuel for the urge to seek a
similarly rapid success against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In other words, the delights of military success can be habit forming. On
balance, claim seven is not persuasive, though it certainly contains a germ of truth. A country with unmatched wealth
and power, unused to physical inse- curity at home—notwithstanding 42 years of nuclear danger, and a high level of gun crime—is
vulnerable to demands for policies that supposedly can restore security. But we ought not to endorse the argument
that the United States should eschew the preventive war option because it could lead to a futile,
endless search for absolute security. One might as well argue that the United States should adopt a defense policy and
develop capabilities shaped strictly for homeland security approached in a narrowly geographical sense. Since a president might
misuse a military instrument that had a global reach, why not deny the White House even the possibility of such misuse? In other
words, constrain policy ends by limiting policy’s military means. This argument has circulated for many decades and, it must be
admitted, it does have a certain elementary logic. It is the opinion of this enquiry, however, that the claim that a policy
which includes the preventive option might lead to a search for total security is not at all
convincing. Of course, folly in high places is always possible, which is one of the many reasons why popular democracy is the
superior form of government. It would be absurd to permit the fear of a futile and dangerous quest for
absolute security to preclude prevention as a policy option. Despite its absurdity, this rhetorical charge against
prevention is a stock favorite among prevention’s critics. It should be recognized and dismissed for what it is, a debating point with
little pragmatic merit. And strategy, though not always policy, must be nothing if not pragmatic.
Securitization is good – results in contesting antagonistic logic of security and
breaks down competitive structures
Trombetta, 8 - Delft University of Technology, postdoctoral researcher at the department of
Economics of Infrastructures (Maria Julia Trombetta, "The Securitization of the Environment
and the Transformation of Security," Deft University, 3/19/08
http://archive.sgir.eu/uploads/Trombettathe_securitization_of_the_environment_and_the_transformation_of_security.pdf)//SMS
the discursive formation of security issues provides a new
perspective to analyse the environmental security discourse and its transformative potential.
First, it allows for an investigation of the political process behind the selection of threats, exploring
On the one hand, an approach that considers
why some of them are considered more relevant and urgent than others. The focus shifts from the threats to the collectivities,
identities and interests that deserve to be protected and the means to be employed. Second, securitization suggests
that
the awareness of environmental issues can have a relevant role in defining and transforming
political communities, their interests and identities, since the process creates new ideas about who deserve to be protected
and by whom. Finally, as Behnke points out, securitization can open the space for a “genuinely
political” constitutive and formative struggle through which political structures are contested
and reestablished.(Behnke 2000: 91) Securitization allows for the breaking and transforming of rules that are no longer
acceptable, including the practices associated with an antagonistic logic of security. On the other hand, securitization is problematic
because of the set of practices it is supposed to bring about. For the CopS security “carries with it a history and a set of connotations
that it cannot escape.”(Wæver 1995: 47) While securitizing an issue is a political choice, the practices it brings about are not.
Accordingly, transforming an issue into a security issue is not always an improvement. In the case of the environment, the warning
seems clear: “When considering securitizing moves such as ‘environmental security’…one has to weigh the always problematic side
effects of applying a mind-set of security against the possible advantages of focus, attention, and mobilization.”(Buzan, Wæver and
Wilde 1998: 29) The School shares the normative suggestion that “[a] society whose security is premised upon a logic of war should
be re-shaped, re-ordered, simply changed.”(Aradau 2001: introduction) For the CopS this does not mean to transform the practices
and logic of security, because, as it will be shown below, for the School, this is impossible. The CopS suggests avoiding the
transformation of issues into security issues. It is necessary “to turn threats into challenges; to move developments from the sphere
of existential fear to one where theycould be handled by ordinary means, as politics, economy, culture, and so on.”(Wæver 1995: 55,
quoting Jahn). This transformation, for the CopS, is “desecuritization”, and the School has introduced a distinction between
politicization - “meaning the issue is part of public policy, requiring government decision and resources allocations”(Buzan, Wæver
and Wilde 1998: 23) - and securitization - “meaning the issue is presented as an existential threat, requiring emergency measures
and justifying actions outside the normal bounds of political procedure.”(Buzan, Wæver and Wilde 1998: 23) The slogan is:
“less security, more politics!”(Wæver 1995: 56) Nevertheless, there are two major problems behind this suggestion.
First, if securitization is normatively problematic, desecuritization can be even more
problematic. It can lead to a depoliticization and marginalisation of urgent and serious issues,
while leaving unchallenged the practices associated with security. In the case of the environment, many
appeals to security are aimed at both soliciting action and transforming what counts as security and the way of providing it.
Second, within the School’s framework, desecuritization cannot be possible. Securitization in fact can
be
inescapable, the unwanted result of discussing whether or not the environment is a security
issue. As Huysmans has noticed, the performative, constitutive approach suggested by the
speech act theory implies that even talking and researching about security can contribute to the
securitization of an issue, even if that (and the practices associated with it) is not the desired result. “The normative
dilemma thus consists of how to write or speak about security when the security knowledge risks the production of what one tries to
avoid, what one criticizes: that is, the securitization of migration, drugs and so forth.”(Huysmans 2002: 43) When the understanding
of security is the problematic one described by the CopS, research itself can become a danger. This captures a paradox that
characterizes the debate about environmental security. As Jon Barnett has showed in The Meaning of Environmental Security
(2001) the securitization of the environment can have perverse effects and several attempts to transform environmental problems
into security issues have resulted in a spreading of the national security paradigm and the enemy logic, even if the intentions behind
them were different. Barnett has argued that “environmental security is not about the environment, it is about security; as a concept,
it is at its most meaningless and malign”(2001: 83) in this way, he seems to accept the ineluctability of the security mindset or logic
evoked by securitization. However, his suggestion of promoting a “human centered” understanding of security, in which
environmental security is not about (national) security but about people and their needs, within the securitization logic, cannot
escape the trap he has described. Why, in fact, should the sort of his claim be different from that of similar ones? 2. The fixity of
Security practices These dilemmas, however, are based on the idea that security practices are inescapable and unchangeable and the
theory of securitization, as elaborated by the CopS, has contributed to suggest so. The CopS has achieved the result of making a
specific, negative understanding of security – which has characterised the dominant Realist discourse within IR - appear as “natural”
and unchangeable since all the attempts to transform it appear to reinforce its logic. To challenge this perverse mechanism it is
necessary to unpack securitization further. First, it will be shown that securitization is not analytically accurate, the environment
representing a relevant case. Second, the assumptions behind this problematic fixity will be explored.
AT: Tickner
Tickner’s methodology is flawed – reliance on dichotomies
Keohane ’98 – Duke University (Robert O., “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations between International
Relations and Feminist Theory,” International Studies Quarterly, March 1998,
http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/KeohaneBeyondDichotomyI
RFeministTheory.pdf)//SS
Taking scholarly work seriously, however, involves not only trying to read it sympathetically, but also offering criticism of arguments that do
My starting point is to accept an insight of much feminist writing: conceptual
dichotomies create misleading stereotypes. Professor Tickner mentions four: rational/irrational,
fact/value, universal/particular, and public/private. As feminists point out, genderhe social
construction of sexual differencesoperates largely through the use of such stereotypes. What I will
argue here is that Professor Tickner herself relies too much on three key dichotomies, which seem to
me to have misleading implications, and to hinder constructive debate. The first of these dichotomies
contrasts “critical theory” with “problem-solving” theory. “Problem-solving [theory] takes the world as it finds it and
implicitly accepts the prevailing order as its framework” (1997:619). The second dichotomy pits “hermeneutic,
historically-based, humanistic and philosophical traditions” against positivist epistemologies modeled
on the natural sciences. Finally, Tickner contrasts a view that emphasizes the social construction of
reality with an atomistic, asocial conception of behavior governed by the laws of nature (1997:616,
618-9). International relations theory is portrayed as problem-solving, positivist, an asocial; feminist theory as critical, post-positivist, and
not seem convincing.
sociological.
AT Positivism Bad
Their critiques of positivism are caricatures—positivists employ checks on absolutes
and encourage interdisciplinary dialogue
Kornprobst, Chair in International Relations at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna 09 (Markus, “International Relations as Rhetorical
Discipline: Toward (Re-)Newing Horizons”, International Studies Review 11, 2009, JSTOR)//AS
Postpositivists accuse positivists of mistakenly applying something akin to the Aristotelian Logic to
International Relations. Critics allege that positivists falsely assume that their research results capture
the objective truth (Price and Reus-Smit 1998). They dismiss positivist logic, aimed to create knowledge in a stringent deductive or
inductive manner, as ‘‘decrepit’’ (Walker 1980:29), chastise it for distracting from critical normative issues (Ashley
1986:280–286; George and Campbell 1990:281–288), and castigate it for not reflecting on the way in which
knowledge produced by positivists comes to construct the world (George 1994; Neufeld 1995). All these criticisms
combined have culminated in calls to ‘‘forget IR’’ (Bleiker 1997; Weber 1999a). Yet, positivism as seen through
the eyes of its most outspoken postpositivist critics is nothing but a caricature.7 The alleged positivist notion of
attainable knowledge is an integral part of this caricature. Postpositivist critics correctly point out that positivists fully embrace the
notion that there is a truth ‘‘out there.’’ As Navon (2001:625) puts it, ‘‘facts are facts with or without human consent.’’ What
postpositivist critics usually gloss over though is that positivists are hardly ever confident that they have
discovered the truth. Bold statements such as Levy’s that the democratic peace literature comes ‘‘close’’ to having discovered a
nomothetic law are rare and even then, it is qualified by the word ‘‘close’’ (Levy 1988:652). Two sets of meta-theoretical persuasions illustrate
the positivists’ reluctance to proclaim something as true: the widespread acknowledgement of uncertainty and the adoption of Lakatos’s
thinking on research programs. Quantitative
research relies on a number of devices to signal uncertainty.
Hypotheses, for instance, are usually formulated not in terms of absolutes but in terms of likelihoods, and the
pitfalls of operationalization and measurement are often acknowledged. King, Keohane, and Verba (1994:9) explain that precautions such as
these are important for quantitative and qualitative research because ‘‘uncertainty is a central aspect of all research and all knowledge about
the world.’’ They further maintain that sweeping them underneath the carpet is ‘‘not science as we define it.’’ Given their emphasis on
uncertainty, it is not surprising that the index of their book does not list the word truth. They
formulate the goal of social
science methodologies in more modest terms. Methods ought to ‘‘produce valid inferences’’ (King et al. 1994:3). Positivists
who put a strong emphasis on the subjective understandings of the actors they study are even more cautious. Jervis (1985:148), for instance,
does not write about truth but about fruitfulness of knowledge, and acknowledges that determining this fruitfulness across competing
Many positivists in the field embrace Lakatos’s theory of knowledge
production (and, therefore, are not positivists narrowly conceived). According to Lakatos (1970), knowledge is
produced by research programs. These are containers in which the accumulation of knowledge towards
approximating the truth becomes possible, because accumulation requires a research program’s
shared standards of judgment and research foci.8 Many positivists freely admit that there is not just one research program
explanations has become ‘‘exceedingly difficult.’’
but that there are several of them, and, therefore, also several distinct clusters of knowledge. When they relate to the same or similar issues,
these clusters compete with one another. Yet, this is not considered bad news. On the contrary, debates
across research
programs may give rise to a new and stronger research program, usually through a synthesis between
the competitors.9 As Walt (1991:229) puts it, ‘‘competition encourages contending approaches to refine their arguments and to seek
better empirical support, and it usually leads them to incorporate each other’s ideas as well.’’ For this reason, Keohane hopes for the
constructive competition of research programs in order to further knowledge about international relations as an important outcome of the
third debate (Tickner 1997; Keohane 1998; Tickner 2005).