SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
Index
Index .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
A2: Nuclearism .............................................................................................................................................. 2
A2: Nuclearism .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Afghanistan Conditions CP Frontline ............................................................................................................. 4
Afghanistan Conditions CP Frontline ............................................................................................................. 5
CMR Cards .................................................................................................................................................... 6
T – Combat Troops ........................................................................................................................................ 7
T- Don’t Trust Gov. Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 8
Fem 2AC – Perm ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Fem 2AC – Alt Fails ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Fem 2AC – Alt Fails ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Fem 2AC – Alt Fails ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Fem 2AC – Defense .................................................................................................................................... 13
Fem 2AC – A2 Patriarchy = Root Cause (1/2) ............................................................................................. 14
Fem 2AC – A2 Patriarchy = Root Cause (2/2) ............................................................................................. 15
1
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
A2: Nuclearism
Speaking about death and war is the only way to ensure human survival. It leads to
anxiety which causes self-preservation.
Beres ‘96 Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D. Prinction University, writer of International relations) 1996 “No Fear, No Trembling Israel, Death and the Meaning of
Anxiety” http://www.freeman.org/m_online/feb96/beresn.htm
Fear of death, the ultimate source of anxiety, is essential to human survival. This is true not only for individuals,
but also for states. Without such fear, states will exhibit an incapacity to confront nonbeing that can hasten their
disappearance. So it is today with the State of Israel. Israel suffers acutely from insufficient existential dread. Refusing to
tremble before the growing prospect of collective disintegration - a forseeable prospect connected with both genocide
and war - this state is now unable to take the necessary steps toward collective survival. What is more, because death is the
one fact of life which is not relative but absolute, Israel's blithe unawareness of its national mortality deprives its still living days of essential
absoluteness and growth. For states, just as for individuals, confronting death can give the most positive reality to life itself.
In this respect, a cultivated awareness of nonbeing is central to each state's pattern of potentialities as well as to its
very existence. When a state chooses to block off such an awareness, a choice currently made by the State of Israel, it loses,
possibly forever, the altogether critical benefits of "anxiety." There is, of course, a distinctly ironic resonance to this argument. Anxiety,
after all, is generally taken as a negative, as a liability that cripples rather than enhances life. But anxiety is not
something we "have." It is something we (states and individuals) "are." It is true, to be sure, that anxiety, at the onset of psychosis, can lead
individuals to experience literally the threat of self-dissolution, but this is, by definition, not a problem for states. Anxiety stems from the awareness
that existence can actually be destroyed, that one can actually become nothing. An ontological characteristic, it has been
commonly called Angst, a word related to anguish (which comes from the Latin angustus, "narrow," which in turn comes from angere, "to choke.") Herein lies the
relevant idea of birth trauma as the prototype of all anxiety, as "pain in narrows" through the "choking" straits of birth. Kierkegaard identified anxiety as "the
dizziness of freedom," adding: "Anxiety is the reality of freedom as a potentiality before this freedom has materialized." This brings us back to Israel. Both
individuals and states may surrender freedom in the hope of ridding themselves of an unbearable anxiety. Regarding
states, such surrender can lead to a rampant and delirious collectivism which stamps out all political opposition. It can
also lead to a national self-delusion which augments enemy power and hastens catastrophic war. For the Jewish State, a lack of pertinent anxiety, of the positive
aspect of Angst, has already led its people to what is likely an irreversible rendezvous with extinction. Such a curious analysis, naturally, will
appear foolish and beside the point to mainstream thinkers. In Israel, the professional strategists and learned professors will certainly be disdainful. How, after all,
could Israel possibly be aided by anxiety? Why bother with such nonsense? Doesn't Israel have the Bomb as well as remarkably large numbers of video games,
computers and cellular phones? Why worry? Why have Angst? But the mainstream thinkers do not really think. That is a large part of the security problem for
Israel. Thinking is the soundless dialogue that takes place in our own heads, and what is happening in most Israeli heads these days is merely monologue. There
Truth may often emerge only through paradox, and Israeli
encourage
such productive imaginations, Israelis need look much more closely at the inevitable consequences of their sorely
misnamed "peace process," and at the corresponding nuclearization of enemy states, especially Iran, Iraq and Egypt
(yes, Egypt is very much an enemy state). Taken together, these features of the "New Middle East" threaten the State of Israel
with a human disaster of possibly unparalleled dimensions. Nowhere is it written that Israel is forever, or that presumptions of collective
immortality are purposeful to Israel's security. Stepping into imaginations of death in order to prevent annihilation, Israel must quickly
discover, in the immanent abyss of nonbeing, the course of direction toward life. Drawing upon the anxiety of death's
immanence in the life of every nation, the People of Israel could nurture the Angst that is now antecedent to national endurance. Israel cannot
afford to be "liberated" from existential anxiety. It must, instead, feel that the Third Temple Commonwealth is problematic, that collective
extinction represents the end point of the same continuum that contains collective vitality, and that preservation as a
state cannot be detached from reasonable intimations of disappearance. Left uncontrolled, anguish can become an unbearable
is, in these heads, no productive dialectic, only a silent and meaningless soliloquy.
imaginations of collective mortality - ontological imaginations generated by a common national anxiety - are integral to survival as a state. To
hindrance, but disregarded entirely, it can become the source of unalterable despair.
2
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
A2: Nuclearism
Even if the Neg wins its framework arguments – vote affirmative because the plan is
simply an imagination and embracing war and nuclear destruction in that context
frees the psyche and is the most valuable form of anti-nuclear activism
Ira Chernus “Nuclear Madness: Religion and the Psychology of the Nuclear Age” 1991 p. 284-5
The peace movement could draw creatively on this model by recalling that peace is
now a form of play and that ritual is the original form
of theater. Nuclear weapons are unique because they are the first weapons that can destroy the theater in which the
human play unfolds. War may be an inevitable act in that play. But it cannot go on if the theater is destroyed. So war
between nuclear-armed superpowers may obsolete, not because war lacks any rational purpose (since it is now play rather
than work), but because it stands to destroy its own stage. The peace movement’s most compelling slogan now is not
“no more war!” but rather “the show must go on!” This slogan should lead the peace movement to offer its own
activities as ritualized realizations of the mad play of peace. This would mean that peace activism would become a
form of play acting; the movement would become a theater of the imagination, dedicated to the proposition that the
show must go on. In play as in madness there is no significant distinction between imagining and acting, for there is no distinguishing fantasy from reality.
Indeed the fantasy is the reality, so the imagining is the acting. If war is an inevitable act in the human play, it might
even be necessary for the peace movement to wage war against the Bomb – a war fought out purely in imagination.
But each battle would be a fantasy of madness played out in full consciousness of its meaning. Of course the demand for nuclear abolition is a
very real one, since abolition remains the goal. So utopian imagining must enter into a creative dialectic with literal
reality. Literal reality, like the God of monotheism, demands its rightful place in any renaissance. But imagination must
maintain its independence too. This means that the literal reality must be engaged and transformed into a setting for
another act in the play. The lobbying and letters to congress, the speeches and symposia, the petitions and peace
marchs must all continue. But they should not be taken literally. They should be understood just as so many ways of playing out the fantasy of
intellectual and moral crusade that is so central to our madness. The learned debates about subtleties of nuclear strategy, weapons
production, disarmament negotiations, and the like should also continue, but they too must be played as fantasy
games (which means merely acknowledging what they already really are). A return to demands for immediate abolition might also
imply returning to the former strategy of massive public actions in opposition to the ruling authorities. The madness of the crowd would become one (though
certainly not the only one) of the movement’s vehicles. But these mass actions would be understood as playacting – a ritual show rather than a show of brute
political strength. As acts in the play of madness, they would become more like carnivals than political battles. To promote this perception of symbolic meanings,
All its political tactics, learned debates, and
mass actions could become such a play. As a society we must descend as deeply as we can go into the psyche,
dredging up our nuclear fantasies in all their intricate detail. Creative artists will have to play a central role in this effort. But we must also
the peace movements must also learn to play with images of war, the Bomb, and nuclear madness.
search out and interpret the potentially religious symbolism of nuclear imagery. To imagine a renaissance that embraces both nuclear death and rebirth - a world
destroyed by the Bomb and a world without the Bomb – may now be the most valuable form of antinuclear activism. Understood in their full religious meaning,
such imaginings would bring an honest awareness of the Bomb as a schizophrenic image of destruction and transformation. They would allow us to recognize all
our contradictory desires and fulfill them in fantasy without needing to literalize any.
3
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
Afghanistan Conditions CP Frontline
1. Perm: Do both. There is no reason we can’t prepare to pull troops out while
we’re negotiating. It even proves we mean business and will pull out if they
agree.
2. Perm: Time frame. You must do the plan before the CP because of their
evidence on stability – Afghanistan will not be stable unless we withdraw! 
3. Turn- Existing pipelines now do not deliver all of the oil they carry, only
hurting the Afghan economy. If Afghanistan were to have a pipeline, stability
must be returned.
World Press, no date given (Pipeline Politics: Oil, the Taliban, and Political Balance of Central Asia.
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipelines.htm found on 3/10/2016
The existing pipelines are only capable of getting a small fraction of the area's oil and gas wealth to market. Central
Asian republics are anxious to sell more oil. Americans, Europeans, and Russians are anxious to buy more, especially
from countries that do not belong to OPEC. Investors from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also anxious to begin transporting more oil out of
Central Asia. Only secure pipelines are lacking. The most promising routes have been identified: 1. Russia favors a northern route. Kazakhstan
would expand its existing pipelines to link them with the Russian network of pipelines. Azerbaijan would build a pipeline from Baku to Novorossisk. Critics worry
about the pipeline's path through Chechnya and charge that if the project was successful, Russia would enjoy too great a control over Central Asian oil. 2.
Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, and the United States favor a western route. According to one variation, oil and gas would flow to the Georgian port of Supsa. From
there, it would be shipped through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. and then ship it through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. Turkey has
expressed worries about tanker traffic in the Bosporus, and worries about the damage an accident there might do to Istanbul. According to the Turkish variation
on the western route, a pipeline should run from Baku to the port of Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. At over US$3 billion, the cost of constructing
such a pipeline may turn out to be too expensive. 3. The most direct, and cheapest, route is to south, across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Iran already has an
extensive pipeline system, and the Gulf is a good exit to Asian markets. U.S. sanctions on Iran block this option. 4. Despite the staggering costs it would take to
construct, China is willing to construct an oil pipeline across Kazakhstan to China. 5. The American oil company Unocal has proposed the construction of oil and
gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and later to India. Afghanistan's long war has prevented this project from moving forward. If
some degree of stability returns to Afghanistan, the project may be resurrected.
<<Insert stability card from 1AC>>
4. No need for US - Afghanistan will be able to secure themselves by 2014
Robert M Cutler May 14, 2010 (Senior Research Fellow, Institute of European, Russian & Eurasian Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa. Educated at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (BSc, Political Science), Geneva Graduate Institute of International Studies (Gallatin Fellow, History and International
Politics) and University of Michigan (PhD, International Relations), and having held appointments in the United States, Canada, France, Switzerland and Russia,
he now also consults with international institutions, NGOs, think tanks, governments and the private sector notably in the fields of international energy security &
geo-economics, organizational design & decision-making analysis, and immigration & human rights. As well, he has won numerous competitive grants and
fellowships, and also served on a half-dozen academic-journal and policy-review editorial boards in addition to executive committees of professional scholarly
and policy research organizations.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/23/afghanistan-withdrawal
The defence secretary,
Liam Fox, more concerned than Cameron about fixing deadlines, told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show on Sunday: "It's always
that the Afghan national security forces would be able to
deal with their own security by 2014. We recognise there will be further work to do in terms of training and improving the quality of those forces
been our aim to be successful in the mission and the mission has always said
beyond that, which is why we have said training forces may be available after that date. But we have made it very clear it will not be combat forces." He added:
"If you go back to the US's original strategy, they expected the Afghan national security forces would be able to maintain the security of Afghanistan by 2013.
That was amended to 2014. David Cameron's assessment of 2015 is quite conservative."
4
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
Afghanistan Conditions CP Frontline
5. By the time Afghanistan is secure in 2014, the pipeline will be just starting
construction. Afghanistan will be able to protect it on its own by that time, the
CP has no solvency, and is moot! 
Robert M Cutler May 14, 2010 (Senior Research Fellow, Institute of European, Russian & Eurasian Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa. Educated at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (BSc, Political Science), Geneva Graduate Institute of International Studies (Gallatin Fellow, History and International
Politics) and University of Michigan (PhD, International Relations), and having held appointments in the United States, Canada, France, Switzerland and Russia,
he now also consults with international institutions, NGOs, think tanks, governments and the private sector notably in the fields of international energy security &
geo-economics, organizational design & decision-making analysis, and immigration & human rights. As well, he has won numerous competitive grants and
fellowships, and also served on a half-dozen academic-journal and policy-review editorial boards in addition to executive committees of professional scholarly
and policy research organizations.)( http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/LE14Ag01.html)
First gas from Shah Deniz Two is now projected to be available in 2016, according to Rovnag Abdullaev, president of Azerbaijan's state oil and
natural gas company, SOCAR, who also announced that partners in Shah Deniz had already approved six months ago the launching of working plans for it, thus
avoiding delay. This will be in time to meet the 2014 projected date by which Nabucco's first phase should be finished, and also it allows for
minor delays.
5
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
CMR Cards
Veterans of war disagree with the war in Afghanistan and support that troops cause
insurgency.
Porter, 09 (Gareth Porter, is an American historian, investigative journalist and policy analyst on U.S. foreign and military policy. Porter graduated from the
University of Illinois, received a master's degree in international politics from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in Southeast Asian politics from Cornell
University. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48875 Veteran Army Officer Urges Afghan Troop Drawdown)
WASHINGTON, Oct 15, 2009 (IPS) - A veteran Army officer who has served in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars warns in an analysis now circulating in
Washington that the
counterinsurgency strategy urged by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal is likely to strengthen the Afghan
insurgency, and calls for withdrawal of the bulk of U.S. combat forces from the country over 18 months. In a 63-page
paper representing his personal views, but reflecting conversations with other officers who have served in
Afghanistan, Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis argues that it is already too late for U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency. "Many
experts in and from Afghanistan warn that our presence over the past eight years has already hardened a meaningful
percentage of the population into viewing the United States as an army of occupation which should be opposed and
resisted," writes Davis. Providing the additional 40,000 troops that Gen. McChrystal has reportedly requested "is almost certain to
further exacerbate" that problem, he warns. Davis was a liaison officer between the Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan (CFC-A) and the
Central Command in 2005, just as the Afghan insurgency was becoming a significant problem for the U.S. military. In that assignment he both consulted with the
top U.S. officers and staff of the CFC-A and traveled widely throughout Afghanistan visiting U.S. and NATO combat units. He also commanded a U.S. military
transition team on the Iraqi border with Iran in 2008-09. In the paper, Davis suggests what he calls a "Go Deep" strategy as an alternative to the recommendation
from McChrystal for a larger counterinsurgency effort, which he calls "Go Big".
The "Go Deep" strategy proposed by Davis would establish
an 18-month time frame during which the bulk of U.S. and NATO combat forces would be withdrawn from the
country. It would leave U.S. Special Forces and their supporting units, and enough conventional forces in Kabul to train Afghan troops and police and provide
protection for U.S. personnel. The forces that continue to operate in insurgent-dominated areas would wage "an aggressive
counterterrorism effort" aimed in part at identifying Taliban and al Qaeda operatives. The strategy would also provide support for
improved Afghan governance and training for security forces. Davis argues that a large and growing U.S. military presence would make it more difficult to
achieve this counterterrorism objective. By withdrawing conventional forces from the countryside, he suggests, U.S. strategy would deprive the insurgents of
"easily identifiable and lucrative targets against which to launch attacks". Typically
insurgents attack U.S. positions not for any tactical
military objective, Davis writes, but to gain a propaganda victory.
6
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
T – Combat Troops
Combat troops are explicitly not a military presence
Thomason 02 Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis James Thomason, “Transforming US Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options for
DoD,” July, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf
WHAT IS OVERSEAS MILITARY PRESENCE?
Our working definition of US overseas military presence is that it consists of all the US military assets in overseas areas that are engaged in relatively routine,
regular, non-combat activities or functions. By this definition, forces that are located overseas may or may not be engaging in
presence activities. If they are engaging in combat (such as Operation Enduring Freedom), or are involved in a one-time noncombat action (such as an unscheduled carrier battle group deployment from the United States aimed at calming or stabilizing an emerging
crisis situation), then they are not engaging in presence activities. Thus, an asset that is located (or present) overseas may or may not be
“engaged in presence activities,” may or may not be “doing presence.”
Afghanistan Troops are permanently stationed troops- withdrawal is not topical
Carter 02 ROBERT S. CARTER Department of the Army Civilian, “CONSIDERATIONS FOR PLANNING OVERSEAS PRESENCE” Strategy Research
Project http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA404187.
For purposes of this paper, the use of the term "overseas
presence" is intended to refer to those units and personnel that are
permanently based overseas - or - in the case of some assets (e.g., naval forces) - are deployed to a particular region on a regular, rotational
basis. (For example, U.S. forces currently fighting terrorism in Afghanistan would not be considered part of U.S.
overseas presence by this definition.
7
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
T- Don’t Trust Gov. Definitions
Government has falsified their definitions of “presence” before in order to get more
money- don’t trust DoD definitions
Scala 98 Mary L. Scala, May 18th, 1998, Chair of Joint Military Operations Department, Gs-15, Office of the Secretary of defense, paper submitted to the
naval war college in fulfillment of requirements for the department of joint military operations “Theater Engagement Planning: An Interagency Opportunity”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA351762
During the run-up to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the
Joint Staff and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy undertook a comprehensive review of overseas presence requirements and issues. The intention was to ensure
the resources committed to presence were consistent with national priorities in the region—and to identify overseas
commitments that were potentially excess to the emerging defense strategy. To make sure everything was considered, the definition of
"presence" was made as broad as possible—from forward-stationed troops, to prepositioned stocks, to naval
deployments, to joint and combined military exercises, to mil-to-mil contacts.3 At about the same time, the Joint Staff was working to
create a notional "baseline engagement force" in order to get a clearer historical picture of how many U.S. forces worldwide were engaged routinely in
engagement or crisis-response operations.4 Both the overseas presence study and the baseline engagement force analysis were intended to form one point of
departure for the formulation of a new defense strategy. Planners hoped to find relatively painless ways to increase spending on military
readiness and procurement, without undercutting essential war-fighting forces or technology.
8
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
Fem 2AC – Perm
Perm solves best—current political system is key to disrupt gendered power
structures.
Peterson, 92. Editor V Spike (Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Arizona), Gendered States p 66.
In other words, the state as a dealer in power, a wielder of weapons, an inherently violent institution is the object of suspicion and resistance by both antiliberal
feminists and liberal internationalists. And, especially now, when the international system is undergoing immense change, pressures for denationalizing change—
certainly discourse arguing for it- will be persistent. In the face of such pressures, I believe that feminist critics
of the present state
system should beware. The very fact that the state creates, condenses, and focuses political power may make it the
best friend, not the enemy, of feminists—because the availability of real political power is essential to real democratic
control. Not sufficient, I know, but essential. My basic premise is that political power can significantly disrupt patriarchal
and class (which is to say, economic) power. It holds the potential, at least, for disrupting the patriarchal/economic
oppression of those in the lower reaches of class, sex and race hierarchies. It is indisputable that, in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, it has been the political power of states that has confronted the massive economic power privately constructed out of the industrial processes and has
imposed obligations on employers for the welfare of workers as well as providing additional social support for the population at large. And the political
tempering of economic power has been the most responsive to broad public needs in liberal democracies, where
government must respond roughly to the interests of voters. Of course, this is not the whole story. The nation-states of this
period have also perpetrated horrors of torture and war, have aided the development of elite-controlled industrial wealth, and have not sufficiently responded to
the human needs of their less powerful constituents. But I believe it is better to try to restrain the horrors and abuses than to give up
on the limits that state organized political power can bring to bear on the forms of class-based, race-based, sexbased power that consistute the greatest sources of oppression we are likely to face.
9
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
Fem 2AC – Alt Fails
Fem IR can’t explain everything—we need empirical theories so we don’t marginalize
highly relevant international issues
Jarvis, 2K – Prof Philosophy @ U South Carolina (Darryl, Studies in International Relations, “International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism”,
pg. 176-177)
But putting aside the ambit claims of postmodern feminists, the more important question for International Relations concerns the relevance of the strategies and
theoretical approaches they recommend for the discipline. What might International Relations look like, do, research, and produce under
the theoretical formula suggested by postmodern feminists? Are we to assume that observations derived through the
experiences of Ruby the elephant a sufficient ontological starting point for the research agendas of the discipline?
Will accusatory gender fingerpointing help in eradicating injustice, global poverty, and war? How do highbrow
postmodern discourses or feminist ontologies help the truly needy, destitute, and impoverished? Can such insights
be operationalized, used as tools to inform public policy, or utilized as formulae to help negotiate peaceful resolutions
to ethnic conflict or territorial wars? Can we settle for a series of ongoing questions concerning "what it means to know, who may know, where
knowers are located, and what the difference among them mean for the knowledges that result?"155 Can the historiography of the Cold War
really be understood by reference to the T-shirts worn by U.S. servicemen and the sex industry in the Philippines?156
Should we prioritize the study of marriage and venereal disease, as Cynthia Enloe suggests, as equal to that of "studying
military weaponry?"157 Is theoretical endeavor really an attribute of journal entries from the travels of a U.S. academic living on a kibbutz in Israel, or the
recollections of those who gather at ISA meetings and exchange narratives?158 Does theoretical endeavor really extend to "how to make
cups of tea, about washing clothes, about using the word processor, about driving a car, about collecting water,
about joking," as Marysia Zalewski contends?159 Not all theory, of course, must conform to the strictures of utilitarian
principles, able to be operationalized and used in an instrumental way to inform public and foreign policy. But some
of it probably should, save the relevance of what we do might be lost on those at the coal face of international politics
if not also many of its professional practitioners and academicians. Stimulating our theoretical imaginations, pushing the envelope, and
exploring discursively the epistemological grounding of our collective knowledge is all good and well. But to suppose
that this is all we should do, or even that it is the most important of our activities, would seem to marginalize the
continuing dilemmas of international politics and those whose lives are made perilous because of them. Doubtless,
feminist perspectives have made valuable contributions and enhanced our understanding of international politics, but
such perspectives have yet to make a convincing case for the intellectual revolution and refocused research agendas
they so earnestly propose.
10
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
Fem 2AC – Alt Fails
Feminist thought just reproduces gender stereotypes
Witworth, 94 prof of political science and female studies @ York U, (Feminism and International Relations, pg 20, 1994)
Even when not concerned with mothering as such, much of
the politics that emerge from radical feminism within IR depend on a
‘re-thinking’ from the perspective of women. What is left unexplained is how simply thinking differently will alter the
material realities of relations of domination between men and women. Structural (patriarchal) relations are acknowledged, but not
analysed in radical feminism’s reliance on the experiences, behaviours and perceptions of ‘women’. As Sandra Harding notes, the essential and
universal ‘man’, long the focus of feminist critiques, has merely been replaced here with the essential and universal
‘woman’. And indeed, that notion of ‘woman’ not only ignores important differences amongst women, but it also
reproduces exactly the stereotypical vision of women and men, masculine and feminine, that has been produced
under patriarchy. Those women who do not fit the mould – who, for example, take up arms in military struggle – are quickly
dismissed as expressing ‘negative’ or ‘inauthentic’ feminine values (the same accusation is more rarely made against men). In this way,
it comes as no surprise when mainstream IR theorists such as Robert Reohane happily embrace the tenets of radical feminism. It requires little in the way of rethinking or movement from accepted and comfortable assumptions about stereotypes. Radical feminists
find themselves defending the same
account of women as nurturing, pacifist, submissive mothers as men do under patriarchy, anti-feminists and the New
Right. As some writers suggest, this in itself should give feminists pause to reconsider this position.
Alt can’t solve—Incorporation of gender in international relations becomes coopted
Saloom, 6. JD Univ of Georgia School of Law and M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from U of Chicago, Fall 2006
[Rachel, A Feminist Inquiry into International Law and International Relations, 12 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 159, l/n, Stevens]
There is not much consensus between the gender theorists and those who adhere to current approaches to international law and international relations. The
biggest obstacle for gender theorists is the application of their theories. It would be valuable to determine how international relations or
international law would operate if gender were taken into account. Gender theorists themselves have trouble formulating ways to apply their
theories. Most scholars believe that the "add women and stir" approach generally fails. The notion that "bringing in" more women to the
areas of international law and international relations can transform existing practices has not been met with much optimism. Theorists argue that adding
women into existing frameworks fails to address the larger androcentric biases that exist. Many theorists criticize this approach,
91
92
supporting their criticisms with allegations that the issues that gender scholars and practitioners want to address cannot be neatly incorporated in the current
framework. Smith argues that: The issues raised by feminism not only do not fit with the discipline, they disrupt the entire edifice of community and society upon
which [international relations] and the other social sciences are built. Their foundations are so embedded in gendered identities, subjectivities, and therefore
reified structures of common sense that they simply cannot be amended to take account of gender. 93 Hooper also concurs with Smith's conclusions. She posits
that "grafting the gender variable" onto a highly masculinized [*177] framework is doomed for failure. 94 She believes that
adding gender to a checklist will not change the power dynamic that exists in international law and international relations.
95
In the same manner, public international law is often preoccupied with issues of conflict, state sovereignty and use of force. 96 When gender is discussed in
international law, it is usually relegated to the human rights law sphere. 97 If the consensus of feminist theorists is that more radical approaches are necessary to
change the gender bias that exists, then theorists must formulate other alternatives to make the change in gender bias a feasible option. However, if the
proponents of the status quo are even partially correct, then the feminist criticisms become even more difficult to
implement. The question then becomes whether it is even desirable to wholly reject state-centrism as a masculinist
androcentric paradigm.
11
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
Fem 2AC – Alt Fails
Feminist theory fails because it doesn’t provide a clear view of IR post-alternative. A
policy option should be pursued instead.
Caprioli, 04 (“Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative Methodology: A Critical Analysis” Mary Caprioli, Dept. of Political Science, University of Tennessee.
International Studies Review. Volume 42 Issue 1 Page 193-197, March 2004. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/0020-8833.00076.)
Conventional feminist IR scholars misrepresent the field of international relations in arguing that IR scholarship as
popularly accepted excludes alternative explanations 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, a significant 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 explanation (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 societal 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 predominant realist or neorealist research program, and moving beyond it" (Ray 2000:311). In addition, theorizing and research in
the field of ethnonationalism has highlighted connections that domestic ethnic discrimination and violence have with state behavior at the international level (Gurr
and Harff 1994; Van Evera 1997; 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 statecentric focus, just as room exists for scholars interested in exploring the democratic peace and ethnonationalism. International relations
feminists 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 structural analysis. If domestic inequality does affect state behavior, or even perpetuates the
existence of states, then policy prescriptions should be sought.
12
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
Fem 2AC – Defense
Patriarchy is inevitable, based on male and female hormonal differences
Goldberg, 99 (Steven, Chairman of the Department of Sociology, City College, City University of New York, “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/foi/readings/patriarchygoldberg.htm, EB)
The thesis put forth here is that the hormonal
renders the social inevitable. Because of hormonal differences between males and
females, it is inevitable that males will be socialized to aspire to the roles that have highest status in a society . Our
biology makes the social arrangement known as patriarchy --the rule of males --inevitable. It is true (as the feminists never tire of pointing out) that
what are considered masculine roles in one society may be considered feminine roles in another society. Of far greater importance, however, is the fact that in
every known society the masculine roles are rewarded with higher status than the feminine roles. The role of healer might be
a masculine role in a society such as ours, and a feminine role in some other culture; but in any society that accords this role high status, the expectation will be
that it will be filled principally be men.
The reason for this is simply that men are by nature more aggressive than women, and
social arrangements have been designed to accommodate this fact.
13
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
Fem 2AC – A2 Patriarchy = Root Cause (1/2)
Patriarchy is not the root cause.
Crenshaw, 2.
Carrie
119-126
PhD, Former President of CEDA Perspectives In Controversy: Selected Articles from Contemporary Argumentation and Debate 2002 p.
Feminism is not dead. It is alive and well in intercollegiate debate. Increasingly, students
rely on feminist authors to inform their analysis of
resolutions. While I applaud these initial efforts to explore feminist thought, I am concerned that such argumentsonlyexemplify the general
absence of sound causal reasoning in debate rounds. Poor causal reasoning results from a debate practice that privileges empirical proof over
rhetorical proof, fostering ignorance of the subject matter being debated. To illustrate my point, I claim that debate arguments about feminists
suffer from a reductionism that tends to marginalize thevoices of significant feminist authors. David Zarefsky made a persuasive case for the
value of causal reasoning in intercollegiate debate as far back as 1979. He argued thatcausal arguments are desirable for four reasons First
causal analysis increases the control of the arguer over events by promoting understanding of them. Second, the use of
causal reasoning increases rigor of analysisand fairness in the decision-making process. Third causal arguments promote
understanding of the philosophical paradox that presumably good people tolerate the existence of evil.Finally causal
reasoning supplies good reasons for "commitments to policy choices or to systems of belief which transcend whim,
caprice, or the non-reflexive "claims of immediacy (117-9). Rhetorical proof plays an important role in the analysis of causal relationships. This
.
,
,
,
"
is true despite the common assumption that the identification of cause and effect relies solely upon empirical investigation. For Zarefsky, there are three types of
causal reasoning. The first type of causal reasoning describes the application of a covering law to account for physical or material conditions that cause a
resulting event This type of causal reasoning requires empirical proof prominent in scientific investigation. A second type of causal reasoning requires the
assignment of responsibility. Responsible human beings as agents cause certain events to happen; that is, causation resides in human beings (107-08). A third
type of causal claim explains the existence of a causal relationship. It functions "to provide reasons to justify a belief that a causal connection exists" (108). The
second and third types of causal arguments rely on rhetorical proof, the provision of "good reasons" to substantiate arguments about human responsibility or
explanations for the existence of a causal relationship (108). I contend that the practice of intercollegiate debate privileges the first type of causal analysis. It
reduces questions of human motivation and explanation to a level of empiricism appropriate only for causal questions concerning physical or material conditions.
Arguments about feminism clearly illustrate this phenomenon. Substantive debates about feminism usually take one of two forms. First, on the affirmative,
debaters argue that some aspect of the resolution is a manifestation of patriarchy. For example, given the spring 1992 resolution, "[rjesolved: That advertising
degrades the quality of life," many affirmatives argued that the portrayal of women as beautiful objects for men's consumption is a manifestation of patriarchy that
results in tangible harms to women such as rising rates of eating disorders. The fall 1992 topic, "(rjesolved: That the welfare system exacerbates the problems of
the urban poor in the United States," also had its share of patri- archy cases. Affirmatives typically argued that women's dependence upon a patriarchal welfare
system results in increasing rates of women's poverty. In addition to these concrete harms to individual women, mostaffirmatives on both topics desiring
,
"big impacts," arguedthat the effects of patriarchy include nightmarish totalitarianism and/or nuclear annihilation. On the
negative, many debaters countered with arguments that the some aspect of the resolution in some way sustains or energizes the feminist movement in
resistance to patriarchal harms. For example, some negatives argued that sexist advertising provides an impetus for the reinvigoration of the feminist movement
and/or feminist consciousness, ultimately solving the threat of patriarchal nuclear annihilation. likewise, debaters negating the welfare topic argued that the state
of the welfare system is the key issue around which the feminist movement is mobilizing or that the consequence of the welfare system - breakup of the
patriarchal nuclear family -undermines patriarchy as a whole. Such
arguments seem to have two assumptions in common. First, there is a
single feminism. As a result, feminists are transformed into feminism. Debaters speak of feminism asa single, monolithic, theoreticaland
pragmaticentity and feminists as women with identical m otivations, methods, and goals. Second, these arguments assume thatpatriarchy is the
single or root cause of all forms of oppression. Patriarchy not only is responsible for sexism and the consequent oppression of women, it also is
the cause oftotalitarianism, environmental degradation, nuclear war, racism, and capitalist exploitation. These
reductionist arguments reflect an unwillingness to debateabout thecomplexities of human motivation and explanation. They betray a
reliance upon a framework of proof that can explain only material conditions and physical realities through empirical quantification. The transformation of
feminists to feminism and the identification of patriarchy as the sole cause of all oppression is related in part to the current
form of intercollegiate debate practice By "form," I refer to Kenneth Burke's notion of form, defined as the "creation of appetite in the mind of the
.
auditor, and the adequate satisfying of that appetite" (Counter-Statement 31). Though the framework for this understanding of form is found in literary and artistic
criticism, it is appropriate in this context; as Burke notes, literature can be "equipment for living" (Biilosophy 293). He also suggests that form "is an arousing and
fulfillment of desires. A work has form in so far as one part of it leads a reader to anticipate another part, to be gratified by the sequence" (Counter-Statement
124). Burke observes that there are several aspects to the concept of form. One of these aspects, conventional form, involves to some degree the appeal of form
as form. Progressive, repetitive, and minor forms, may be effective even though the reader has no awareness of their formality. But when a form appeals as form,
we designate it as conventional form. Any form can become conventional, and be sought for itself - whether it be as complex as the Greek tragedy or as compact
as the sonnet (Counter-Statement 126). These concepts help to explain debaters' continuing reluctance to employ rhetorical proof in arguments about causality.
Debaters practice the convention of poor causal reasoning as a result of judges' unexamined reliance upon
conventional form Convention is the practice of arguing single-cause links to monolithic impacts that arises out of custom or
.
usage. Conventional form is the expectation of judges that an argument will take this form. Common practice or convention dictates that a case or disadvantage
with nefarious impacts causally related to a single link will "outweigh" opposing claims in the mind of the judge. In this sense, debate arguments themselves are
conventional.Debaters
practice the convention of establishing single-cause relationships to large monolithic impacts in
order to conform to audience expectation. Debaters practice poor causal reasoning because they are rewarded for it by judges. The convention of
arguing single-cause links leads the judge to anticipate the certainty of the impact and to be gratified by the sequence. I suspect that the sequence is
gratifying for judges because it relieves us from the responsibility and difficulties of evaluating rhetorical proofs . We are
14
SCFI 2010
Aff Updates - Varsity
Bentley Madi Mario
___ of ___
Fem 2AC – A2 Patriarchy = Root Cause (2/2)
<<<Crenshaw continues no text deleted>>>
caught between our responsibility to evaluate rhetorical proofs and our reluctance to succumb to complete relativism and subjectivity. To take responsibility for
evaluating rhetorical proof is to admit that not every question has an empirical answer. However, when we abandon our responsibility to rhetorical proofs, we
sacrifice our students' understanding of causal reasoning. The
sacrifice has consequences for our students' knowledge of the subject
matter they are debating For example, when feminism is defined as a single entity, not as a pluralized movement or theory, that single entity results in
the identification of patriarchy as the sole cause of oppression.The result is ignorance of the subject position of the
particular feminist author, for highlighting his or her subject position might draw attention to the incompleteness of the causal relationship between link
and impactConsequently, debaters do not challenge the basic assumptions of such argumentation and ignorance of
feminists is perpetuated. Feminists are not feminism. The topics of feminist inquiry are many and varied, as are the philosophical approaches to the study of these topics. Different authors have
.
attempted categorization of various feminists in distinctive ways. For example, Alison Jaggar argues that feminists can be divided into four categories: liberal feminism, marxist feminism, radical feminism, and
socialist feminism. While each of these feminists may share a common commitment to the improvement of women's situations, they differ from each other in very important ways and reflect divergent philosophical
assumptions that make them each unique. Linda Alcoff presents an entirely different categorization of feminist theory based upon distinct understandings of the concept "woman," including cultural feminism and poststructural feminism. Karen Offen utilizes a comparative historical approach to examine two distinct modes of historical argumentation or discourse that have been used by women and their male allies on behalf of
women's emancipation from male control in Western societies. These include relational feminism and individualist feminism. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron describe a whole category of French feminists
that contain many distinct versions of the feminist project by French authors. Women of color and third-world feminists have argued that even these broad categorizations of the various feminism have neglected the
contributions of non-white, non-Western feminists (see, for example, hooks; Hull; Joseph and Lewis; Lorde; Moraga; Omolade; and Smith). In this literature, the very definition of feminism is contested. Some
feminists argue that "all feminists are united by a commitment to improving the situation of women" (Jaggar and Rothenberg xii), while others have resisted the notion of a single definition of feminism, bell hooks
observes, "a central problem within feminist discourse has been our inability to either arrive at a consensus of opinion about what feminism is (or accept definitions) that could serve as points of unification" (Feminist
The controversy over the very definition of feminism has political implications. The power to define is the
power both to include and exclude people and ideas in and from that feminism. As a result, [bjourgeois white women interested in women's rights issues have been
satisfied with simple definitions for obvious reasons. Rhetorically placing themselves in the same social category as oppressed women, they were not anxious to call attention to race and class privilege (hooks. Feminist Wieory 18). Debate
arguments that assume a singular conception of feminism include and empower the voices of race- and classprivileged women while excluding and silencing the voices of feminists marginalized by race and class status. This position
becomes clearer when we examine the second assumption of arguments about feminism in intercollegiate debate patriarchy is the sole cause oppression Important feminist
thought has resisted this assumption for good reason. Designating patriarchy asthe sole cause
allows the subjugation of
resistance to other forms of oppression like racism and classism to the struggle against sexism ch subjugation has
the effect of denigrating the legitimacy of resistance to racism and classism as struggles of equal importance. "Within
feminist movement in the West, this led to the assumption that resisting patriarchal domination is a more legitimate feminist
action than resisting racism and other forms of domination" (hooks. Talking Back 19). The relegation of struggles against racism and class
exploitation to offspring status is not the only implication of the "sole cause" argument In addition, identifying patriarchy as the single source of
oppression obscures women's perpetration of other forms of subjugation and domination, bell hooks argues that we should not
obscure the reality that women can and do partici- pate in politics of domination, as perpetrators as well as victims - that we dominate, that we are dominated If
focus on patriarchal domination masks this reality or becomes the means by which women deflect attention from the real conditions and
circumstances of our lives, then women cooperate in suppressing and promoting false consciousness, inhibiting our capacity
to assume responsibility for transforming ourselves and society (hooks. Talking Back 20). Characterizing patriarchy as the
sole cause allows mainstream feminists to abdicate responsibility for the exercise of class and race privilege It casts the
struggle against class exploitation and racism as secondary concerns. Current debate practice promotes ignorance of these issues
because debaters appeal to conventional form, the expectation of judges that they will isolate a single link to a large impact Feminists become
Theory 17).
-
of
.
of oppression
. Su
.
of oppression
.
feminism and patriarchy becomes the sole cause of all evil. Poor causal arguments arouse and fulfill the expectation of judges by allowing us to surrender our
responsibility to evaluate rhetorical proof for complex causal relationships. The
result is either the mar-ginalization or colonization of
certain feminist voices. Arguing feminism in debate rounds risks trivializing feminists. Privileging the act of speaking about feminism
over the content of speech "often turns the voices and beings of non-white women into commodity, spectacle hooks,
Talking Back 14). Teaching sophisticated causal reasoning enables our students to learn more concerning the subject
matter about which they argue. In this case, students would learn more about the multiplicity of feminists instead of
reproducing the marginalization of many feminist voices in the debate itself The content of the speech of feminists must be investigated to subvert the
"(
.
colonization of exploited women. To do so, we must explore alternatives to the formal expectation of single-cause links to enormous impacts for appropriation of the marginal voice threatens the very core of selfdetermination and free self-expression for exploited and oppressed peoples. If the identified audience, those spoken to, is determined solely by ruling groups who control production and distribution, then it is easy for
the marginal voice striving for a hearing to allow what is said to be overdetermined by the needs of that majority group who appears to be listening, to be tuned in (hooks, Talking Back 14). At this point ,
arguments about feminism in intercollegiate debate seem to be overdetermined by the expectation of common
practice, the "game" that we play in assuming there is such a thing as a direct and sole causal link to a monolithic
impact To play that game, we have gone along with the idea that there is a single feminism and the idea that
patriarchal impacts can account for all oppression. In making this critique, I am by no means discounting the importance of arguments about feminism in intercollegiate
debate. In fact, feminists contain the possibility of a transformational politic for two reasons. First, feminist concerns affect each individual intimately. We are most likely to encounter patriarchal domination "in an
ongoing way in everyday life. Unlike other forms of domination, sexism directly shapes and determines relations of power in our private lives, in familiar social spaces..." (hooks. Talking Back 21). Second, the
methodology of feminism, consciousness-raising, contains within it the possibility of real societal transformation. "lE]ducation for critical consciousness can be extended to include politicization of the self that focuses
on creating understanding the ways sex, race, and class together determine our individual lot and our collective experience" (hooks, Talking Back 24). Observing the incongruity between advocacy of single-cause
relationships and feminism does not discount the importance of feminists to individual or societal consciousness raising.
15