Fem K Model - Somewhat Good

8/12/2019 Fem K Model - Somewhat Good

1/46

CNDI 2010 Feminism Kritik

Shackelford/Lazarevic

Feminism Kritik

Feminism Kritik.............................................................................................................................................................................1

Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................2

Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................3

Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................4Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................5

Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................6***2NC BLOCKS***...................................................................................................................................................................7

2NC Link IR ..............................................................................................................................................................................7

2NC Link War............................................................................................................................................................................

2NC Im!a"t Ca#"$#$s....................................................................................................................................................................%

2NC ternati'e...........................................................................................................................................................................1(

&2) erm......................................................................................................................................................................................11

&2) Ce+e t,e -#iti"a# .................................................................................................................................................................12

&2) Ce+e t,e -#iti"a#..................................................................................................................................................................13***Links***................................................................................................................................................................................14

LinksIR....................................................................................................................................................................................14

LinksState ...............................................................................................................................................................................15

LinksSe"$rit/...........................................................................................................................................................................16

LinksSe"$rit/...........................................................................................................................................................................17LinksCrisis Base+ -#iti"s.......................................................................................................................................................1

LinksC$#t$ra# 0eem-n/........................................................................................................................................................1%

LinksS"ien"e............................................................................................................................................................................2(LinksS"ien"e............................................................................................................................................................................21

Linkse",n-#-/.....................................................................................................................................................................22

LinksRea#ism...........................................................................................................................................................................23

LinksRea#ism...........................................................................................................................................................................24

Linkseterren"e......................................................................................................................................................................25

Linksi#itarism.......................................................................................................................................................................26

LinksI+entit/ -#iti"s...............................................................................................................................................................27

***Im!a"ts***............................................................................................................................................................................2Im!a"tsatriar",/....................................................................................................................................................................2

Im!a"tsatriar",/....................................................................................................................................................................2%Im!a"tsi#itarism....................................................................................................................................................................3(

Im!a"tsi#itarism....................................................................................................................................................................32

***ternati'e S-#'en"/***.......................................................................................................................................................33

t S-#'en"/Fem ers!e"ti'es................................................................................................................................................33

t S-#'en"/Str$"t$ra# i-#en"e.............................................................................................................................................34

t S-#'en"/Str$"t$ra# i-#en"e.............................................................................................................................................35

t S-#'en"/Criti"ism.............................................................................................................................................................36

t S-#'en"/Crisis Base+ -#iti"s...........................................................................................................................................37t S-#'en"/atriar",/............................................................................................................................................................3

t S-#'en"/atriar",/............................................................................................................................................................3%

***Frame-rk***.......................................................................................................................................................................4(

Frame-rk...................................................................................................................................................................................4(

***&irmati'e***......................................................................................................................................................................41

8S9 F9 IR B& C&RS FRO SO80 KOR9& FIL9.....................................................................................................41&Ne-:Li;era#ism S-#'es.......................................................................................................................................................42

& 9ssentia#ism ......................................................................................................................................................................43&Re'-#$ti-ns ai#..................................................................................................................................................................44

&erm...................................................................................................................................................................................45

& i"timi


2/46



Feminism Kritik 1NC

A. Links

1. The affs understanding of international relations is profoundly genderedit situates the state

as the enter of po!er relations and o"#etifies e$erything outside the "linders of prediti$e

seurity disoursethis alls into %uestion their entire politial strategy

&ui' ()[Tricia Ruiz, CSU Hayward, Feminist Theory and International Relations: The Feminist Challenge to Realism andi!eralism", Soundings #ournal, $%%&, htt':((honors)csustan)edu(*ournals(Soundings)'d+

How do +eminists use gender and 'atriarchy to descri!e the +ield o+ international relations -IR./ 01erall, +eminist theory says

that most o+ the 2ey 'layers in IR , such as di'lomats, 'olicyma2ers, heads o+ go1ernment, and academic

'ro+essionals, ha1e !een, and still are, males who come +rom 'atriarchal social and 'olitical

!ac2grounds) Thus, discussions within IR remain largely constrained !y those who lac2 consideration o+women3s roles in world 'olitics-!ecause they ha1e not !een trained to 1alue and include the 'ers'ecti1e o+ women.)Should IR 'er'etuate the e4clusion o+ women +rom its disci'line, along with their 'otential contri!utions

and additional 1iew'oints, IR will remain a 'rime e4am'le o+ 'atriarchy, in !oth its 'ractice andaccom'lishments ) Indeed, IR is +re5uently re+erred to as the last !astion o+ the social sciences,"

indicating how rigid it remains in reconsidering itsel+ through the 6gender lens3) Feminists also a''ly theterms 6gender3 and 6'atriarchy3 when analyzing how situations ha1e !een sha'ed to e4clude women +rom the international

'olitical arena) For e4am'le, 7ric 8) 9lanchard re+ers to a 6catch$$3 situation, in which a candidate see2ing 'olitical o++ice

will highly de'end on 'ast military ser1ice as 5uali+ication +or the 'osition, 'utting women at a disad1antage since they

generally ha1e less military e4'erience) This signi+icantly limits a woman3s chances to attain a national go1ernment 'ositiondirectly in1ol1ed with international issues o+ de+ense and security); From this e4am'le alone, we can understand how the

areas o+ domestic 'olitics, the military, and e1en the to'ic o+ education -which is directly related to this e4am'le., are issues

with res'ect to which +eminists would argue that gender and 'atriarchy do not allow women e5ual access to 'ower 'ositions

in world 'olitics) Stand'oint theory considers how the gendered construction o+

2nowledge )))[hel's to understand traditional to'ics in international relations" and is alerting us to theidea that gender may !e structuring how we thin2 in the international conte4t)" ?


3/46



Feminism Kritik 1NC

*. The affs preoupation !ith military presene is part of a larger pro#et of risis+"ased politis.

,ar is not an e$ent "ut rather a ontinual fore that auses $iolene.

Cuomo - -Chris #) Hy'atia, Dar is not *ust an e1ent: Re+lections on the signi+icance o+ e1eryday Eiolence",9loomington: Fall BB>) Eol) , Iss) ; 'g) G%.

hiloso'hical attention to war has ty'ically a''eared in the +orm o+ *usti+ications +or entering intowar,

and o1er a''ro'riate acti1ities within war) The s'atial meta'hors used to re+er to waras a se'arate, !ounded s'hereindicate assum'tions that war is a realm o+ human acti1ity 1astly remo1ed +rom normal li+e, or a sort o+ha''ening that is a''ro'riately concei1ed a'art +rom e1eryday e1ents in 'eace+ul times) ot sur'risingly, most

discussions o+ the 'olitical and ethical dimensions o+ war discuss war solely as an e1ent an occurrence,or collection o+ occurrences, ha1ing clear !eginnings and endings that are ty'ically mar2ed !y +ormal, institutional

declarations)


4/46



Feminism Kritik 1NC

/. 0mpats This patriarhy !ill result in etintion and is the root ause of all impats.

Nhanenge *((2-#ytte, 8asters M U South


5/46



Feminism Kritik 1NC

Alternati$e Tet ,e should su"stantially inrease our physial and3or intelletual presene in

feminist international relations ritiism and redeploy all efforts to!ard a re#etion of the

affirmati$e.

4. &e#et the affirmati$es gendered !orld$ie! our feminist methodologial ritiism dispro$es

the $alidity and the desira"ility of the 1AC.

Tikner *((1[


6/46



Feminism Kritik 1NC

Challenging the myth that wars are +ought to 'rotect women, children, and others stereoty'ically 1iewed

as 1ulnera!le," +eminists 'oint to the high le1el o+ ci1ilian casualties in contem'orary wars) Feministscholarshi' has !een 'articularly concerned with what goes on during wars, es'ecially the im'act o+ war on women and

ci1ilians more generally) Dhereas con1entional security studies has tended to loo2 at causes and conse5uences

o+ wars +rom ato'down, or structural, 'ers'ecti1e, +eminists ha1e generally ta2en a !ottomu' a''roach, analyzing

the im'act o+ war at the microle1el) 9yso doing, as well as ado'ting gender as a category o+ analysis, +eminists

!elie1e they can tell us something new a!out the causes o+ war that is missing +rom !oth con1entional

and critical 'ers'ecti1es) 9y crossing what many +eminists !elie1e to !e mutually constituti1e le1els o+ analysis, we geta !etter understanding o+ the interrelationshi' !etween all +orms o+ 1iolence and the e4tent to which

un*ust social relations, including gender hierarchies, contri!ute to insecurity ,!roadly de+ined)Claiming that the securitysee2ing !eha1ior o+ states is descri!ed in gendered terms, +eminists ha1e 'ointed to the

masculinity o+ strategic discourse and how this may im'act on understanding o+ and 'rescri'tions +or security it may also

hel' to e4'lain why womenLs 1oices ha1e so o+ten !een seen as inauthentic in matters o+ national security) Feminists ha1e

e4amined how states legitimate their securitysee2ing !eha1ior through a''eals to ty'es o+ hegemonic" masculinity) Theyare also in1estigating the e4tent to which state and national identities, which can lead to con+lict, are !ased on gendered

constructions) The 1alorization o+ war through its identi+ication with a heroic 2ind o+ masculinity de'ends

on a +eminized, de1alued notion o+ 'eace seen as unattaina!le and unrealistic) Since +eminists !elie1ethat gender is a 1aria!le social construction, they claim that there is nothing ine1ita!le a!out these

gendered distinctions thus, their analyses o+ten include the emanci'atory goal o+ 'ostulating a di++erent

de+inition o+ security less de'endent on !inary and une5ual gender hierarchies)

"


7/46



555*NC /L6CK7555

*NC Link 0&

8tend 1NC link &90: () that 0nternational relations are patriarhal and refuse to "e $ie!ed

through a gender lens. This e$idene is s!eet "eause not only is &ui' a !ell kno!n feminist 0&

thinker; "ut it also gi$es diret eamples of ho! deeply rooted in patriarhal ideas 0nternationalrelations has al!ays "een. ,inning this argument means that the Affirmati$e


8/46



*NC Link ,ar

The affirmati$es depition of !ar and peae as definite is misleadingmilitarism is on going and

per$ades the e$ery day life of its $itims; e$en during =peae time.>

7hepherd *((?@Laura . 7hepherd; 4epartment of Bolitial 7iene and 0nternational 7tudies; 9ni$ersity of /irmingham;

=ender; Diolene and lo"al BolitisE Contemporary 4e"ates in Feminist 7eurity 7tudies;>

httpE33!!!.intersiene.!iley.om3gi+"in3fulltet31**(**)*3GTHL7TA&T


9/46



*NC 0mpat Calulus

The Kritik out!eighs the plan for three reasonsE

1. Hagnitude+ Traditional 0nternational &elations neglets e$eryday $iolene !hih has

destroyed more li$es and killed more people than all !ars om"ined

*. The impats of the plan are "ased on preisely the fla!ed patriarhal $ie!point !e riti%ue

. Batriarhy is the root ause of all systemi; utilitarian; and deontologial impats "eause it

is disassoiation that underlies all $iolene and oppression. Gierarhal dihotomies "eome

institutionali'ed and inorporated into eisting strutural ine%ualities.

Batriarhy is the root ause of all impats nulear !ar; en$ironmental destrution; and domesti

$iolene. Challenging patriarhy key to pre$ent etintion.

,arren and Cady --aren and =uane,


10/46



*NC Alternati$e

8tend the 1NC Tikner (1 e$ideneadopting a feminist perspeti$e on international relations is

key to understanding the e$eryday !ars and $iolene that harateri'e the status %uo. ,e must

transend traditional statist seuriti'ation methods "y inorporating gender into our

onsiderations of !orld politis. 6nly our approah an sol$egendered analyses deonstrut the

realist seuriti'ation that !e ritii'e. 6ur ard aounts for years of on$entional seuriti'ationand speifies that our method is the only one that an emanipate the !orld from patriarhal

su"ordination.

Brefer Tiknershes a %ualified Brofessor of 0nternational &elations at 97C and has !ritten

many "ooks on the topi.

AN4;

6nly a gendered ritiism of traditional 0& theory an effeti$ely hallenge the $iolene per$ading

e$eryday life.

7hepherd *((?[aura #) She'herd, =e'artment o+ olitical Science and International Studies, Uni1ersity o+ 9irmingham,@ender, Eiolence and @lo!al olitics: Contem'orary =e!ates in Feminist Security Studies,"

htt':((wwwG)interscience)wiley)com(cgi!in(+ullte4t($$G%$$&$(HT8ST


11/46



A*E Berm

Berm failsritiism of state "ased approahes must persist.

7hepherd *((? [aura #) She'herd, =e'artment o+ olitical Science and International Studies, Uni1ersity o+9irmingham, @ender, Eiolence and @lo!al olitics: Contem'orary =e!ates in Feminist Security Studies,"

htt':((wwwG)interscience)wiley)com(cgi!in(+ullte4t($$G%$$&$(HT8ST


12/46



A*E Cede the Bolitial

Turn 6ur ritial and poststrutural stane is the only effeti$e politial strategy. The politial

has already "een eded to the right"roadening the sope of politis is key to effeti$e

engagement.

rondin *((J[=a1id, master o+ 'ol sci and h= o+ 'olitical studies M U o+ 0ttowa -Re.Driting the ational Security

State": How and Dhy Realists -Re.9uilt the-ir. Cold Dar,"htt':((www)er)u5am)ca(no!el(ieim(I8@('d+(rewritingXnationalXsecurityXstate)'d+

< 'oststructuralist a''roach to international relations reassesses the nature o+ the 'olitical ) Indeed, it calls

+or the re'oliticization o+ 'ractices o+ world 'olitics that ha1e !een treated as i+ they were not 'olitical) Forinstance, limiting the ontological elements in one3s in5uiry to states or great 'owers is a 'olitical choice) :

?B.) Indeed, 'oststructuralism o++ers no de+initi1e answers, !ut leads to new 5uestions and new une4'lored grounds) This

ma2es the commitment to the incom'lete nature o+ the 'olitical and o+ 'olitical analysis so central to 'oststructuralism-Finlayson and Ealentine, $%%$: &.)


13/46



A*E Cede the Bolitial

And; the politial has already "een ededits try or die for the alternati$e.

rondin *((J[=a1id, master o+ 'ol sci and h= o+ 'olitical studies M U o+ 0ttowa -Re.Driting the ational SecurityState": How and Dhy Realists -Re.9uilt the-ir. Cold Dar,"

htt':((www)er)u5am)ca(no!el(ieim(I8@('d+(rewritingXnationalXsecurityXstate)'d+


14/46



555Links555

Links0&

0nternational &elations is onstrited "y the patriarhal mindset

&ui' ()@Triia &ui'; C79 Gay!ard; =Feminist Theory and 0nternational &elationsE The Feminist Challenge to &ealism and

Li"eralism>; 7oundings ournal; *((); httpE33honors.sustan.edu3#ournals37oundings.pdf

01erall, +eminist theory says that most o+ the 2ey 'layers in IR, such as di'lomats, 'olicyma2ers, heads o+go1ernment, and academic'ro+essionals, ha1e !een, and still are, males who come +rom 'atriarchal social and

'olitical !ac2grounds) Thus, discussions within IR remain largely constrained !y those who lac2

consideration o+ women3s roles in world 'olitics-!ecause they ha1e not !een trained to 1alue and include the'ers'ecti1e o+ women.) Should IR 'er'etuate the e4clusion o+ women +rom its disci'line, along with their 'otential

contri!utions and additional 1iew'oints, IR will remain a 'rime e4am'le o+ 'atriarchy, in !oth its 'ractice and

accom'lishments)Indeed, IR is+re5uently re+erred to as the last !astion o+ the social sciences, "G indicating howrigid it remains in reconsidering itsel+ through the 6gender lens3) Feminists also a''ly the terms 6gender3 and 6'atriarchy3

when analyzing how situations ha1e !een sha'ed to e4clude women +rom the international 'olitical arena) For e4am'le, 7ric

8) 9lanchard re+ers to a 6catch$$3 situation, in which a candidate see2ing 'olitical o++ice will highly de'end on 'ast militaryser1ice as 5uali+ication +or the 'osition, 'utting women at a disad1antage since they generally ha1e less military e4'erience)

This signi+icantly limits a woman3s chances to attain a national go1ernment 'osition directly in1ol1ed with international

issues o+ de+ense and security); From this e4am'le alone, we can understand how the areas o+ domestic 'olitics, the

military, ande1en the to'ic o+ education-which is directly related to this e4am'le., are issues with res'ect to which

+eminists would argue that gender and 'atriarchy do not allow women e5ual access to 'ower 'ositions in

world 'olitics)

1
http://honors.csustan.edu/journals/Soundings.pdfhttp://honors.csustan.edu/journals/Soundings.pdf


15/46



Links7tate

Current 0nternational &elations Theory looks only to 7tate To 7tate 0nterations; 8luding

Consideration of ,omen from 4eisions

Triia &ui' ()

In other words, in contrast to traditional IR 1iews that 1iew security as 'rotecting the state +rom other states, +eminists argue

the to'ic o+ security should address acts o+ ra'e and 1iolence, not only +rom +oreign 'er'etrators, !ut

+rom their own +ellow citizens as well) Feminists would also add that occurrences o+ ra'e increase during

times o+ war,and is e1en used as a method o+ ethnic cleansing among the ri1alries within their state, yet would ne1erenter into ty'ical IR discussions that +ocus solely on state tostate interaction, sim'ly !ecause IR

discussions traditionally remain +ocused on states as the 2ey actors) Thus, the to'ic o+ security shows how

gender consideration, e4cluded +romthe 1ery !eginning o+ the discussion, results in 'olicyma2ing that would!esu!se5uently e4clusi1e o+, andli2ely detrimental to, women) rior to discussing any IR to'ic, stand'oint +eministIR theory would +irst challenge those 'artici'ating in the discussion, and those de+ining the 2ey terms and issues, !y critically

as2ing them i+ the normati1e 'ers'ecti1es and wor2ing 1oca!ulary are !road enough to e++ecti1ely accommodate issues

a++ecting women

0n the 7tate; Hales ha$e Full Bo!er 6$er ,omen; !hih is /uilt 0nto La!s And Boliies

Thorn"urn; 4iana *((( @Feminism meets international relations

< +ourth way o+ considering the !eginnings o+ +eminist international relations is as a matter o+ natural 'rogressionthat+eminist incursions into international relations are merely the +inal crum!ling o+ this last !astion o+ the social sciences)

International relations theory, itsel+ a relati1ely new disci'line, com'rises 1arious as'ects o+ social science theory that ha1e

!een interrogated !y +eminist a''roaches since the early B?%s) Oet only in the late BA%s did it !ecome su!*ect to +eminist

in5uiry) This is most li2ely !ecause o+ the dominance o+ men and a male 'ers'ecti1e in the +ield) ATa2e, +or e4am'le, the

role o+ the state, a 'rinci'al actor in international relations) The state is one o+ the most im'ortant su!*ects o++eminist study, where it has long !een argued that the +oundations o+ the state are !ased on a 'atriarchal

and gendered se4ual di1ision o+ la!or that su!ordinates women) B


16/46



Links7eurity

7eurity is more than #ust state $s. state aggressionit onsists of e$eryday ats of $iolene as

!ell. ,omens $oies are key.

&ui' ()

@Triia &ui'; C79 Gay!ard; =Feminist Theory and 0nternational &elationsE The Feminist Challenge to &ealism andLi"eralism>; 7oundings ournal; *((); httpE33honors.sustan.edu3#ournals37oundings.pdf

Tic2ner argues that IR is gendered to marginalize women3s 1oices," and stresses that women ha1e

2nowledge, 'ers'ecti1es and e4'eriences that should !e !rought to !ear on the study o+ internationalrelations)"For e4am'le, Tic2ner would argue that security, a main to'ic in IR, should not only !e understood as

de+ending the state +rom attac2," !ut should also consider that security +or women might !e di++erent!ecause women are more li2ely to !e attac2ed !y men they 2now, rather than strangers +rom other states)"% In other words,

in contrast to traditional IR 1iews that 1iew security as 'rotecting the state +rom other states , +eministsargue the to'ic o+ security should address acts o+ ra'e and 1iolence , not only +rom +oreign 'er'etrators, !ut +rom

their own +ellow citizens as well )Feminists would also add that occurrences o+ ra'e increase during times o+ war, and ise1en used as a method o+ ethnic cleansing among the ri1alries within their state, yet would ne1er enter into ty'ical IR

discussions that +ocus solely on state to state interaction, sim'ly !ecause IR discussions traditionally remain +ocused onstates as the 2ey actors) Thus, the to'ic o+ security shows how gender consideration, e4cluded +rom the 1ery!eginning o+ the discussion, results in 'olicyma2ing that would !e su!se5uently e4clusi1eo+, andli2elydetrimental to, women) rior to discussing any IR to'ic, stand'oint +eminist IR theory would +irst challenge those

'artici'ating in the discussion, and those de+ining the 2ey terms and issues, !y critically as2ing them i+ the normati1e

'ers'ecti1es and wor2ing 1oca!ulary are !road enough to e++ecti1ely accommodate issues a++ecting women)

1"


17/46



Links7eurity

The affirmati$es preoupation !ith international seurity is #ust a !ay to #ustify o$erlooking the

strutural $iolene against !omen.

7hepherd *((?

@Laura . 7hepherd; 4epartment of Bolitial 7iene and 0nternational 7tudies; 9ni$ersity of /irmingham;=ender; Diolene and lo"al BolitisE Contemporary 4e"ates in Feminist 7eurity 7tudies;>


In Human Insecurity, Ro!erts 'oses the 5uestion, LDhat is 1iolence/L -$%%A, ') ?.) This is a 5uestion rarely as2ed ininternational relations) Eiolence is war: largescale, statedominated, much studied, war)Howe1er, the threete4ts under re1iew here all o++er more nuanced theories o+ 1iolence that +ocus analytical attention on com'le4 constructions

o+ agency -institutional and international., structure, and the glo!al conte4t that is 'roduct and 'roducti1e o+ such 1iolence)

Through an intricate and !eauti+ully accessi!le analysis o+ modernity Lthat 'ot o+ gold at the end o+ the glo!al rain!owL

-7nloe, $%%?, ') >;. 7nloe encourages her readers to see2 the connections !etween glo!alisation and

militarisation, arguing that at the heart o+ this ne4us lie im'ortant 5uestions a!out 1iolence and security)Ro!erts notes a !road dissatis+action with the conce't o+ Lhuman securityL -$%%A, '') ;?., o++ering instead

his in1estigati1e lens o+ Lhuman insecurityL, de+ined as La1oida!le ci1ilian deaths, occurring glo!ally,caused !y social, 'olitical and economic institutions and structures, !uilt and o'erated !y humans andwhich could +easi!ly !e changedL -') $A.) lacing the human at the centre o+ concerns a!out security

immediately challenges a con1entional state!ased a''roach to security, as 7nloe e4'lains) In a con1incingaccount o+ the hard+ought e4'ansion o+ the conce't o+ security, ma''ed on to strategic and organisational gains made !y

1arious +eminist organisations, 7nloe reminds us that

i+ we ta2e seriously the li1es o+ women their understandings o+ security as well as onthegroundwor2ings o+ masculinity and +emininity, we will !e a!le to 'roduce more meaning+ul and more relia!le

analyses o+ LsecurityL 'ersonal, national and glo!al-7nloe, $%%?, ') ;?.)

The affirmati$es o"session !ith seurity legitimi'es state patriarhy and $iolene.7hepherd *((?@Laura . 7hepherd; 4epartment of Bolitial 7iene and 0nternational 7tudies; 9ni$ersity of /irmingham;




18/46



LinksCrisis /ased Bolitis

The !ar peae dihotomy onstruted "y realist theorist ignores the human su"#et.


=ender; Diolene and lo"al BolitisE Contemporary 4e"ates in Feminist 7eurity 7tudies;>httpE33!!!.intersiene.!iley.om3gi+"in3fulltet31**(**)*3GTHL7TA&T

see also 7nloe, BB>. allows critical scholars to loo2

!eyond the disci'linary o!session with war) Further, it allows us to in1estigate one o+ the sim'lest

insights o+ +eminist IR, which is also one o+ the most de1astating: the war('eace dichotomy is gendered,misleading and 'otentially 'athological)

1$
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTARThttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART


19/46



LinksCultural Gegemony

The affirmati$es preoupation !ith military thinking reflets a ulture of militarism that infets

all poliy outomes.8nloe. *k

@Cynthia 8nloeM professor in the 4epartment of 0nternational 4e$elopment; Community; and 8n$ironment at Clark

9ni$ersityM =Hasulinity As Foreign Boliy 0ssue>M 6to"er; *(((M aessedE une *(1(

8any o!ser1ers ha1e remar2ed on the 'eculiar


20/46



Links7iene

7iene and the go$ernment are $iolent and oeri$e. They destroy $alue to life and reprodue

patriarhy.

Nhanenge *((2ytte; Hasters O 9 7outh Afria; Aepted Thesis Baper for 4e$elopment 7tudies; =8C6F8H0N7HE T6,A&470NT8&AT0N TG8 C6NC8&N7 6F ,6H8N; B66& B86BL8 AN4 NAT9&8 0NT6 48D8L6BH8NT;

uir.unisa.a.'a3"itstream31()((3)2(313dissertation.pdfP

Conse5uently, also social scientists a''ly the scienti+ic characteristics o+ o!*ecti1ity, 1alue+reedom, rationality

and 5uanti+ia!ility to social li+e) In this way, they assume they can un1eil uni1ersal laws a!out social relations, which

will lead to true 2nowledge) 9ased on this, correct social 'olicies can !e +ormulated) Thus, social'rocesses are e4cluded, while scienti+ic o!*ecti1e +acts are included) Society is assumed a static entity,

where no changes are 'ossi!le) 9y 'romoting a 'ermanent character, social science legitimizes the e4isting

social order, while o!scuring the relations o+ domination and su!ordination, which is 2ee'ing thee4isting 'ower relations inaccessi!le to analysis) The +rozen order also ma2es it im'ossi!le to de1elo' alternati1e

e4'lanations a!out social reality) It 're1ents a historical and 'olitical understanding o+ reality and denies the 'ossi!ility +orsocial trans+ormation !y human agency) The 're1ailing condition is seen as an una1oida!le +act) This im'lies that human

!eings are 'assi1e and that domination is a natural +orce, +or which no one is res'onsi!le) This 'ermits the state +reely

to im'lement laws and 'olicies, which are controlling and coerci1e) These are seen as !eing correct,

!ecause they are !ased on scienti+ic +acts made !y scienti+ic e4'erts) 0ne result is that the state, withoutconsulting the 'u!lic, engages in a 'athological 'ursuit o+ economic growth) @o1ernments su''ort the ca'italist ideology,

which !ene+its the elite only, while it is destroying nature and increasing 'o1erty +or women and lower classes) The 'riority

on ca'italism also determines other social 'olicies) There are conse5uently no considerations +or a 'ossi!le con+lict!etween the aims o+ the go1ernment +or social control and economic e++iciency and the wel+are needs o+ 1arious social

grou's) Dithout ha1ing an alternati1e to the e4isting order, 'eo'le !ecome disem'owered) Ultimately,

the reaction is 'u!lic a'athy, which legitimates authorati1e go1ernments) Thus, social science is an ideology,which is a++irming the 're1ailing social, 'olitical and economic order) -Reitzes BBG: G>GB, ;;$.) In reality, it is a

contradiction to a''ly the scienti+ic method to social 'olicy ma2ing)


21/46



Links7iene

7iene is patriarhal and a !ay for men to eert $iolene and domination

Nhanenge *((2

ytte; Hasters O 9 7outh Afria; Aepted Thesis Baper for 4e$elopment 7tudies; =8C6F8H0N7HE T6,A&470NT8&AT0N TG8 C6NC8&N7 6F ,6H8N; B66& B86BL8 AN4 NAT9&8 0NT6 48D8L6BH8NT;


Science is conse5uently +ounded on androcentric 'remisesand their associated 1alues) The androcentric 'remises'ercei1e a uni1ersal masculine model o+ man) The dualised +eminist issues are o!*ecti+ied and only 1alued to the

e4tent that they are use+ul to man) 8an is seen as !eing autonomous +rom !oth nature and society) He is a rational

indi1idual stri1ing +or +reedom and inde'endence +rom social and natural constraints) This 'icture is generalized as!eing an im'licit goal o+ humanity as a whole ) In +act, what men do not e4'erience iso+ten regarded as

somewhat unim'ortant, distant or unreal) The measurement o+ masculinity is 'ower) =e'endency and

'owerlessness are 'ercei1ed as in+eriority and calls +or une5ual treatment) -9ir2eland BB&: &B.) Thus the androcentric1alues leads 'ower+ul man to see2 'ower o1er women, others and nature, which due to their lac2 o+ 'ower

deser1e an une5ual treatment) This ma2es science 1iolent) Dhen women, emotions and nature are constructed asthe 0ther in scienti+ic discourse, it recon+irms the masculine 'osition as !eing rational, su'erior and thestandard) Rationality and theoretical reason isin this way used as an instrument +or male domination o1erwomen and all others) It is a tool to eliminate and ridicule di++erences) Howe1er, when one lac2s the a!ility to see the

'ositi1e in di1ersity, and instead systematically de'reciate di++erences, trying to ma2e all one, it leads to +undamentalism)

Forcing through a singlerational and masculine de+inition o+ reality !ecomesin this way 1iolent) Thus, there is

a close lin2 !etween masculinity, rationality and 1iolence in mechanical science) These o''ressi1e +eaturesinhere there+ore also in the 1arious scienti+ic disci'lines and in its technology) -9raidotti et al BB;: G$, G; =es #ardins

$%%: $&&.)

21


22/46



LinksTehnology

Current tehnology is patriarhal and destroying our !orld. ,e need to ha$e a grassroots

feminist mo$ement to sol$e

Nhanenge *((2ytte; Hasters O 9 7outh Afria; Aepted Thesis Baper for 4e$elopment 7tudies; =8C6F8H0N7HE T6,A&470NT8&AT0N TG8 C6NC8&N7 6F ,6H8N; B66& B86BL8 AN4 NAT9&8 0NT6 48D8L6BH8NT;


$??.) &)$)G) Technology 1alues 1iolence o1er 'eace

and harmony J8odern man does not e4'erience himsel+ as a 'art o+ nature, !ut as an outside +orce destined to dominateand con5uer it) He e1en tal2s o+ a !attle with nature, +orgetting that, i+ he won the !attle, he would +ind himsel+ on the losing

side)J F) 7) Schumacher, B?G) -Schumacher BBG: G.) J8ore, +urther, 5uic2er, richer and there is no

alternati1eJ are the watchwords in modern hitech society) It is a +orward stam'ede: I+ there is crime, thesolution is more 'olice, !etter e5ui''ed) I+ there are en1ironmental 'ro!lems, +aster economic growth to 'ay +or anti

'ollution techni5ues is 'rescri!ed) I+ there is lac2 o+ natural resources, we turn to synthetics) I+ +ossil +uels run out, we turn

to nuclear energy) There are no 'ro!lems technology cannot sol1e) 9ut the 'ro!lem is that its solutions are !ased

on 1alues destined to control and con5uer the world) Scienti+ic and technological solutions that 'oisonnature, degrade social structures and generate war are inherently 1iolent) They ma2e the rich richer,

while they create 'o1erty and destroy li+e) 9igger technology means !igger concentration o+ economic 'ower,which e4erts greater 1iolence against society and nature) -Schumacher BBG: $%, $>, $A, G%.) Technology can !eused to dominate societies or to enhance them) Thus !oth science and technology could ha1e de1elo'ed

in a di++erent direction) 9ut due to 'atriarchal 1alues in+iltrated in science the ty'e o+ technology

de1elo'ed is meant to dominate, o''ress, e4'loit and 2ill) 0ne reason is that 'atriarchal societies identi+ymasculinity with con5uest) Thus any technical inno1ation will continue to !e a tool +or more e++ecti1e o''ression and

e4'loitation) The highest 'riority seems to !e gi1en to technology that destroys li+e) 8odern societies are dominated !y

masculine institutions and 'atriarchal ideologies) Their technologies 're1ailed in


23/46



Links&ealism

&ealist approahes to international relations ignores the oppression of !omen at the personal

le$el.

7hepherd *((?

@Laura . 7hepherd; 4epartment of Bolitial 7iene and 0nternational 7tudies; 9ni$ersity of /irmingham;=ender; Diolene and lo"al BolitisE Contemporary 4e"ates in Feminist 7eurity 7tudies;>



24/46



Links&ealism

&ealism dimishes the role of the indi$idual and eludeds feminist pereption

&ui' ()@Triia &ui'; C79 Gay!ard; =Feminist Theory and 0nternational &elationsE The Feminist Challenge to &ealism and

Li"eralism>; 7oundings ournal; *((); httpE33honors.sustan.edu3#ournals37oundings.pdf

In relation to realism, +eminist theory is clear: realism is the antithesis to achie1ing gender e5uality, !oth in

discussion and 'ractice, and e1en in its tools o+ war and security, 'atriarchy remains the central theme)States are the actors and the indi1idual is o+ little im'ortance) Dhen the indi1idual is deem'hasized,

there is e1en less ac2nowledgement o+ a +emale indi1idual, which e++ecti1ely e4cludes +eminist

discussion) In contrast to realism, li!eralist theory em'hasizes the role o+ the indi1idual o1er that o+ the state) Instead o+seeing anarchy and a struggle +or 'ower" as a de+ining +eature o+ world 'olitics, these thin2ers em'hasize an international

struggle +or consensus" as central to e4'laining international relations)? i!eralist tools include +ree trade, education, and

international institutions to 'rotect and 'romote the economic and ci1il interests o+ the indi1idual)

Traditional masulinity and realist international relations depit an arhai !orld !hereountries $iolently ompete for supremay.

Beterson -*@D. 7pike Beterson; =endered 7tatesE Feminist reP$isions of 0nternational &elations Theory>; 1--*;

httpE33!!!.%uestia.om3read3-?1?-2*(QtitleRenderedS*(7tatesSaS*(FeministS*(S*?&eS*-DisionsS*(of

S*(0nternationalS*(&elationsS*(Theory

0ne line o+ +eminist thought lin2s the li!eral 1aluing o+ indi1idual autonomy to a 'sychic dri1e to autonomy im'lanted in the

male 'syche !y early socialization) ancy Chodorow, most nota!ly, theorizes that the tradition o+ +emale childraising ma2es

se'aration +rom the mother or mother> surrogate harder +or !oys than +or girls as !oys must esta!lish themsel1es asde+initi1ely di++erent +rom the women who raise them) In the 'rocess they !ecome dee'ly concerned with se'arateness,

otherness, clear !ounds !etween one 'erson and anotherQautonomy, in short) ; Trans'osed to international relations,

masculine conce'ts o+ autonomy 'roduce a 1iew o+ se'arate so1ereign states as em!odying a unitary

interest in con+rontation with other states and as 'ro'erly engaging in com'etition and sel+interested

change)

In other words, li!eralism,!y ma2ing indi1idual autonomy its highest 1alue, !y relying on contract as its

'rimary 'rocess, and !y not recognizing unchosen, grou'!ased systemic ine5ualities among mem!ers

o+ a society, sets in motion, 'er'etuates, and legitimizes a social =arwinist order within states and

among states)


25/46



Links4eterrene

4eterrene is patriarhal and oeri$e

Chon ?2Carol Cohn; &esearher and Teaher at Gar$ard Hedial 7igns ;1-?2 ;U7e and 4eath in a !orld of 4efense

0ntelletualsU; Center for Bsyholoial 7tudies in the nulear age at Gar$ard 9ni$ersity Hedial Center;

httpE33!!!.#stor.org3sta"le3pdfplus312J*(-.pdfP


26/46



LinksHilitarism

The aff attempts to make their politis of masulinity appear natural "y militari'ing the pro"lem;

thus artifiially re%uiring a militari'ed response.8nloe. *k

@Cynthia 8nloeM professor in the 4epartment of 0nternational 4e$elopment; Community; and 8n$ironment at Clark9ni$ersityM =Hasulinity As Foreign Boliy 0ssue>M 6to"er; *(((M aessedE une *(1(

Feminist 5uestioning also'roduces a more realistic accounting o+ the conse5uences o+ macho 'olicies)

=es'ite slight increases in the num!er o+ women in 'olicy 'ositions, U)S) militarized 'olicies in the 'ostcold warera ha1e ser1ed to strengthen the 'ri1ileged 'ositions o+ men in decision ma2ing , !oth in the United Statesand in other countries) For instance, the U)S) go1ernment is currently 'romoting ri+les )

This e4am'le illustrates a more general 'henomenon) Dhen any 'olicy a''roach is militarized, one o+ the +irst

things that ha''ens is that women3s 1oices are silenced) De +ind that when the U)S) touts any militaryinstitution as the !est ho'e +or sta!ility, security, and de1elo'ment, the result is dee'ly gendered: the

'olitics o+ masculinity are made to seem natural," the male gras' on 'olitical in+luence is tightened, and

most women3s access to real 'olitical in+luence shrin2s dramatically)

2"


27/46



Links0dentity Bolitis

&ealist approahes to seurity ine$ita"ly failit plaes indi$iduals seond and preludes

onsideration of identity politis.

Tikner *((1

@Ann; professor at the 7hool of 0nternational &elations 97C. /.A. in Gistory; 9ni$ersity of London. H.A. in 0&; Iale.Bh4 from /randeis 9ni$ersity; =endering ,orld BolitisE 0ssues and Approahes in the Bost+Cold ,ar 8ra;

V987T0A

ew issues and new de+initions o+ security ha1e !een accom'anied !y calls +or new ways o+ understanding security)

Challenging DaltLs 1iew o+ the history o+ the +ield as a gradual e1olution toward an o!*ecti1e, scienti+ic disci'line that

ultimately yields a +orm o+ 2nowledge !eyond time and history, eith rause and 8ichael Dilliams ha1e claimed that Dalt

has created an e'istemic hierarchy that allows con1entional security studies to set itsel+ u' as the authoritati1e *udge o+

alternati1e claims G; this leads to a dismissal o+ alternati1e e'istemologies in terms o+ their not !eing scienti+ic)" Critics

claim that issues they consider im'ortant +or understanding security cannot !e raised within a 'ositi1istrationaliste'istemology or an ontology !ased on instrumentally rational actors in a statecentric world) In addition to constraining what

can !e said a!out security, a realistrationalist a''roach 'recludes considerationo+ an ethicalor emanci'atory

'olitics) For e4am'le, rause and Dilliams contest realismLs claim that states and anarchy are essential and

un'ro!lematic +acts o+ world 'olitics) They suggest that this world1iew is grounded in an understanding o+human su!*ects as sel+containedQas instrumentally rational actors con+ronting an o!*ecti1e e4ternal

reality) This methodologically indi1idualist 'remise renders 5uestions a!out identity and interest+ormation as unim'ortant)G& These and other critics claim that issues o+ identity and interest demand more inter'reti1emodes o+ analysis) For this reason, critical scholars see the necessity o+ shi+ting +rom a +ocus on a!stract indi1idualism to a

stress on culture and identity and the roles o+ norms and ideas) Such criticisms are !eing 1oiced !y scholars 1ariously

identi+ied as constructi1ists, critical theorists, and 'ostmodernists) Dhile not all o+ them re*ect realismLs statecentric

+ramewor2, all challenge its assum'tions a!out states as unitary actors whose identities are unim'ortant +or understanding

their security !eha1ior)


28/46


29/46



0mpatsBatriarhy

Batriarhy is the root ause of !ar and is leading us to etintion

&eardon -

@/etty A. &eardon; 4iretor of the Beae 8duation Brogram at Teahers College Colum"ia 9ni$ersity; 1--;,omen and BeaeE Feminist Disions of lo"al 7eurity

In an article entitled aming the Cultural Forces That ush Us toward Dar" -BAG., Charlene S'retna2 +ocused on some o+

the +undamental cultural +actors that dee'ly in+luence ways o+ thin2ing a!out security) She argues that 'atriarchy

encourages militarist tendencies) Since a ma*or war now could easily !ring on massi1e annihilation o+ almostunthin2a!le 'ro'ortions, why are discussions in our national +orums addressing the madness o+ the nuclear arms race limited

to matters o+ hardware and statistics/ < more com'rehensi1e analysis is !adly needed ) ) ) < clearly 1isi!le element inthe escalating tensions among militarized nations i s the macho 'osturing and the 'atriarchal ideal o+

dominance, not 'arity, which moti1ates de+ense ministers and go1ernment leaders to strut their stu++"

as we watch with increasing horror)8ost men in our 'atriarchal culture are still acting out old 'atterns that are

radically ina''ro'riate +or the nuclear age) To 'ro1e dominance and control, to distance one3s character +rom

that o+ women, to sur1i1e the toughest 1iolent initiation, to shed the sacred !lood o+ the hero, to colla!orate withdeath in order to hold it at !ayQall o+ these 'atriarchal 'ressures on men ha1e traditionally reached resolutionin ritual +ashion on the !attle+ield) 9ut there is no longer any !attle+ield) =oes anyone seriously !elie1e that i+ anuclear 'ower were losing a crucial, largescale con1entional war it would re+rain +rom using its multi'lewarhead nuclear

missiles !ecause o+ some di'lomatic agreement/ The military theater o+ a nuclear e4change today would e4tend,instantly or e1entually, to all li1ing things, all the air, all the soil, all the water) I+ we !elie1e that war is anecessary e1il," that 'atriarchal assum'tions are sim'ly human nature," then we are loc2ed into a lie, 'aralyzed) The

ultimate result o+ unchec2ed terminal 'atriarchy will !e nuclear holocaust) The causes o+ recurrent war+are are

not !iological) either are they solely economic) They are also a result o+ 'atriarchal ways o+ thin2ing, which

historically ha1e generated considera!le 'ressure +or standing armies to !e used) -S'retna2 BAG.

2%


30/46


31/46



interrelationshi's at all le1els o+ li+e, including sym!iotic microorganisms) Scienti+ic research is gi1ing us the 2nowledge

that, at e1ery le1el, the !iology o+ the ecosystem is sha'ed !y longterm intimate associations with larger organisms such as

animals and 'lants, and that their com'le4ity is +urther re+lected in their interactions with microorganisms) Ealuing natural

!iodi1ersity in 'urely economic or monetary terms is an insult to the 9ios'here as is sic2ening militaristic !eha1ior which

should !e outlawed) To esta!lish a wor2a!le ethical consensus society must !e willing to alter its 1iew in the +ace o+ newin+ormation) It is a sim'le +act that nothing remains the same) 71olution is ine1ita!le whether it !e slow growth and change

through natural e1olutionary 'rocesses, or ra'id through our inter1ention and technological a''lications de'loyed either

'ositi1ely or negati1ely)7motional maturity tells us how to choose to !e res'onsi!le while e4cuses 2ee' usstuc2 in the 'resent 5uagmire we can choose to !e a lost cause or we can choose to ada't and !ecomeem'owered)In a world where the unit o+ e1olution is the grou', !iodi1ersity and coo'eration is the e1olutionary strategy

+or success) #ust as !iodi1ersity 'ro1ides ecological sta!ility so di1ersity o+ human ideas 'ro1ides national

sta!ility

31


32/46



0mpatsHilitarism

Batriarhy auses Hilitarism; "ut feminist go$ernments an reate a !orld of peae

Cok; -*

aklyn Cok; proffesor of soiology at 9ni$ersity of ,it!atersrand; 7outh Afrian 4efene

&e$ie!; 0ssue No. ; 1--* ;httpE33!!!.iss.org.'a3B9/73A7&37A4&3Cok.htmlP

8ilitarism in1ol1es more than arms !earing and the 'ractice o+ war) It has !een de+ined as La set o+

attitudes and social 'ractices which regards war and the 're'aration o+ war as a normal and desira!le

social acti1ity) This is a !roader de+inition than is common among scholars) It 5uali+ies 'eo'le other than #ohn Dayne as

militarists) 9ut in an age when war threatens our sur1i1al it is as well to understand any !eha1ior, howe1ermild in a''earance, which ma2es war seem either natural or desira!le)L -8ann, BA?: G&. The role o+

women in military has !een largely o!scured and mysti+ied !y two com'eting 'ers'ecti1es those o+ se4ism and+eminism) 9oth analyses e4clude women +rom war on the grounds that they are !earers o+ Ls'ecial 5ualitiesL) Se4ism e4cludeswomen +rom the ran2s o+ the military on the grounds o+ their 'hysical in+eriority and unsuita!ility +or +ighting)


33/46


34/46



Alt 7ol$eny7trutural Diolene

Feminist analysis is key to understanding and inluding pre$iously ignored instanes of =e$eryday

$iolene> into international relations theory.

7hepherd *((?@Laura . 7hepherd; 4epartment of Bolitial 7iene and 0nternational 7tudies; 9ni$ersity of /irmingham; =ender;

Diolene and lo"al BolitisE Contemporary 4e"ates in Feminist 7eurity 7tudies;>httpE33!!!.intersiene.!iley.om3gi+"in3fulltet31**(**)*3GTHL7TA&T

In addition to 5uestioning what 1iolence is, how it is re'resented and with what e++ects, +eminist security studies

scholarshi' also as2s which 1iolences are considered worthy o+ study and when these 1iolences occur)74'anding the conce't o+ 1iolence that under'ins +eminist analysis, as outlined a!o1e, allows us to ta2e

seriously what &A.)

In short, Ro!ertsL [the answer to the 5uestion o+ which 1iolences matter in glo!al 'olitics is 5uite sim'le:all o+ them)Howe1er, while studies o+ human security, he argues, see2 to 'ro1ide the human with security ,

his re+ormulated analytic ta2es as its starting 'oint human insecurity that is, he starts with the threat-s.to the so1ereign su!*ect rather than the su!*ectLs ontological condition) Ro!erts suggests that this circum1entsthe disci'linary de+initional 'ro!lem with human security identi+ied !y Roland aris -$%%., 7dward ewman -$%% $%%;.and others !ut I cannot see how this is the case, gi1en that the answer to the 5uestion Lwhat is it that humans do to ma2e the

world a more dangerous and dys+unctional 'lace/L -Ro!erts, $%%A, ') $A. is also 5uite sim'le: we li1e in it) Thus Ro!ertsLanalytic seems to su++er the same lac2 o+ de+initional clarity and there+ore 'olicy rele1ance that he ascri!es to more

con1entional a''roaches it is no easier to identi+y, 5uanti+y and ultimately reduce the threats e4'erienced !y coe4isting

human su!*ects than it is to 'ro1ide those human su!*ects with security, i+ security can +irst !e de+ined as +reedom +rom +ear

or want) I do not es'ouse some construction o+ human nature -i+ such a thing were to e4ist. that assumes essential sel+ishness

and a 'ro'ensity +or 1iolence, nor do I assume that security is a zerosum game, in that one 'ersonLs security must always !e

at the e4'ense o+ anotherLs, !ut I recognise that e1en the most wellintentioned security 'olicy can ha1e

un+oreseen and sometimes disastrous e++ects) Sometimes, moreo1er, as S*o!erg and @entry demonstrate, the

decision to 'er+orm acts o+ 'olitical 1iolence that are a source o+ insecurity +or the intended 1ictims can!e understood i+ not condoned)

3
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTARThttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTARThttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART


35/46


36/46


37/46



Alt 7ol$enyCrisis /ased Bolitis

Critiism is key to un+$eiling the faade of peae.




In this essay, I address each o+ these concerns in turn, de1elo'ing a criti5ue o+ the war('eace dichotomy that is+oundational to con1entional a''roaches to IRthrough a re1iew o+ three recent 'u!lications in the +ield o+ +eministsecurity studies) These te4ts are Cynthia 7nloeLs -$%%?. @lo!alization and 8ilitarism, =a1id Ro!ertsL -$%%A. Human

Insecurity, and 8others, 8onsters, Dhores: DomenLs Eiolence in @lo!al olitics !y aura S*o!erg and Caron @entry

-$%%A.) =rawing on the insights o+ these !oo2s, I as2 +irst how 1iolence is understood in glo!al 'olitics, with

s'eci+ic re+erence to the gendered disci'linary !lindnesses that +re5uently characterise mainstream

a''roaches) Second, I demonstrate how a +ocus on war and 'eace can neglect to ta2e into account the 'olitics

o+ e1eryday 1iolence: the 1iolences o+ the in!etween times that international 'olitics recognises neitheras LwarL nor L'eaceL and the 1iolences inherent to times o+ 'eace that are o1erloo2ed in the study o+ war)

Finally, I argue that +eminist security studies o++ers an im'ortant correcti1e to the +oundational assum'tionso+ IR, which themsel1es can 'er'etuate the 1ery instances o+ 1iolence that they see2 to redress) I+ weacce't the core insights o+ +eminist security studies the centrality o+ the human su!*ect, the im'ortance

o+ 'articular con+igurations o+ masculinity and +emininity, and the gendered conce'tual +ramewor2 that

under'ins the disci'line o+ IR we are encouraged to en1isage a rather di++erent 'olitics o+ the glo!al)

3#
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTARThttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART


38/46



Alt 7ol$enyBatriarhy

The Alt sol$es+ Feminism an o$erome Batriarhy and thus all forms of domination

Nhanenge *((2

ytte; Hasters O 9 7outh Afria; Aepted Thesis Baper for 4e$elopment 7tudies; =8C6F8H0N7HE T6,A&470NT8&AT0N TG8 C6NC8&N7 6F ,6H8N; B66& B86BL8 AN4 NAT9&8 0NT6 48D8L6BH8NT;


To rid the world o+ nuclear wea'ons, 'o1erty, racism, se4ism and other isms o+ dominationdiscriminations must end)


39/46



Alt 7ol$enyBatriarhy

The Alt sol$es; feminism an adresss and o$erthro! the root ause of $ioleneM patriarhy

Ioungs (J-@illian Ooung, %;, International


40/46



555Frame!ork555

Frame!ork

8$en if they !in Frame!ork; !e still !in. They ignore pro"lems that kill more people.

:ale!ski; (-Harysia :ale!ski; 4iretor of the Center for ender 7tudies at the 9ni$ersity of A"erdeen; From an inter$ie! on9nsettling 0&; Hasulinity; and Haking 0& Theory 0nteresting againP; httpE33!!!.theory+talks.org3*((-3(J3theory+

talk+*?.htmlP

This is a ty'ical 6IR 5uestion3 since it 'resu''oses there is -or 'erha's 6should !e3. a central issue that wecould(should all agree on)


41/46


42/46



AffNeo+Li"eralism 7ol$es

Li"erali'ation and Harket 4e$elopment ha$e already inreased gender e%uality more than the

go$ernment e$er ould

CAT6 poliy report; -2

0ndi$idual Li"erty; Free Harkets; and Beae; CAT6 Boliy &eport; 6to"er 1--2;httpE33!!!.ato.org3pu"s3poliyWreport3pr+1-n)+.htmlP

ate `iao hou tal2ed a!out J8ar2et =e1elo'ment and Rural DomenLs Re1olution in Contem'orary China)J hou, a nati1e

o+ China who is currently teaching at the Uni1ersity o+ Hawaii at 8anoa, argued that li!eralizationin China has greatlyincreased the economic !argaining 'ower o+ women and has gi1en them greater +inancial and social

+reedom) J8ar2et de1elo'ment in the 'ast se1eral years has done more to reduce 'atriarchy in China than

go1ernment action did in the 're1ious +our decades)J 8ichael Tanner, director o+ health and wel+are studies at theCato Institute, urged China to ado't a 'ri1ately run de+inedcontri!ution retirement system similar to the one in Chile) The

man who de1elo'ed that system, #os\ iera, cochairman o+ the Cato ro*ect on Social Security ri1atization, told the crowd

that since Chile 'ri1atized its 'ension system in the early BA%s, it has e4'erienced an a1erage annual growth rate o+ ?'ercent)


43/46



Aff 8ssentialism

Assoiating !omen !ith peae reinfores harmful gender sterotypes.

Tikner *((1@Ann; professor at the 7hool of 0nternational &elations 97C. /.A. in Gistory; 9ni$ersity of London. H.A. in 0&; Iale.

Bh4 from /randeis 9ni$ersity; =,hy ,omen Cant &un the ,orldE

0nternational Bolitis Aording toFranis Fukuyama; htt':((we!)centre)edu(lorihm(tic2ner)'d+

8ost IR +eminists would deny the assertion that women are morally su'erior to men) Indeed, many o+ themha1e claimed that the association o+ women with 'eace and moral su'eriority has a long history o+ 2ee'ing

women out o+ 'ower, going !ac2 to the de!ates a!out the merits o+ +emale su++rage in the early 'art o+ the century) Theassociation o+ women with 'eace can 'lay into un+ortunate gender stereoty'es that characterize men as

acti1e, women as 'assi1e men as agents, women as 1ictims men as rational, women as emotional) ot

only are these stereoty'es damaging to women, 'articularly to their credi!ilityas actors in matters o+

international 'olitics and national security,!ut they are also damaging to 'eace)


44/46


45/46


46/46



Aff Ditimi'ation ood

Ditimhood mo"ili'es ation through a sense of reognition and solidarity !hile also onfirming

the $ery humanity of persons in$ol$ed

Hino! -Hartha; Brof of La! O Gar$ard; August; J( 9CLA L. &e$. 1J11; leisP

Telling 'ersonal stories o+ 'ain can !e thera'eutic 'ersonal stories can also hel' mo!ilize 'eo'le with similare4'eriences through a sense o+ recognition and solidarity) n%? Telling stories o+ 1ictimhood can also !e

essential +or con+irming the 1ery humanity o+ those in1ol1ed, and +or 'ersuading 'er'etrators and

!ystanders to ac2nowledge harms and to act di++erently) Indi1idualized stories are essential to a1oid the

dehumanizing a!stractions that allow 'eo'le to +orget or tri1ialize the su++ering o+ others ) n%A ora ealeHurston wrote, JThere is no agony li2e !earing an untold story inside you)J n%B Surely that agony is most intense when the story is a!out you and your own

'ain) Oet there is a ris2 that em'hasizing indi1idual stories and stressing +eelings can undermine critical e1aluation and analysis o+ contradictory claims)

%

&eogni'ing indi$iduals as "oth $itims and more than $itims an sol$e the dilemma of

$itimhood

Le$it 1--Nany; Assoiate Brofessor at 9HKC La!; April; J 9CLA L. &e$. 1(2; leisP

The 'ur'ose o+ e4amining the 1arious ways in which legal doctrines and the legal system disad1antage men is not to thrust men into 1ictimhood) n?&

ro+essor 8artha 8inow has cautioned a!out the dilemma o+ 1ictimhood: 0n the one hand, +ailure to ac2nowledge

1ictimization Jcountenances o''ression)J 0n the other hand, s'ea2ing in terms o+ 1ictimization may'romote 'assi1ity, hel'lessness, and !laming !eha1ior on the 'art o+ 1ictims) n?>

Documents

Fem K Model - Somewhat Good