FEMINIST KRITIK SHELL - wcdebate.com · Web viewOne way that feminist theorists have responded to...

West Coast Publishing 1Feminism K and Answers

Feminism Critique and Answers

Feminism K – 1NC Shell 1/2.....................................................................................................................................2Feminism K – 1NC Shell 2/2.....................................................................................................................................3Feminism K – Link – State-Focus..............................................................................................................................4Feminism K – Link – State-Focus..............................................................................................................................5Feminism K – Link – Realism....................................................................................................................................6Feminism K – Link – Nationalism..............................................................................................................................7Feminism K – Link – Civic Engagement.....................................................................................................................8Feminism K – Link – Gender Norms.........................................................................................................................9Feminism K – Link – Military..................................................................................................................................10Feminism K – Link – Military..................................................................................................................................11Feminism K – Impact – Extinction..........................................................................................................................12Feminism K – Impact – War...................................................................................................................................13Feminism K – Alternative – Performativity.............................................................................................................14Feminism K – Alternative – Feminist Policy............................................................................................................15Feminism K – Alternative – Focus on the Global South..........................................................................................16Feminism K – Alternative Solves Global Security...................................................................................................17Feminism K – Alternative Solves Peace..................................................................................................................18Feminism K – Alternative Solves International Relations.......................................................................................19Feminism K – Alternative Solves Realism...............................................................................................................20Feminism K – Alternative Solves Military Inequality..............................................................................................21Feminism K – A2: Permutation – Co-optation........................................................................................................22Feminism K – A2: Permutation – Mutually-Exclusive.............................................................................................23Feminism K – A2: Alternative is Oppressive...........................................................................................................24

A2: Feminism K – State Good.................................................................................................................................25A2: Feminism K – Reformism Good........................................................................................................................26A2: Feminism K – Realism Good.............................................................................................................................27A2: Feminism K – Human Rights Good...................................................................................................................28A2: Feminism K – No Link – Military.......................................................................................................................29A2: Feminism K – No Link – Civic Engagement.......................................................................................................30A2: Feminism K – Permutation Solves....................................................................................................................31A2: Feminism K – Alternative Fails.........................................................................................................................32A2: Feminism K – Performativity Fails....................................................................................................................33A2: Feminism K – Alternative is Oppressive...........................................................................................................34A2: Feminism K – Alternative is Oppressive...........................................................................................................35A2: Feminism K – Alternative Homogenizes...........................................................................................................36A2: Feminism K – Alternative Can’t Solve Racism..................................................................................................37A2: Feminism K – Alternative Essentializes............................................................................................................38A2: Feminism K – Alternative Ignores Difference...................................................................................................39A2: Feminism K – A2: War Impacts........................................................................................................................40


Feminism K – 1NC Shell 1/2

A. ACCEPTING TRADITIONAL IMAGES OF MEN AND WOMEN IS PATRIARCHAL AND LEGITIMATES WARCynthia Cockburn, Research Professor in the Dept of Sociology, 1998. THE SPACE BETWEEN US: NEGOTIATING GENDER AND NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN CONFLICT, p. 13-14.

We cannot let traditionalist images of women and men in these wars pass unquestioned, any more than we can accept primordial explanations of the violence itself. We have to ask: what happened that the reality could sustain such images, and that those images could gain currency? Asking such questions uncovers an important idea: these apparently ethnic wars are, in a sense, also gender wars. The communal power these political movements, armed with guns, seek to establish or defend is (among other things) gender power, the regimes they seek to install are (among other things) gender regimes. As well as defining a relation between peoples and land, they shape a certain relation between women and men. It is a relation of male dominance, in some cases frankly patriarchal. It is constituted at best in a refusal to challenge the existing balance of gender power enforced by male violence, at worst in an essentialist discourse that reasserts a supposedly natural order and legitimates that violence.

B. MASCULINE CONCEPTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP RELEGATES WOMEN TO SECOND CLASS CITIZENS WHICH GUTS DEMOCRACYAlison M. Jaggar, Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies, 2005. WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 93-94.

A second set of challenges to traditional conceptions of citizenship emerges from feminist disappointment that, even after attaining the formal rights of citizens, women are still underrepresented at the highest levels of government and industry—not to mention the military. Seeking to explain women’s limited participation in these arenas, some feminist theorists have challenged the masculine norm embedded in many modern conceptions of citizenship, which define citizens’ rights and responsibilities in ways that make it difficult for women to be full citizens. For example, civic republican conceptions of citizenship are so demanding that citizen responsibilities can be met only by people who belong to a relatively leisured elite—an elite that, on the prevailing gender division of labor, is likely to be disproportionately male. Similarly, feminists have charged that the liberal model of citizenship, which relies on an implicitly masculine understanding of the citizen as soldier and as worker, makes it especially difficult for women to be full citizens, because their socially assigned care-taking responsibilities pose obstacles to women’s working for wages or serving in the military. The participatory democratic model of citizenship is less elitist than the liberal and civic republican models and more respectful of the dignity of labor, because it regards the workplace as one arena for citizen participation; however, participatory democrats typically envision workplaces as sites in which people work for pay and ignore the vast amount of unpaid labor performed by women in the home and the community. One way that feminist theorists have responded to women’s de facto exclusion from full citizenship, traditionally defined, is by challenging the disproportionate assignment of unpaid caring labor to women, which deprives women of the time and energy to participate fully in citizens’ distinctive activities. Alternatively, however, a few theorists have argued that women’s caring labor should be recognized as a distinctive practice of citizenship, performed in the domestic arena.


Feminism K – 1NC Shell 2/2

C. PERFORMATIVE UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENDER MUST BE USED TO OVERCOME BINARY GENDER DEFINITIONS AND RECONSTRUCT GENDERR. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 145-146.

Performativity theory adds three elements to these feminist approaches. First, it rejects the inevitability of a dyadic gender system and so holds out the possibility of eventually moving beyond gender—rendering gender irrelevant for civic purposes. Second, it replaces the idea of a core gender identity with the idea of gender as a process, as something that can never be finally achieved; one must constantly perform one’s gender. Finally, performativity theory, as I have reinterpreted it, allows for the possibility of reconstructing gender through participation in subversive transgender performances. The spectacle of “men” acting “like women” and “women” acting “like men” should highlight the artificiality of supposedly natural manifestations of gender and, in this way, undermine the foundations of the sex/gender system and the sexism it generates. Thus, performativity theory challenges versions of feminism that begin with the assumption of sexual difference and that simply hope to valorize women’s “different voice.”

D. A FEMINIST ALTERNATIVE PREVENTS REGRESSIVE ETHNIC AND NATIONALIST IDEAS – IT LEADS TO EXAMINING GENDER, CLASS, MILITARY AND STATE VIOLENCE Cynthia Cockburn, Research Professor in the Dept of Sociology, 1998.THE SPACE BETWEEN US: NEGOTIATING GENDER AND NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN CONFLICT, p. 44-45.

Feminism in this sense does tend, I think, to immunize women against regressive constructions of ethnic and national identity. If you pick a non-primordial gender card you are less likely to reach for a primordial nation card. A gender critique strips the myths away from notions like ‘community’, ‘country’ and ‘people’ invoked in nationalist discourse. A feminist is likely to see community and people as seductive words that hide gender and class inequalities within. Because she has seen how the innocent notion of ‘home’ conceals confinement, divisions, oppression and violence, she is the more likely to be sceptical of ‘homeland’. If you see home as a ‘golden cage’ you may suspect that homeland too has its contradictions. A feminist analysis is not a bad place to stand to get a perspective on violence as a continuum — from domestic violence (in and near the home) to military violence (patrolling the external boundaries against enemies) and state violence (policing against traitors within).


Feminism K – Link – State-Focus

1. STATE-BASED POLICYMAKING AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS ARE DEEPLY GENDER-BIASEDV. Spike Peterson, Professor of Political Science at the University of Arizona, 1996.POST-REALISM: THE RHETORICAL TURN IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, p. 268.

From a feminist post-realist perspective, states mark the institutionalization and legitimation of social hierarchies in which the autonomy and social adulthood of women "as a group" was sacrificed in favor of group survival based on male-defined needs and dominated by elite men. To ignore the oppressive consequences of state making is to deny the reality of most of the state's "subjects." It is to exclude from political analysis the power required to impose, legitimize, and reproduce systemic inequalities. It is also to accept acritically the state's legitimating claim that it represents the will of the entire society. 32 Through a feminist lens, the state is gendered and its gender is masculine. The maleness of the state is due in large part to the conventional dichotomy of private and public and the construction of the public sphere and politics as exclusively masculine. In the realist story, women and the activities of the private sphere are outside of politics and must be prevented from contaminating the public sphere, which is a domain of free, rational agents. As abstractions, women are primarily excluded by associating them with the denigrated private sphere and denying them the rationality that marks "man" as the highest animal. Concretely, women have been (and continue to be) excluded from political power by limiting citizenship to those who are property owners and/or who perform military duty. Even when formal barriers are removed, patterns of gender hierarchy prevent women's de facto equality in political power.

2. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS REFLECTS THIS GENDER OPPRESSION – DICHOTOMIES BETWEEN NATIONS, AID GIVERS AND RECIPIENTS, REINFORCE PATRIARCHY V. Spike Peterson, Professor of Political Science at the University of Arizona, 1996.POST-REALISM: THE RHETORICAL TURN IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, p. 269.

The public-private dichotomy structures external as well as internal relations. 33 Because the public/state is masculine and categorically separate from the private sphere, international relations treats the latter as irrelevant: the discipline is definitively about relations between, not within, states; and private sphere activities (domestic in both senses) are excluded from analyses. Because reason and political order are masculine, their absence in inter-state relations renders anarchy feminine (in the sense of disorder, uncertainty, and uncontrollable passions): principles of justice, fairness, and progress that characterize civil society are deemed inappropriate and even dangerous where rule by brute force prevails. 34 Finally, because the dichotomy is so naturalized in Western thought, its extensive effects are taken for granted and we rarely consider how it reproduces and reinforces oppositional separations at the expense of recognizing interdependence. The identification of human agency with male reason and the latter's construction as antithetical to "woman" was a condition of defining sovereign rational man and establishing his distance from "Others," including "outsiders." This exclusionary definition is key to both the construction of philosophy and political theory. The oppositional lens featured in objectivist and realist accounts magnifies and legitimizes self-other, us-them, aggressive-passive, insider-outsider, and protector-protected dichotomies.


Feminism K – Link – State-Focus

1. THE LIBERAL STATE IS FOUNDED ON MALE DOMINANCE OVER WOMENV. Spike Peterson, Professor of Political Science at the University of Arizona, 1992.GENDERED STATES: FEMINIST (RE)VISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY, p. 65.

The crux of feminist challenge to the liberal state is essentially an antistate analysis with demonstrations that liberalism, while promising to divest the state of its destructive features, does not do so. In this analysis, states are inherently oppressive and exploitative organizations of power. They are run by hierarchies in control of deadly force deployed to protect the privileges of elites, which are, for the most part, capital-controlling, white, and male. In short, feminist antiliberal, antistate analysis is similar to already established Marxist criticism of the state but with added attention to gender. States are not only instruments of class interest but also of patriarchy. They perpetuate not only class conflict and violence but also gender conflict and violence. And liberal systems that supposedly democratize power and wealth simply mask the underlying fact of elite rule. Where can this analysis lead but to a call for deconstructing the present sovereign state system?

2. THE MODEL OF THE LIBERAL STATE STRUCTURALLY OBSCURES WOMEN FROM VIEWChristine Sylvester, Professor of International Relations and Development at Lancaster University, 2001.FEMINIST INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: AN UNFINISHED JOURNEY, p. 184.

The Realist-realist gender concealments may have to do with shared groundings in liberalism (Stein, 1990). 1 The feminist writings of Nancy Hirschmann, Carole Pateman, and Cynthia Enloe help us see how that connection works and how certain forms of liberal thought can erase women from spheres of significance. Hirschmann (1989) traces the unacknowledged gendering of freedom, recognition, and obligation in western liberal theory to defensiveness experienced by males in the process of becoming properly gendered as men; one sees within her treatise the origins of defensively positionalist realist states. 2 Pateman (1988) writes about a conquest-based sexual contract predating the hypothetical liberal social contract that brought Leviathans into existence; both contracts are alive today within the gendered operations of many neorealist and neoliberal institutionalist regimes. Enloe (1989) offers glimpses of women engaged in liberal exchanges and reciprocities that should figure into realist theories of international relations, but do not; she argues in effect that viewing these activities from women's standpoints reveals the false gender blindness of the realist imperium and makes it more difficult for the rule of emperors to continue.

3. EVEN SEEMINGLY GENDER-NEUTRAL STATES CAN PERPETUATE MASCULINE DOMINANCEWendy Brown, Professor of Political Science at UC-Berkeley, 1992.FEMINIST STUDIES, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. ebsco.

Before elaborating each of these dimensions of state power, I want to offer three prefatory notes about male dominance and state power. First, the argument I am here advancing is that all dimensions of state power, and not merely some overtly "patriarchal" aspect, figure in the gendering of the state. The state can be masculinist without intentionally or overtly pursuing the "interests" of men precisely because the multiple dimensions of socially constructed masculinity have historically shaped the multiple modes of power circulating through the domain called the state-this is what it means to talk about masculinist power rather than the power of men. On the other hand, although all state power is marked with gender, the same aspects of masculinism do not appear in each modality of state power. Thus, a feminist theory of the state requires simultaneously articulating, deconstructing, and relating the multiple strands of power comprising both masculinity and the state. The fact that neither state power nor male dominance are unitary or systematic means that a feminist theory of the state will be less a linear argument than the mapping of an intricate grid of often conflicting strategies, technologies, and discourses of power.


Feminism K – Link – Realism

1. REALISM IS GENDER-BIASED J. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS: ISSUES & APPROACHES IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA, p. 52.

Feminists are also questioning the use of more scientifically based rational-choice theory, based on the instrumentally rational behavior of individuals in the marketplace that neorealists have used to explain states' security-seeking behavior. According to this model, states are unproblematically assumed to be instrumental profit maximizers pursuing power and autonomy in an anarchic international system. Where international cooperation exists, it is explained not in terms of community but, rather, in terms of enlightened self-interest. Feminists suggest that rational-choice theory is based on a partial representation of human behavior that, since women in the West have historically been confined to reproductive activities, has been more typical of certain men. 57 Characteristics such as self-help, autonomy, and power maximizing that are prescribed by realists as security-enhancing behavior are very similar to the hegemonic, masculine-gendered characteristics described in chapter 1. The instrumentally competitive behavior of states, which results in power balancing, is similar to equilibrium theory, or the market behavior of rational-economic man. Therefore, it tends to privilege certain types of behaviors over others. While states do indeed behave in these ways, these models offer us only a partial understanding of their behavior. As other IR scholars, too, have pointed out, states engage in cooperative as well as conflictual behavior; privileging these masculinist models tends to delegitimate other ways of behaving and make them appear less “realistic.”

2. REALIST THEORIES OF POLITICS ARE FOUNDED ON THE EXCLUSION OF WOMENV. Spike Peterson, Professor of Political Science at the University of Arizona, 1996.POST-REALISM: THE RHETORICAL TURN IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, p. 271.

Gender is at work here because the exclusion of "the feminine" is foundational to realist constructions of rational man, political agency, and state sovereignty. Historically, realism flourished during periods of turbulence, articulated by those seeking stability, certainty, and (their corollary:) increased control/domination. Realism is now being challenged in the midst of the political turbulence of changing states and the intellectual turbulence of changing epistemologies that we identify as post-modernity. Shifting gender relations were key to earlier transformations, as they are in the present context. Today's nationalist struggles, critical social movements, religious fundamentalisms, democratic mobilizations, peace initiatives, human rights, ecological attitudes, welfare-state crises, development policies, and restructured labor forces cannot be realistically analyzed without attending to gender. And today's multiple and fluid identities, contradictions between public and private moralities, post-positivist epistemologies, critiques of rationalism, realism, and humanism, and post-realist pursuit of rhetorical strategies cannot be adequately addressed without attending to gender. In Philip Windsor's words, "Contemporary history and contemporary philosophical undertakings mean that any reconciliation of the public and the private, the intellectual and the emotional, the considerations of morality with those of contingency, depend crucially on a re-examination of Western values and schemata--not least as they are determined by the relations between women and men."

3. REALIST EXPLANATIONS MASK SYSTEMIC GENDER BIASES IN POLITICSV. Spike Peterson, Professor of Political Science at the University of Arizona, 1996.POST-REALISM: THE RHETORICAL TURN IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, p. 270-271.

Through an objectivist and realist lens that takes "sovereign rational man," competition, gender dichotomy, and social hierarchies as "naturally given," a variety of questions cannot be asked and critical challenges cannot be raised. Against objectivism, the embedded and embodied reality of concepts and practices is obscured. Against "realism," normative questions appear irrelevant or pointless, multiple realities are rendered invisible, and alternative visions appear necessarily utopian. In both, the actual direction of dependencies is inverted. We "forget" that abstractions require a material medium, that the pursuit of


reason requires an emotional commitment, that elites are sustained by the production activities of non-elites, and that public sphere activities rely on effective domestic maintenance and reproduction.


Feminism K – Link – Nationalism

1. GOVERNMENT CALLS FOR UNITY REPLICATE THE MASCULINE ROLE OF PROTECTOR, WHICH CRUSHES AUTONOMY AND EQUALITY Marilyn Friedman, Professor of Philosophy, 2005. WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 5.

Iris Marion Young’s essay, “The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on — -the Current Security State,” draws attention to practices of citizenship that can arise under a government at war. However, in contrast to literature that explains war in terms of stereotypically masculine tendencies toward violence (see the overview in Goldstein 2001), Young instead explores the logic of the masculine role of protector. A government acting in accord with this role protects its members in an overly aggressive fashion from external dangers as well as from internal dissension. This role, which Young calls the “security regime,” threatens to undermine democratic practice. A state acting as a security regime expects to be rewarded by its population with uncritical obedience and submissiveness. A security regime plays a role toward its citizens that is analogous to that played by a protective family patriarch toward the women and children of his family. Young argues that adult citizens do not accept this sort of political relationship with their government. Even from a protective government, what adult citizens want instead are relationships that respect their autonomy and equality.

2. STATE-SPONSORED COMMUNITY SERVICE AND ACTIVISM REPLICATES GENDER NORMS EVEN IF AVENUES FOR EXPLORING NORMS ARE CREATED AS WELL Martha Ackelsberg, Professor, Government and Women’s Studies, 2005. WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 76-77.

Finally, many of the same studies also highlight the ambiguous role of the state in providing a context for community-based activism. Naples’s study of women antipoverty activists during the War on Poverty notes that activism was both facilitated and inhibited by state policy. The state often plays a contradictory role as both a “catalyst for, and site of, women’s politicization.” It “not only supports the reproduction of gender, racial-ethnic, and class inequality, but also provides avenues through which these patterns can be challenged.” LaDoris Payne, now director of WomanSpirit—an NCNW-affiliated organization in St. Louis—got her start as an organizer through the War on Poverty, when she was hired as a Community Outreach worker. In Brooklyn, the NCNW used money from Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) to employ low-income women from the neighborhood and to pay them for (among other things) community organizing. Those funds—together with NCNW’s neighborhood college program— helped to support and politicize significant numbers of neighborhood women. Conversely, however, when federal funds ran dry, many of the organization’s programs had to be discontinued or dramatically scaled back. Ultimately, as Iris Young also argues, effective social change will require not only an active (politicized) civil society but also engagement in more traditional domains of politics, such as elections, lobbying, and so on.

3. NATIONALIST SENTIMENT REVERSES WOMEN’S PROGRESS TOWARD EMANCIPATIONCynthia Cockburn, Research Professor in the Dept of Sociology, 1998. THE SPACE BETWEEN US: NEGOTIATING GENDER AND NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN CONFLICT, p. 41-42.

So are nationalism and feminism compatible? It depends of course on what kind of nationalism and what kind of feminism you are talking about — for both of them are plural movements. Feminist historians documenting liberatory moments in national movements do not hesitate to write of ‘feminist nationalisms’ (West 1992, 1997a). In Europe such moments have been few and far between. Gisela Kaplan writes: ‘So extraordinary and unusual is the alliance between feminism and nationalism in Europe that I was able to find only two examples: nineteenth-century Italy and twentieth-century Finland.’ These were rare instances in which, as she puts it, ‘nationalism was capable of functioning as a force of an ascending citizenship’ (Kaplan 1997). Certainly the programme of German National Socialism of the mid-twentieth century included a reversal of women’s progress towards emancipation after the First World War (Koonz 1987). This is the kind of nationalism which, as Cynthia Enloe puts it, ‘springs from masculinized memory, masculinized humiliation and masculinized hope’ (Enloe 1989: 44).


Feminism K – Link – Civic Engagement

1. CALLS FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT EMBODY CIVIC-REPUBLICAN PRACTICES, WHICH CONSTRUCT CIVIC AND MILITARY SERVICE AS MASCULINE R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 3.

In its ideal form, civic republican citizenship—what I call the citizenship of civic practices—contrasts with two other conceptions of citizenship: ius solis (citizenship tied to place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship based on bloodlines). Ius solis—characteristic of liberal democracies —defines citizens as any group of individuals living in a particular bounded territory, whereas ius sanguinis—or what could be called a citizenship of blood—restricts citizenship to members of a particular ascribed group. In contrast to these two conceptions, a citizenship of civic practices requires engagement in civic and martial practices. It is not enough to live within the borders of a nation-state, nor is it enough to have a particular ethnic identity. Rather, one’s identity as a citizen-soldier requires repeated engagement in civic and martial practices. Additionally, as we would expect, the performative understanding of identity implicit to civic republicanism applies to gender as well as to civic identity. The same practices constitutive of citizen-soldiers also construct masculinity—what it means to be a man within a civic republican framework. But while participation in civic and martial practices transforms male individuals into masculine citizen-soldiers, the exclusion of female individuals from these same practices contributes to the dominant construction of “femininity.” Women traditionally engage in the practices constitutive of “republican mothers” rather than citizen-soldiers.

2. THE CIVIC-REPUBLICAN TRADITION IS A CENTRAL PART OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY THAT IS TRADITIONALLY GENDERED AS MASCULINER. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 2.

Setting aside for the moment the historically masculine character of the Citizen-Soldier, we can see that this tradition provides important insights for us today because civic republicanism remains the only political theoretical discourse that recognizes the military as a central problem for democratic society. Hierarchical institutions of coercion, such as the police and the military, always pose a problem for a democratic society in which freedom and equality are fundamental values. Nevertheless, democratic societies require the existence of such institutions to protect themselves from those who would undermine the fragile ideals of liberty, equality, and the rule of law. Or to put it in terms of the tradition itself, a democracy must vigilantly guard itself against the threats posed by internal and external enemies. Because the Citizen-Soldier tradition directly addresses the potential contradiction between civic and martial imperatives, remembering this tradition should add a new dimension to current debates about the military, whereas overlooking this tradition allows us to refrain from taking the military seriously as a part of democratic society.

3. CITIZEN’S ENGAGEMENT IS GENDERED, RELEGATING WOMEN’S ACTIVITIES TO THE PRIVATE SPHERE Alison M. Jaggar, Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies, 2005. WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 92.

Throughout Western history, citizenship has been gendered masculine. Citizen identity has been limited to (some) men, and citizens’ relations with each other have been conceived as fraternal bonds. The activities regarded as characteristic of citizens—fighting, governing, buying and selling property, and eventually working for wages—have all been viewed as masculine, as have been the social locations where these activities are undertaken. Thus, the battlefield, the state, and (later) the market have been constituted as the public realm, the arenas in which citizenship is performed. Although the boundaries of the public have been variously I defined, they have always demarcated the public from the private realm of home, family, and community. The private has been a symbolically feminine sphere, whose inhabitants—slaves, servants, women, and children—have often lacked the privileges of citizenship and have been viewed as needing protection and control by citizens. Although the activities carried out in the private sphere have always


been recognized as indispensable to the reproduction of human life, they have typically been viewed as closer to nature, less fully human, and so less valuable than the activities that distinguish citizenship.


Feminism K – Link – Gender Norms

1. GENDERED CULTURAL IDEAS ABOUT MEN AND WOMEN PRESCRIBE CERTAIN WAYS OF ACTING AND THINKING, WHICH LIMITS SELF-EXPRESSION AND LEADS TO STEREOTYPES R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999.CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 145-146.

The gendered cultural ideals inherent in the Western tradition, she explains, require that “in time of war, real men and women take on, in cultural memory and narrative, the personas of Just Warriors and Beautiful Souls.” The ideals of the Just Warrior—”man construed as violent, whether eagerly and inevitably or reluctantly and tragically”—and the Beautiful Soul— “woman [construed] as nonviolent, offering succor and compassion”—that Elshtain articulates operate like our Citizen-Soldier ideal: Each prescribes a set of practices the participation in which constitutes biological males and females as masculine and feminine—as “men” and “women.” In Elshtain’s words, these ideals “do not denote what men and women really are in time of war, but function instead to recreate and secure women’s location as noncombatants and men’s as warriors.” The Just Warrior and the Beautiful Soul, like the CitizenSoldier, are normative ideals that require biological males and females to act like “men” and “women” — and consequently, to become men and women.

2. GENDER DETERMINES THE LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT IN CIVIC SOCIETY BY CIRCUMSCRIBING THE ACTIVITIES OF WOMENMarilyn Friedman, Professor of Philosophy, 2005.WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 4.

The public and political realms in which citizenship is paradigmatically conceptualized and practiced are realms based largely on modes of living as well as attributes that are stereotypically male— the role of wage-earner, for example. This means that even when the rights and privileges of political citizenship are made available to women, practical and conceptual obstacles may make it difficult for women to avail themselves fully of these options. How we understand women (and men) as citizens is, in turn, dependent on these differentiated political elaborations (Landes 1998; Phillips 1998; Young 1997). At the same time, citizenship is not confined to the public or political spheres. The citizenship practices of the public and political spheres are themselves related to conditions in other social spheres, such as those of family and civil society. Gender is generally salient to the meanings and practices of citizenship in these other social realms as well. These nonstate realms of citizenship practice provide options for women’s political agency that may circumvent the restrictions of the political sphere, for example, agency based on women’s traditional roles as nurturers (Kittay 1999; Ruddick 1989). If citizenship is about full membership in one’s community, then these additional realms of culture and society are necessary contexts and conditions for its practice. Gender and citizenship thus intersect and engage each other in a variety of ways, often through the mediation of other social institutions.


Feminism K – Link – Military

1. DISCUSSIONS OF GENDER IN THE MILITARY RELIES ON CULTURAL CONSTRUCTS OF ARMED MASCULINITY VERSUS PEACEFUL FEMININITY R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 145-146.

Jean Bethke Elshtain’s work on women and the military hints at but does not develop the possibility of subversive transgender performances. Unlike Enloe and others who explore the global process of militarization in all its cultural particularities, Elshtain focuses on gender and military service within the Western tradition of political thought and specifically within her reading of “armed civic virtue”—of the Citizen-Soldier tradition. “We in the West,” Elshtain argues, “are the heirs of a tradition that assumes an affinity between women and peace, between men and war, a tradition that consists of culturally constructed and transmitted myths and memories.” Indeed, the cultural constructs of armed masculinity and pacific femininity—or the Just Warrior and the Beautiful Soul as she calls them—are deeply rooted in our Western tradition and so are not easily dislodged.

2. THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTS MASCULINITY IN OPPOSITION TO FEMININITY, FORCING WOMEN AND MEN INTO FASCIST REPRESSION R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 125-126.

Traditionally, martial practices have functioned to construct a masculinity defined in direct opposition to femininity and to keep the feminine threat inside men at bay. Hannah Pitkin emphasizes this in her discussion of Machiavelli’s stress on military service in the militia: “Only ferocious discipline and terrifying punishments” can prevent men from becoming feminine. Linda Zerilli argues that contemporary man fears the breakdown of gender identity; he fears that “if the code of gender difference is not strictly adhered to at each and every moment, all is lost.” Klaus Theweleit finds an extreme version of the same phenomenon in his examination of the erotic writings of the Freikorpsmen who became Nazi SA officers: “What fascism promised men was.., dominance of the hostile ‘female’ element within themselves.” In the introduction to his second volume, Jessica Benjamin and Anson Rabinbach tell us that Theweleit criticizes the traditional Frankfurt School analysis of fascism for neglecting the “attraction of fascism itself”—its “passionate celebration of violence.” They then go on to summarize his argument as follows: “Indeed, it is Theweleit’s insistence on the primacy of violence—originating in the fear and hatred of the feminine—that distinguishes his approach from the older social-psychological models.. . . The crucial element of fascism is its explicit sexual language. . . . this fascist symbolization creates a particular kind of psychic economy which places sexuality in the service of destruction.” Martial practices produce an armed masculinity constituted in direct opposition to femininity, and fascism simply exaggerates this process.

3. THE MILITARY POSITS THE MALE AS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE CITIZEN R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 89-90.

The rituals required by the Citizen-Soldier ideal and enacted by the marching companies played a key role in the constitution of masculine republican citizenship. Focusing on nationalism, Lauren Berlant argues that “participation in national celebration connects the citizen to a collective subjectivity constituted by synchronous participation in the same national rituals, the same discursive system.” Similarly, the martial rituals and civic festivals characteristic of the Citizen-Soldier tradition functioned to connect individuals to a collective subjectivity—that is, to their republican communities. Citizenship was actually constructed through synchronous participation in civic and martial rituals. However, while Berlant focuses on the role the Statue of Liberty played in the creation of American nationalism at the end of the nineteenth century, the ideal of the Citizen-Soldier required participation in the states’ militias and thus helped constitute not national citizenship but citizenship that was rooted in local communities within particular states.


Feminism K – Link – Military

1. CULTURALLY CONSTRUCTED NOTIONS OF SOLDIERS IS DANGEROUS TO WOMEN, GAY MEN, LESBIANS AND PRODUCES SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999.CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 156.

The kind of armed masculinity we have been discussing presents a danger to women, gay men, and lesbians as well as to democratic citizenship. Clearly, we do not want to reinvigorate the Citizen-Soldier tradition in this country if it means reattaching a destructive, misogynistic, and homophobic armed masculinity onto citizenship. Moreover, the historically “masculine” category of the Manly Warrior cannot simply be expanded to include “women” but other wise remain unaltered. The armed masculinity of contemporary soldiers is a precarious cultural construct constituted in hostile opposition to “femininity”, whether located in “women” or within “men” themselves. Simply inserting “women” into a misogynistic warrior culture does not eliminate the conflation of soldiering with “masculinity,” but rather produces sexual harassment and rape, as evidenced by the broad array of recent scandals within the American military. Because of traditional dichotomous constructions of gender, female individuals are viewed not as “soldiers” but as “women.”

2. THE MILITARY TRADITION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS VIA A FEMINIST LENS MUST BE CONSIDERED TO ENSURE DEMOCRACY AND PREVENT MISOGYNY AND HOMOPHOBIA R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999.CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 157.

Nevertheless, there are two major reasons why we should not reject the Citizen-Soldier tradition in toto. First of all, it remains the only political theoretical discourse that recognizes the military as a central problem for democratic society. Hierarchical institutions of coercion, such as the police and the military, always pose a problem for a democratic society in which freedom and equality are fundamental values. Nevertheless, democratic societies require the existence of such institutions to protect themselves from those who would undermine the fragile ideals of liberty, equality, and the rule of law. Or to put it in terms of the tradition itself, a democracy must vigilantly guard itself against the threats posed by internal and external enemies. Because the Citizen-Soldier tradition directly addresses the potential contradiction between civic and martial imperatives, remembering this tradition should add a new dimension to current debates about the military, whereas overlooking this tradition allows us to refrain from taking the military seriously as a part of democratic society. Consequently, this tradition provides us with a set of democratic ideals with which we can strive to reform the military and purge it of misogyny and homophobia—neither of which is essential to military effectiveness.


Feminism K – Impact – Extinction

1. FEMINISM ALLOWS FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND EQUALITYDrucilla Cornell, professor of law, women's studies and political science at Rutgers University, 2003.CONTINENTAL FEMINISM READER, p. 216.

But this process of rethinking, as well as contesting the order of civilization as it is predicated upon psychical laws governing our sexuality and its possibilities, takes us beyond the parameters of public political life and of legal reform. As feminists, then, we want to understand both the role of law and its limit in the course of our most profound challenges to what we think of as human life. The protection of minimum conditions of individuation allows us an equivalent chance for freedom. Feminism is ultimately about politically taking that chance to create new worlds.

2. BREAKING DOWN MASCULINE NOTIONS OF SECURITY IS KEY TO HUMAN SURVIVALJill Steans, Lecturer, Political Science at Keele University, 1998. GENDER AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, p. 102-3.

Human survival may depend upon breaking the linkage between masculinity, military capacity and death. It is for feminists and others committed to peace to provide new thinking about the nature of politics, to redefine ‘political community’ and our ideas of ‘citizenship’ and, in so doing, confront the ‘barracks community’ directly with its ‘fear of the feminine.’

3. FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ARE KEY TO HUMAN SURVIVALBetty Reardon, feminist author, 1993. WOMEN AND PEACE: FEMINIST VISIONS OF GLOBAL SECURITY, p. 24-5.

Both men and women feminists have asserted that women’s approaches to social relations and economic necessity reflect desperately needed capacities that all human beings could develop, capacities that could drastically improve the chances for the survival of human society. Many believe that in women’s experiences and skills as nurturers there are possibilities for unprecedented policies to sustain the Earth and support her peoples.

4. WITHOUT INTERVENTION, MASCULINIST THEORIES WILL BECOME DOMINANT AGAINJill Vickers and Vanaja Dhruvarajan, professor of political science at Carleton University and professor of sociology at the University of Winnipeg, 2002.GENDER, RACE, AND NATION: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, p. 28.

Feminism has an important role to play in this era of globalization. Without constructive / critical feminist intervention there is a danger of masculinist theories becoming dominant again (Kaplan and Grewal, 1999) The need for a dialectical relationship between theory and practice has been accepted to a greater extent in recent year; so has the need to develop interdisciplinary ways of analyzing gender (Bridgman et al., 1999).

5. OUR FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS MUST INCLUDE SYSTEMATIC COMPARISONS AND HISTORICAL CONTEXTS TO MOVE AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL THOUGHT PROCESSESJill Vickers, professor of political science at Carleton University, 2002.GENDER, RACE, AND NATION: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, p. 82.

With these insights, we can add two more dimensions: (3) diverse experiences of transnational (“global”) forces because of historical and ideological differences in the local site resulting in different ‘takes’ on these forces; (4) similar responses to common experiences despite the countries’ and/or women’s experiences, we must identify historic and current economic and social trends and engage in systematic comparisons.


Feminism K – Impact – War

1. ADOPTING A FEMINIST LENS FOR POLITICS IS KEY TO SURVIVAL J. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS: ISSUES & APPROACHES IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA, p. 47

Yet imagining security divested of its statist connotations is problematic; the institutions of state power are not withering away. As R. B. J. Walker has claimed, the state is a political category in a way that the world or humanity is not. 44 The security of states dominates our understanding of what security can be because other forms of political community have been rendered unthinkable. Yet, as Walker goes on to say, given the dangers of nuclear weapons, we are no longer able to survive in a world predicated on an extreme logic of state sovereignty, nor one where war is an option for system change. Therefore, we must revise our understanding of the relationship between universality and particularity upon which a statist concept of security has been constructed. Security must be analyzed in terms of how contemporary insecurities are being created and by a sensitivity to the way in which people are responding to insecurities by reworking their understanding of how their own predicament fits into broader structures of violence and oppression. 45 Feminists—with their “bottom-up” approach to security, an ontology of social relations, and an emancipatory agenda—are beginning to undertake such reanalyses.

2. PATRIARCHY UNDERMINES WOMEN’S HEALTHTamara Braam, Sonke Development Agency, South Africa, and Leila Hessini, Senior Policy Adviser at Ipas, April 2004. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 43-51.

The logical consequence of a male-defined and male-dominated world view is that experiences that are not directly informed by men's experiences, notably pregnancy, childbirth, abortion and violence against women, are not seen as priority areas. Critical areas that impact significantly on women's health and lives such as unsafe abortion cannot compete with traditional development priorities such as unemployment and poverty. While we are not arguing for a hierarchy of social needs, we believe that a feminisation of development issues is necessary, in which women's sexual and reproductive health and rights are seen as central to the sustainable human development agenda.

3. PATRIARCHY IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF WARBetty Reardon, coordinator of the Peace Education Program at Columbia University, 1985. SEXISM AND THE WAR SYSTEM, p. 7.

The profoundly sexist history of the human species indicates that the socially induced and prescribed separations and differences between sexes are a very significant component of the inner psychic constructs. They may well be the psychic origins of war, sexism, and all structures of violence and oppression. Various feminists have pointed to the oppression of women by men as the first and most fundamental form of structural oppression (see Reardon 1975 for citations from unpublished papers by feminist anthropologists). It is clear that for both boys and girls the first socially encountered other, a person they perceive as being different from themselves, is usually of the other sex; and our experience indicates that it is others, those different from us, who threaten us and instigate the fear that gives rise to the notion of enemy and, ultimately, the practice of war. Society reinforces and exacerbates this perception of otherness.

CONFLICT IS INEVITABLE AS LONG AS GENDER HEIRARCHIES EXISTJ. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS: ISSUES & APPROACHES IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA, p. 6.

Feminists have claimed that the likelihood of conflict will not diminish until unequal gender hierarchies are reduced or eliminated; the privileging of characteristics associated with a stereotypical masculinity in states' foreign policies contributes to the legitimization not only of war but of militarization more generally. Wary of what they see as gendered dichotomies that have pitted realists against idealists and led to overly simplistic assumptions about warlike men and peaceful women, certain feminists are cautioning against the association of women with peace, a position that, they believe, disempowers both women and peace. The growing numbers of women in the military also challenges and complicates these essentialist stereotypes.


To this end, and as part of their effort to rethink concepts central to the field, feminists define peace and security, not in idealized ways often associated with women, but in broad, multidimensional terms that include the elimination of social hierarchies such as gender that lead to political and economic injustice.


Feminism K – Alternative – Performativity

1. A PERFORMATIVE UNDERSTANDING OF GENDER CAN BREAKDOWN ARTIFICIAL MASCULINITY AND SUPPORT RADICAL DEMOCRACYR. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 160-161.

My final suggestion for reconstituting the Citizen-Soldier tradition entails seizing the radical opportunities for “troubling” cultural constructions of gender inherent in a tradition that implicitly contains a performative understanding of civic and gender identity. In order to do this, we must, first, replace armed masculinity with a new form of civic masculinity and, second, make “gender trouble” by encouraging biological females to engage in the practices constitutive of civic masculinity. Simultaneously, we should encourage biological males to participate in the practices of a revitalized robust femininity. These types of subversive transgender performances should help realize the radical democratic potential for reconstructing the sex/gender system inherent in the civic republican tradition as I have reread it in this study. That is to say, if masculinity is a cultural construct rather than a natural attribute of biological males, female individuals theoretically should be able to participate in these practices and become citizen-soldiers alongside men. The subversive transgender performance of “women” engaging in culturally “masculine” practices would highlight the artificiality of gender and thus undermine the idea that “masculinity” and “femininity” are natural attributes of biological males and females, respectively, the idea that underlies the sex/gender system and the sexism it generates. Instead of being restricted by sexist societal imperatives, individuals would be free to perform gender however they choose. In other words, a radical democratic moment exists in “women” acting “like men” (and vice versa). However, this radical democratic possibility of “gender trouble” cannot be realized when the practices constitutive of Manly Warriors are inherently misogynistic and homophobic. Women, gay men, and lesbians cannot be included in an armed masculinity constituted through the denigration of femininity and homoeroticism.

2. PERFORMING ALTERNATE GENDER NORMS CHANGES EXISTING CONCEPTIONS R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 4.

Understanding civic and gender identity as performatively constructed creates important opportunities for democratic and feminist theorists interested in creating a more just society. That is, if gender is performatively constructed, rather than rooted in nature, this means that gender identity is malleable rather than fixed. Because gender is constructed, it can also be reconstructed in a way that does not advantage one particular gender over another. That is, if masculine citizens are traditionally constituted through engagement in civic practices, and feminine subjects are traditionally constituted through the exclusion from civic practices, then what would be the social and political consequences of “women” engaging in the civic practices constitutive of masculine republican citizen-soldiers? In her seminal study Gender Trouble, Judith Butler seems to suggest the possibility of actively changing cultural constructions of gender: “When the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice, with the consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one, and woman and feminine a male body as easily as a female one.” Consequently, “through the mobilization, subversive confusion, and proliferation of precisely those constitutive categories that seek to keep gender in its place by posturing as the foundational illusions of identity” culturally mandated configurations of gender can be reworked and “gender trouble” can be made. Put differently, if “men” and “women” are constantly becoming gendered as they participate in behaviors required by cultural norms of masculinity and femininity, then their transgressive engagement in counterhegemonic gender behavior should alter the cultural construction of gender and the sexism it generates. That is, the subversive trans gender performances of “women” acting out “male” scripts could work to highlight the artificiality of normative constructions of gender and so undermine the sexism such constructions generate.


Feminism K – Alternative – Feminist Policy

1. FEMINIST THINKING MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO POLICY-MAKING, SINCE IT PROVIDES UNPRECEDENTED SOLUTIONS TO THE WORLD’S MAJOR PROBLEMS Betty Reardon, Director of the Peace Education Program at Teachers College, Columbia University, 1996. THE GENDERED NEW WORLD ORDER: MILITARISN, DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ENVIRONMENT, p. 211-212.

The importance of introducing women’s thinking into public affairs, recognized in The Nairobi Forward Looking Strategies, reflects a recent trend in feminist scholarship. Over the past several years, research into women’s ways of knowing, reasoning, and decision-making has demonstrated that, at least in Western countries,1 women’s thinking is different from that of men; and it has been argued, as noted above, that this difference can shed new light on, and often produce unprecedented solutions to, some of the world’s major problems. With regard to issues of security and peace, as has been recounted, women’s thinking has already contributed significantly constructive directions. These “feminine” modes of thinking and problem solving can be learned and applied by both women and men; thus, as indicated earlier, they are an important influence in peace education. Women’s thinking and learning develops best when women’s identities, values, and perspectives are affirmed in the learning process. They tend to learn most as “connected knowers” whose learning takes place in, and is related to, community. The significance of affirming identities and confirming learners as bearers of knowledge of value to the community has, I would argue, great significance to learning for global community building. Women’s ways of knowing may well be applicable to others such as traditional peoples who, like women, have had little voice in global policy making.

2. FEMINIST THINKING MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN MAKING POLICY TO ENSURE A PEACEFUL WORLDBetty Reardon, Director of the Peace Education Program at Teachers College, Columbia University, 1996.THE GENDERED NEW WORLD ORDER: MILITARISN, DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ENVIRONMENT, p. 231-232.

I have tried to make two things sharply evident in this review of the relationship between women and peace: the need to change the modes of thinking we bring to issues of national and world security, and the need to change the structures that exclude women’s full and vitally needed contribution to the peacemaking process. To bring about structural change we need policy change. In other words, just as women are now asserting a new and unprecedented effort to gain a voice and articulate their perspectives to the public, they must also find ways to be heard by policy makers. Feminists in seeking ways to bring women’s experience into politics are raising new policy questions based on criteria derived from women’s ways of thinking. From such questions, steps toward the evolution of a transition scenario may arise. As I have tried to demonstrate, women s ways of thinking lead to a distinctly feminine approach to security issues that is quite different from the current approaches to national security applied by the dominantly male political leadership. Throughout, I have tried to demonstrate the need to bring the feminine approach into policymaking, and to bring more women into the policymaking process, to introduce feminine perspectives and criteria, and to provide the benefits of women’s ways of thinking. The feminine approach suggested here produces a particular set of criteria that women bring to the assessment of security policy. These criteria, like women’s visions of a world at peace, derive directly from the four essential security expectations outlined in the introduction that comprise the feminist concept of authentic global security. They can be designated as sustainability, vulnerability, equity, and protection.


Feminism K – Alternative – Focus on the Global South

FEMINIST CRITIQUE MUST FOREGROUND THE EXPERIENCE OF WOMEN IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH – KEY TO CHANGING PATRIARCHAL INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Joe Oloka-Onyango, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Uganda, and Sylvia Tamale, doctoral student in Sociology and Feminist Studies at the University of Minnesota, 1995.HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 703-704.

However, in her essay in Women's Rights, Charlesworth devotes a scant paragraph to the issue of third world feminism and even then, only in its relationship to first world feminism. 52 A more inclusive examination would have incorporated the views of Southern feminists on the international legal and political regime. 53 Third world discourse must be integrated directly into the critique of dominant structures of knowledge and power in academia, rather than "added in and stirred" as an afterthought. This is particularly necessary in light of the assault on southern institutions of advanced learning and intellectual culture by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank structural adjustment policies (SAPs). 54 Of course, internationalist works that include and are sensitive to the concerns of third world scholars are far better than those which presume to speak to and for them. Unfortunately, the latter are in far greater abundance. Such imbalance imports a special duty among those who experience similar conditions of exclusion in academia to allow for the expression of marginalized voices beyond the "particularities" of their geographical contexts. 55 In short, the "gates" must be opened even wider to ensure that international feminist theory is truly decolonized and thematically internationalized. Otherwise, we remain with the same problem as the debacle of WID--nominal participation and continuing marginalization--or just lip-service to multiculturalism and universal human rights.


Feminism K – Alternative Solves Global Security

1. WOMEN’S THINKING CAN PROVIDE AUTHENTIC GLOBAL SECURITY Betty Reardon, Director of the Peace Education Program at Teachers College, Columbia University, 1996.THE GENDERED NEW WORLD ORDER: MILITARISN, DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ENVIRONMENT, p. 211-212.

It is clear from our data that women’s sense of self and voice flourish when they become what we call connected and passionate knowers. We argue that educators can help women develop their minds and authentic voices if they emphasize connection over separation, understanding and acceptance over assessment, collaboration over competition, and discussion over debate, and if they accord respect to and allow time for the knowledge that emerges from first-hand experience. We have learned these things by listening to the woman’s voice (Belenky et al. 1986: 25—26) The mode of learning outlined above as women’s ways of knowing may well be what is needed to engage the disparate and conflictual members of world society in a process of common learning for authentic global security. The adversarial proving of merit Belenky et al. allude to as the masculine confirmation process has been a style of politics as well as academics that has produced the very kind of thinking, described by Stephen Kull (1986) and Carol Cohn (1987), that women peace activists have begun to challenge.

2. FEMINIST THINKING AFFIRMS THE VALUE TO LIFE AND DIGNITY AND MUST BE PREFERRED TO SOLVE CONFLICTS AND PROBLEMSBetty Reardon, Director of the Peace Education Program at Teachers College, Columbia University, 1996.THE GENDERED NEW WORLD ORDER: MILITARISN, DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ENVIRONMENT, p. 214-215.

The feminine mode of thinking, which emphasizes such linkages as those among disarmament, development, and peace, as Burns does, demonstrates a preference for problem solving comprised of open communication, free access to information, and honest discussion of differences and dialogue among all concerned. Women, whose experience of conflict has been long and varied, particularly as peacemakers in the family, see the best ways to resolve conflicts as those that help to meet at least some of the concerns of all conflicting parties, what has come to be called “win—win solutions.” This familial or kinship model of conflict resolution, in which maintaining constructive human relationship is a primary concern, seeks fairness and reconciliation rather than victory and retribution. The ultimate and fundamental human values affirmed by feminism are the sanctity of life and the dignity of persons, so that feminist approaches to conflict resolution place the highest value on the preservation and enhancement of life and maintaining vital, mutually enhancing relationships.

3. FEMINIST THINKINS ENVISIONS A BETTER WORLD OF SECURITY, PEACE AND HUMAN RIGHTSBetty Reardon, Director of the Peace Education Program at Teachers College, Columbia University, 1996.THE GENDERED NEW WORLD ORDER: MILITARISN, DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ENVIRONMENT, p. 217-218.

Because women carry most of the social responsibilities for nurturing and preparing the young for their adult lives, anticipating the needs of aging relatives, and struggling for community improvements to assure a better quality of life, they are practical futurists. Many have developed the capacity to live in two realities. On the one hand, they have mastered the arts of survival and nurturance within the context of the present reality of conflict, human suffering, and inadequate resources. On the other hand, they also exercise capacities to envision a better world and to struggle for its achievement as they see to the daily needs of those in their care. Women’s lives, women’s movements, and women’s peace organizations are animated by clear and positive visions of a world at peace. While there may be no common definition of peace with which all women throughout the world would agree, there are emerging notions of what constitutes peace and how it can be achieved. Some are even envisioning, in systematic, intentional programs, what peace would be like, how it would affect our daily lives and the social structures in which we live them. Such visions provide images of a transformed world that inform and energize women’s efforts for peace. Four such visions reflect the major issues of peace and security, reviewed in major U.N. reports,3 and reflected in U.N. conventions and standards on human rights. Each vision reflects women concepts of authentic global security.



Feminism K – Alternative Solves Peace

1. A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE MUST BE APPLIED TO PEACEBUILDING Julie Mertus, Assistant Professor, American University, School of International Service, 2003.COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, p. 554.

Particularly in areas where a large proportion of men have been injured or killed, it is important for women to be trained in skills that have traditionally been performed by men. Moreover, the ghettoization of women's projects and their focus on gender-stereotyped training contradicts any equal rights rhetoric by showing women that their choices remain limited.Thus, while the application of a gender perspective overcomes some of the shortcomings of a rights-based approach, it points to the many shortcomings in the approaches of the organizations and projects themselves. A gender perspective must therefore be applied not only to the conflict itself to uncover its gendered impacts, but must also be applied to the international organizations taking part in the peacebuilding process.

2. GENDER ISSUES ARE SEEN AS IRRELEVANT IN THE PEACE BUILDING PROCESSChristine Chinkin, Professor of International Law, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2003. THE OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION, p. 886.

Experts in many issues are frequently brought into negotiating teams, but not those with gender expertise. This should be redressed by bringing into the international team identified persons whose role it is to facilitate the inclusion of women and consideration of gender issues throughout the process. The current reality is that gender relations and the empowerment of women are not perceived as essential to the terms of any peace settlement, even when the need to go beyond military to civilian matters is recognized. Taking account of gender is not on anyone's agenda, nor is such expertise sought alongside experts in a broad range of other fields. However to ignore these particular issues is simply to assert their irrelevance.

3. LISTENING AND RESPONDING TO DIVERSE EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN IN POST CONFLICT PEACEBUILDING IS VITAL Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2003. THE OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION, p. 873.

Secondly, conflict is highly gendered, and women's different experiences during conflict are likely to be central to their determination of their post-conflict priorities and needs. It is therefore essential that these experiences are fed directly into all stages of the process and taken into account. In modern forms of conflict, civilian women and children are deliberately targeted for abuse and violations. The gendered impact of conflict continues after the ceasefire. Since most of the fighting is between men, there is typically a demographic shift with women making up the majority of the population, many as female single parents and de facto care-takers of others displaced by conflict. The experience in Bosnia frequently recurs "[e]ven those whose partner did return from the war were characteristically responsible for re-establishing home life, assuring the well being of children, the sick, disabled, and elderly." An effective peace process should be built on the widest base of experience and therefore must take account of local women's lived experiences during the conflict and their enormous responsibilities post-conflict. Gender balance does not mean the insertion of a few highly placed international women into the process but rather listening and responding to the diverse experiences of women who have lived through the conflict.


Feminism K – Alternative Solves International Relations

1. FEMINIST CRITIQUE CAN DISRUPT THE MASCULINIST NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSCharlotte Hooper, Professor of International Relations at the University of Bristol, 2001.MANLY STATES: MASCULINITIES, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND GENDER POLITICS, p. 226-227.

However, this pessimistic view may underestimate the impact that even apparently marginal attention to gender issues could have on the constitution of IR as a masculine space, and consequently on its role in the production and reproduction of hegemonic forms of masculinity. While the masculinist edifice of IR might seem more complex, more comprehensive, and even more mutually reinforcing than before, perhaps it is also more vulnerable to disruption than some feminists have supposed, and the main focus of this book has implied. The vulnerability of hegemonic codes of masculinity to a feminist challenge may be underestimated. Although I have concentrated on the representation of masculinities and their links to masculine identities, changes in the representation of women and feminism could help transform the environment within which struggles between different masculinities are played out. The power of such struggles over masculine identities, as I argue, depends to some extent on their taking part in a space that has been naturalized as a masculine space. If the environment is no longer so clearly a masculine one, then some of the imagery loses its genderspecific connotations, while the rest loses the power of naturalization. Cracks in the edifice of masculinism are appearing, not only with the arrival of feminist scholarship and a number of postpositivist fellow travelers who take gender seriously, but also in that gender issues are beginning to be addressed, however crudely, by more mainstream IR contributors.

2. FEMINIST APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ARE TRANSFORMATIVECharlotte Hooper, Professor of International Relations at the University of Bristol, 2001.MANLY STATES: MASCULINITIES, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND GENDER POLITICS, p. 228-229.

In the same fashion, empirical and historical analysis of the relationship between (masculine) gender identities and international relations could also prove ultimately transformative, even where overtly reflectivist approaches are rejected. The narrow focus of part 2 of this book on the symbolic dimension of gender identity construction reflects my own particular interest in exploring the relationship between apparently abstract theoretical perspectives and the cultural and historical circumstances and political interests that sustain them (and that they sustain). It is not to downgrade the importance of institutional and embodied practices, or the construction of subordinate masculinities. The approach developed in part 1 of this book could be used to explore the gendering of specific groups of men through the practices of international relations in a way that builds on, rather than undermining or eclipsing, existing feminist insights into gender constructions, gender relations, and gender inequalities. 4 Moreover, far from providing sociologically determinist explanations, it would allow for the micropolitics of such gendering processes to be exposed. By transcending the levels-of-analysis problem and transgressing the private/public/international divides, not to mention introducing voices from outside the Anglo-American world, empirical research on this subject might severely disrupt the all- male, largely Anglo-American space of IR, and thereby interfere with the production of hegemonic masculinities therein.


Feminism K – Alternative Solves Realism

1. FEMINIST CRITIQUE OFFERS ALTERNATIVES TO REALIST INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSJ. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS: ISSUES & APPROACHES IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA, p. 47-48

Critical-security studies challenges realism on both ontological and epistemological grounds. Many of its adherents argue for a broader definition of security, linked to justice and emancipation; a concept of security that starts with the individual allows for a global definition of security that moves beyond hierarchical binary distinctions between order and anarchy and inside and outside. Although not all critical-security scholars are willing to dispense with state-centric analysis, all agree that an examination of states' identities is crucial for understanding their security-seeking behavior. Most feminist scholarship on security also employs a different ontology and epistemology from conventional security studies. Reluctant to be associated with either side of the realist/idealist debate, for reasons outlined in chapter 1, and generally skeptical of rationalist, scientific claims to universality and objectivity, most feminist scholarship on security is compatible with the critical side of the third debate. Questioning the role of states as adequate security providers, many feminists have adopted a multidimensional, multilevel approach, similar to some of the efforts to broaden the definition of security described above. Feminists' commitment to the emancipatory goal of ending women's subordination is consistent with a broad definition of security that takes the individual, situated in broader social structures, as its starting point. Feminists seek to understand how the security of individuals and groups is compromised by violence, both physical and structural, at all levels. Feminists generally share the view of other critical scholars that culture and identity and interpretive “bottom up” modes of analysis are crucial for understanding security issues and that emancipatory visions of security must get beyond statist frameworks. They differ, however, in that they adopt gender as a central category of analysis for understanding how unequal social structures, particularly gender hierarchies, negatively impact the security of individuals and groups.

2. GENDERED CONSTRUCTIONS OF WAR ARE NOT INEVITABLEJ. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS: ISSUES & APPROACHES IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA, p. 51.

By looking at the effects of war on women, we can gain a better understanding of the unequal gender relations that sustain military activities. When we reveal social practices that support war and that are variable across societies, we find that war is a cultural construction that depends on myths of protection; it is not inevitable, as realists suggest. The evidence we now have about women in conflict situations severely strains the protection myth; yet, such myths have been important in upholding the legitimacy of war and the impossibility of peace. A deeper look into these gendered constructions can help us to understand not only some of the causes of war but how certain ways of thinking about security have been legitimized at the expense of others, both in the discipline of IR and in political practice.

3. FEMINIST STARTING POINTS ARE KEY TO CHANGEAndrea Cornwall, Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, et. al., 2004.FEMINISMS IN DEVELOPMENT: CONTRADICTIONS, CONTESTATIONS, AND CHALLENGES, accessed 5/3/07, http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/bulletin/Introduction35.4.pdf

The professionalisation of gender and development has, several participants argued, become another technical fix, with an ever looser link with feminism. As Everjoice Win said at the workshop: In some cases, mainstreaming is almost counterposed against feminism … In some cases, young people come into this work not having been part of feminist analysis, thinking, groups etc., they come into this work largely as technocrats. They may be given the task of “mainstreaming gender”, yet have not come from the feminist movement and have never engaged with the politics of these issues. In this case, you don’t have the tools and analytical understanding that gender has come from feminism, and you are told constantly that the organisation is not a feminist organisation, but a development organisation, and mainstreaming is seen as an end in itself, not political.


Feminism K – Alternative Solves Military Inequality

1. GENDER PARITY IN THE MILITARY IS NOT ENOUGH – MUST ALSO RECONSTITUTE GENDER NORMS R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999.CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 11-12.

Chapter 6 concludes with a plan for reconstituting the Citizen-Soldier tradition in light of contemporary commitments to gender equality. In order to make republican citizenship truly democratic, we must sever the link between manhood and citizenship that has historically characterized this tradition. Using my concept of performativity, I argue that the counterhegemonic engagement of “women” in the practices traditionally constitutive of masculine citizen-soldiering combined with a commitment to democratic ideals should yield a new form of civic identity that is not constructed through the exclusion of biological females. Gender parity in the American military is important, but not enough. If we want to reconstitute the Citizen-Soldier tradition in America, we need to change the type of masculinity produced by the military, reintroduce the military to its civic purposes, expand the citizenship of civic practices to include other, nonmartial forms of service, and give citizens a greater role in political decision making. Only then will we have actualized the democratic potential inherent in the Citizen-Soldier tradition.

2. DISCUSSIONS OF THE MILITARY MUST CONSIDER GENDER AS PERFORMATIVE –OTHER THEORIES ALWAYS REIFY TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF MALE MILITARISM AND WAR R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999.CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 144.

Most discussions of women and the military do not consider the Citizen-Soldier tradition. And most discussions of women and the military, even among feminist theorists, do not understand gender identity as performatively constituted. Instead, most theorists consider gender to be a core identity that pre-exists a person’s relationship to the military. There are two basic versions of this idea. The first approach assumes that there are entities called men and women who then relate to the military in a variety of ways. Judith Hicks Stiehm’s award-winning book Arms and the Enlisted Woman forms an excellent example of this first approach. The book studies “America’s most unknown soldiers—enlisted women in the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines” in order to represent their experiences and make policy recommendations about how to make the military more equitable for women. By assuming the existence of men and women, Stiehm does not examine the ways in which the military actually produces “armed masculinity”—how it makes men—or how women’s exclusion from military practices contributes to the production of femininity. In contrast, the gender difference approach is more theoretically sophisticated. It assumes that there are social constructs called “masculinity” and “femininity” that directly affect and are affected by the military and militarism. One version of this approach begins with the assumption of differential gender identities and explores the ways in which culturally constructed configurations of masculinity have shaped the military. Betty Reardon’s classic book, Sexism and the War System, represents this school of thought. Building on the work of Carol Gilligan, Reardon posits the existence of masculine and feminine values that flow from men’s and women’s core gender identities. Connecting masculine values to militarism, she argues that “the structures of violence that constitute the war system are... influenced by the attributes we use to guide the development of masculine identity and by masculine modes of public decision making.”’ In short, masculinity produces militarism. Consequently, “the feminine values, which nurture life and acknowledge the need for transcending competition and violence, are needed to guide policy formation to avoid or abolish war.” Understanding masculinity and femininity to be core identities rather than performative constructions, Reardon does not believe that women will lose their feminine values if they begin to engage in martial practices, such as making military policy. While Reardon provides a lot of important insights into militarism and its connection to sexism, she presents a static view of gender identity that reifies the traditional association of men with war and women with peace, thus playing right into sexism and


militarism. She does not explore the ways in which martial practices actually create “armed masculinity” and how exclusion from these practices produces what we might term pacific femininity.


Feminism K – A2: Permutation – Co-optation

1. USING FEMINIST CRITIQUE TO REFORM POLICY CO-OPTS THE RADICAL AND LIBERATORY POTENTIAL OF GENDER-BASED CRITIQUEAndrea Cornwall, Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, et. al., 2004.FEMINISMS IN DEVELOPMENT: CONTRADICTIONS, CONTESTATIONS, AND CHALLENGES, accessed 5/3/07, http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/bulletin/Introduction35.4.pdf

One of the most foundational of these concepts, “gender”, has served both as an organising principle and a rallying call. Researchers have used it to generate insights into the relational dimensions of planned intervention that development policy and practice had ignored. Activists and advocates have used it to frame a set of demands and to challenge, and reframe, assumptions. Lessons learnt from particular places have been turned into sloganised generalities: ‘women are the poorest of the poor’, ‘women do most of the work in African agriculture’, ‘educating girls leads to economic development’ … and so on. Some have been used as Trojan Horses to open up debates and advocate positions. Others have become popular preconceptions, useful as a kind of catchy shorthand to capture the policy limelight. Others take the shape of feminist fables, cautionary tales told with educative intent. And still others gain the status of myths, stories whose potency rests in their resonance with deep-rooted convictions (cf. Sorel 1941). Women appear in these representations as abject victims, the passive subject of development’s rescue, and splendid heroines, whose unsung virtues and whose contributions to development need to be heeded.

2. FEMINIST ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS THE WAYS IN WHICH DOMINANT APPROACHES TO POLICYMAKING REPRODUCE THE PROBLEMS THEY ATTEMPT TO SOLVEJ. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS: ISSUES & APPROACHES IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA, p. 3-4.

It is this lack of connection that motivates many of the issues raised in this book. While I have attempted to site feminist perspectives within the discipline, it will become clear from the topics addressed that IR feminists frequently make different assumptions about the world, ask different questions, and use different methodologies to answer them. Having reflected on reasons for these disconnections, as well as the misunderstandings over the potential usefulness of feminist approaches raised by some of the questions above, I believe that they lie in the fact that feminist IR scholars see different realities and draw on different epistemologies from conventional IR theorists. For example, whereas IR has traditionally analyzed security issues either from a structural perspective or at the level of the state and its decision makers, feminists focus on how world politics can contribute to the insecurity of individuals, particularly marginalized and disempowered populations. They examine whether the valorization of characteristics associated with a dominant form of masculinity influences the foreign policies of states. They also examine whether the privileging of these same attributes by the realist school in IR may contribute to the reproduction of conflict-prone, power-maximizing behaviors. 11 Whereas IR theorists focus on the causes and termination of wars, feminists are as concerned with what happens during wars as well as with their causes and endings. Rather than seeing military capability as an assurance against outside threats to the state, militaries are seen as frequently antithetical to individual security, particularly to the security of women and other vulnerable groups. Moreover, feminists are concerned that continual stress on the need for defense helps to legitimate a kind of militarized social order that overvalorizes the use of state violence for domestic and international purposes.


Feminism K – A2: Permutation – Mutually-Exclusive

1. THE PLAN AND THE ALTERNATIVE CANNOT BE COMBINED – FEMINIST APPROACHES TO POLITICS USE DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS AND METHODOLOGIES THAN THE PLANJ. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS: ISSUES & APPROACHES IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA, p. 4-5.

Conventional IPE has typically focused on issues such as the economicbehavior of the most powerful states, hegemony, and the potential for building international institutions in an anarchic system populated by self-interested actors; within a shared state-centric framework, neorealists and neoliberals debate the possibilities and limitations of cooperation using the notion of absolute versus relative gains. 12 Feminists more often focus on economic inequality, marginalized populations, the growing feminization of poverty and economic justice, particularly in the context of North/South relations. Whereas IR has generally taken a “top-down” approach focused on the great powers, feminist IR often begins its analysis at the local level, with individuals embedded in social structures. While IR has been concerned with explaining the behavior and interaction of states and markets in an anarchic international environment, feminist IR, with its intellectual roots in feminist theory more generally, is seeking to understand the various ways in which unequal gender structures constrain women's, as well as some men's, life chances and to prescribe ways in which these hierarchical social relations might be eliminated. These different realities and normative agendas lead to different methodological approaches. While IR has relied heavily on rationalistic theories based on the natural sciences and economics, feminist IR is grounded in humanistic accounts of social relations, particularly gender relations. Noting that much of our knowledge about the world has been based on knowledge about men, feminists have been skeptical of methodologies that claim the neutrality of their facts and the universality of their conclusions. This skepticism about empiricist methodologies extends to the possibility of developing causal laws to explain the behavior of states. While feminists do see structural regularities, such as gender and patriarchy, they define them as socially constructed and variable across time, place, and culture; understanding is preferred over explanation. 13 These differences over epistemologies may well be harder to reconcile than the differences in perceived realities discussed above.

2. CRITIQUE MUST REFRAME THE VERY TERMS OF DEBATE – SIMPLY ‘BROADENING THE AGENDA’ IS NOT POSSIBLE FROM WITHIN THE CONFINES OF REALISMJ. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS, p. 46-47.

Claiming that realist ontology and its rationalist epistemology are interdependent, more radical versions of critical-security studies reject these bridging attempts. Their calls for broadening the security agenda are made within the context of both a rejection of rationalism and a search for emancipatory theories that can get beyond realism's skepticism about progressive change and the possibility of an ethical international politics. Poststructuralists claim that when knowledge about security is constructed in terms of the binary metaphysics of Western culture, such as inside/outside, us/them, and community/anarchy, security can be understood only within the confines of domestic community whose identity is constructed in antithesis to external threat. 39 This denies the possibility of talking about an international community or an amelioration of the security dilemma since it is only within the space of political community that questions about ethics can be raised. In other words, the binary distinctions of national-security discourse limit what can be said and how it can be discussed. Thus, critical-security studies is not only about broadening the agenda— because, as mentioned earlier, this is possible with a realist framework. According to Ken Booth, critical-security is fundamentally different from realism because its agenda derives from a radically different political theory and methodology that question both realism's constrained view of the political and its commitment to positivism. Critical-security studies rejects conventional security theory's definition of politics based on the centrality of the state and its sovereignty. Arguing that the state is often part of the problem of insecurity rather than the solution, Booth claims that we should examine security from a bottom-up perspective that begins with individuals; however, critical-security studies should not ignore the state or the military dimensions of world politics: “What is being challenged is not the material manifestations of the world of traditional realism, but its moral and practical status, including its


naturalization of historically created theories, its ideology of necessity and limited possibility, and its propagandist common sense about this being the best of all worlds.”


Feminism K – A2: Alternative is Oppressive

1. ADOPTING A FEMINIST LENS FOR UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ALLOWS OTHER FORMS OF DOMINATION TO BE CHALLENGEDV. Spike Peterson, Professor of Political Science at the University of Arizona, 1996.POST-REALISM: THE RHETORICAL TURN IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, p. 271.

International relations discourse has conventionally been derived from what some men have done, what questions they asked, and what answers they generated, having consulted exclusively with each other. As a consequence, international relations theories--including neorealism, liberal-institutionalism, structuralism, and postmodernism--fail to take seriously both how gender affects our knowledge claims about international "reality" and how international processes have gender-differentiated effects.41 Advocates of a post-realism seek a "radical inclusiveness" that acknowledges realist insights and moves beyond them to generate more adequate languages for today's realities. From a feminist perspective, post-realism must also move beyond the masculinism pervading international relations discourse and practice. Ultimately, this involves challenging not only patriarchal but related racist, capitalist, heterosexist, imperialist, and nationalist oppressions that underpin the world "as we currently reproduce it."

2. RETAINING THE CATEGORY OF ‘WOMEN’ IS POLITICALLY PRAGMATIC AND DOES NOT REINFORCE OTHER TYPES OF OPPRESSION Joe Oloka-Onyango, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Uganda, and Sylvia Tamale, doctoral student in Sociology and Feminist Studies at the University of Minnesota, 1995.HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 697-698.

Universal feminism has come under attack due to the contention that universality within feminism is a fiction, based on essentialist notions. 23 Whereas we all recognize the differences between and among women (such as those based on race, class, ethnicity, age, and sexuality, to name a few), it would be a terrible mistake for both national and international feminism to become overly engrossed in the "difference" debate. This is a point made by Hilary Charlesworth in Human Rights. 24 It thus makes pragmatic political sense to retain the category of women despite the multiplicities that exist within this category. 25 Without losing focus on the differences, we maintain that a united front is essential for any social movement. This conviction is based on our belief that universality exists in many women's concerns, regardless of physical location. However, these concerns are always determined and tempered by socioeconomic and political specificity. For feminism to achieve any meaningful success, a universal basis must be the foundation. The question then becomes: what is the scope of that "universality?"

3. FEMINIST CRITIQUES ARE NOT ESSENTIALIST Pendleton Vandiver, pen name of a feminist activist, March 3, 2004.FEMINISM: A MALE ANARCHIST'S PERSPECTIVE, accessed 5/14/07, http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=04/03/04/0653210&mode=nested&tid=6

It has been suggested that feminism is essentialist. It has also been suggested that feminism, in keeping with its essentialist views, is a philosophy that asserts the superiority, in one way or another, of women to men. Finally, the charge has been made that feminism perpetuates gender categories, whereas the revolutionary task is to move beyond gender altogether. In other words, feminism is accused of being a kind of identity politics that perpetuates harmful and divisive societal roles that ultimately oppress everyone. The one thing that all of these allegations have in common is that they posit a single, more or less univocal entity named "feminism." However, anyone who studies feminism soon learns that there has always been a fair amount of diversity within feminist theory, and this has never been more true than it is now. No single set of ideas about sex and gender represents feminism; rather, feminism is a loose category that encompasses just about all forms of thought and action which are explicitly concerned with the liberation of women. Although feminism has often been accused of essentialism, the critique of essentialism is particularly strong within feminism, and has been for quite some time. Essentialism is the idea that there is an unchanging substance or essence that constitutes the true identity of people and things. In this view, a


woman is somehow truly, deep in her core, identifiable as a woman; being a woman is not simply the result of different attributes and behaviors.


A2: Feminism K – State Good

1. THE STATE IS KEY TO EFFECTIVE CIVIL SOCIETY AND DEMOCRACY Alison M. Jaggar, Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies, 2005. WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 106.

Events in the last quarter of the twentieth century showed that strong civil societies are indispensable for resisting oppressive states and for promoting democracy and government accountability. However, the increase in inequality and poverty, especially among women, that accompanied governments’ worldwide retreat from the social welfare responsibilities they bad assumed in the first three-quarters of the century demonstrated that civil society is not able to substitute for the state. Civil society may sometimes be “bad,” oppressive, and undemocratic, and improving it may require promoting more just social and economic arrangements (Chambers and Kopstein 2001). In Iris Young’s view, civil society and state (as well as the economy) must be kept in balance: civic associations should be neither tied so closely to state institutions that they are unable to bold them accountable nor so influential that they lose “a generalized vision of the co-ordinated action of the whole society” (Young 2000:195). A “good” state and a “good” civil society each require the other.

2. GOVERNMENT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING AND ENCOURAGING CITIZENS TO CARE FOR EACH OTHER – PRIVATIZATION EXPLOITS CARE WORKERS Marilyn Friedman, Professor of Philosophy, 2005.WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 7-8.

In “Care as the Work of Citizens: A Modest Proposal,” Joan Tronto explores a growing trend in civil society and domestic life today that impinges on the lives of both citizens and noncitizens and on the extent to which either of them can exercise their rights. This trend is the “care crisis” that now pervades advanced industrial societies. As women do more paid work, they do less of the care work of civil society (Sevenhuijsen 1998). Tronto urges that advanced industrial societies rethink who is responsible for care and recognize the role that government should play in ensuring that care is provided for those who need it. Unfortunately, citizenship has traditionally been defined in ways that make no provision for responsibilities to care for others. Tronto observes that “privatizing” care by relegating it to the marketplace does not provide a solution to the care crisis, since paid care work is subject to exploitation, partly because it is often done by illegal immigrants from Third World countries. Despite expecting privatization to be the likely solution to the problem, Tronto nevertheless recommends regarding care work as a governmental responsibility in order to make it more valued publicly. She also suggests giving credits toward citizenship to those noncitizens who perform care work.

3. REJECTING STATE ACTIONS DOES NOT HELP WOMEN OR SOCIETY – MUST USE CITIZENSHIP RESPONSIBLY TO DO GOOD Alison M. Jaggar, Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies, 2005. WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 108.

Repelled by masculinist and imperialist nationalisms, some Western feminists have sought to distance themselves from their states. Virginia Woolf famously declared: “as a woman, I have no country. As a woman, I want no country. As a woman, my country is the whole world” (Woolf 1938). However, the privileges of citizenship in powerful Western states remain substantial, and the responsibilities of such citizens cannot be met by disassociating ourselves from our countries. Just as activism in civil society is not an exclusive alternative to traditional state-centered politics, so global feminist citizenship is not an alternative to national citizenship. Instead, it is an insistence on holding our own state accountable for the impact of its policies on women all over the world (Cf. Zajovic 1994)


A2: Feminism K – Reformism Good

1. AMERICANS NEED TO TAKE COLLECTIVE ACTION TO CARE FOR THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THEREBY CHALLENGE GENDER ASSUMPTIONS Joan Tronto, Professor of Political Science, 2005. WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 140.

The solution is for Americans to recognize that they need to take collective action to improve the conditions for care in the United States. Deborah Stone issued a call for a care movement in the Nation (Stone 2000). She used this instructive analogy: just as clean air and water are basic for human survival but people had to organize into an environmental movement to attain them, so too care is a basic human need but requires political clout if it is to be taken seriously politically. Stone sees the need for a care movement arising out of an alignment of a great proportion of the people as a whole: she includes care-givers, care-receivers, and family members who would otherwise have to care or concern themselves with such care as people who share a common interest in making certain that there are adequate numbers of well-trained and well-employed care workers. Within a care movement, Americans need to set priorities on fundamental change, not piecemeal reform. We need a way to bring professional and nonprofessional workers together. There are, further, some broad aspects of public care that we need to consider: we need to make certain that care is organized with a proper balance among the interests of those who need care, those who give care, and those whose lives are made easier if others receive care. In calling for a care movement, Americans need also to disrupt the gendered and privatized assumptions that are usually made about care in our society.

2. SIMPLY REJECTING INSTITUTIONS DOES NOT SOLVE GENDER ISSUES – MUST ACT TO ELIMINATR BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION Joan Tronto, Professor of Political Science, 2005. WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 132.

Eliminating caste barriers may seem to be a matter of simple justice. Increasingly, though, I think that we must reflect seriously upon the political economy of injustice. There is no such thing as a mailer of simple justice. Unjust institutions serve social functions, as do just institutions. The result is that if one simply changes unjust institutions without paying attention to the functions that they performed in society, then in eliminating injustice one also may create new forms of social dislocation and dysfunction. Allowing women full and equal access to the workplace, second wave feminism contributed to such an outcome by removing women as the primary caregivers for nuclear families. Failing to acknowledge how these two pieces are connected together, feminists have not fully addressed the moral and political consequences of their success.


A2: Feminism K – Realism Good

1. REJECTING THE LANGUAGE OF SECURITY FAILS AND IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVEJ. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS, p. 44.

As with the introduction of new issues, this redefinition of security has also fueled a lively debate in the security literature. Stephen Walt has decried the move to redefine security—a move that, he claimed, threatens to destroy the intellectual coherence of the field. 28 This is an opinion shared by many realists, but it is not only realists who disapprove of this broadening. In a 1995 volume, the stated goal of which was to bring together a broad spectrum of security specialists, ranging from realists to postmodernists, the emphasis of many of the contributors remained on the state and issues of military security. 29 While defining security in constructivist terms, Ole Waever criticized the attempt to broaden the security agenda beyond a focus on the state to one on the security of individuals; as security becomes synonymous with everything good or desirable, it is emptied of content, Waever claimed—a concern shared by certain other scholars outside the realist tradition. 30 Simon Dalby has suggested the possibility of disposing with the term security altogether and replacing it with a different political language of ecology, justice, and sustainability. 31 Yet rejecting the term security does nothing to end its privileged status. As Ken Booth has claimed, the word has “enormous political significance; and that to get an issue onto a state's security agenda is to give it priority.” 32 The same might be said about the agenda of the discipline of international relations, where national-security studies have also enjoyed a privileged position.

2. REALISM AND CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES ARE COMPATIBLEJ. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS, p. 45-46.

Although certain of these scholars see an incommensurability between rationalist and interpretive epistemologies, others are attempting to bridge this gap by staying within realism's state-centric worldview while questioning its rationalist epistemology. Ronald Jepperson, Alexander Wendt, and Peter Katzenstein have argued for what they call “sociological institutionalism”— a view that advocates an identity-based approach, but one that stays within the traditional security agenda, a focus on states, and explanatory social science. Where this approach differs from rationalism is in its investigation of how norms, institutions, and other cultural features of domestic and international environments affect states' security interests and policies. Con versely, when states enact a particular identity, they have a profound effect on the international system to which they belong. Alexander Wendt's constructivist approach also attempts to bridge the constructivist/rationalist divide. His strategy for building this bridge is to argue against the neorealist claim that self-help is given by anarchic structures. If we live in a self-help world, it is due to process rather than structure; in other words, “anarchy is what states make of it.” 37 Constructivist social theory believes that “people act toward objects, including other actors, on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them.” 38 People and states act differently toward those they perceive as friends and those they see as enemies. Therefore, we cannot understand states' security interests and behavior without considering issues of identity placed within their social context.

3. FEMINISM AND REALISM ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE Michael Lind, Whitehead Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, January 20, 2005.OF ARMS AND THE WOMAN, accessed 5/15/07, http://feminism.eserver.org/of-arms-and-the-woman.txt.

The first thing that must be said about the feminist critique of realism is that it is by no means incompatible with realism, properly understood. In fact, realist theory can hardly be recognized in the feminist caricature of it. Take the idea of the innate human propensity for conflict. Although some realist thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau have confused the matter (often under the influence of Reinhold Niebuhr) with misleading talk of "original sin," the controlling idea of realism is that there is an ineradicable potential for conflict between human beings--"men" in the inclusive, gender-neutral sense-- when they are organized in groups. Realism is not about conflict between individual men, that is, males; if it were, it would be a theory of barroom brawls


or adolescent male crime. It is about conflict between rival communities, and those communities include women and men alike.


A2: Feminism K – Human Rights Good

1. HUMAN RIGHTS MUST BE INCLUDED IN FEMINIST STRATEGIZINGJill Steans, Senior Lecturer in International Relations Theory at the University of Birmingham, January 2007. REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, p. 11.

While liberal feminist values and assumptions have to be subject to critical scrutiny, there is no reason why equality and autonomy, concepts central to human rights, should not serve as a point of departure in a conversation across boundaries. Indeed, one might contend – as a opening gambit in an ongoing conversation – that dialogue cannot be wholly open-ended, since the ultimate ends of feminist dialogue and feminist political projects are to realise a better position for women within specific societies, which includes – although is not limited to – promoting gender equality and autonomy for women. Furthermore, without this appeal to equality and autonomy, it is difficult to see how feminist projects are feminist at all, in so far as feminists challenge discourses that legitimise or naturalise a specific form of social inequality, and place constraints on the ability of women to exercise control over their own lives. Moreover, for activists who are concerned primarily with working out concrete strategies, discourses that currently have some legitimacy have considerable appeal.

2. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE CRITICAL TO THIRD WORLD FEMINIST STRUGGLESJoe Oloka-Onyango, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Uganda, and Sylvia Tamale, doctoral student in Sociology and Feminist Studies at the University of Minnesota, 1995.HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 699-700.

For that reason alone, third world feminism must confront directly and [End Page 699] become engaged in the formulation of any international women's human rights agenda and the elaboration of a cogent theory or theories in the area. In the process, attempts must be made to overcome the strictures to genuine solidarity and transnational mutual respect and commonality. Such a process must be consciously undertaken not only as part of the transformative challenge, but also in the quest for the cross-pollination and fertilization of ideas and strategies. The anthologies reviewed here are a necessary beginning to this process, and their most welcome feature is the extensive incorporation of diverse third world feminist voices. This stands in stark contrast to the usual international anthologies, conferences, and journals that feature the token third world scholar. 39 Further interrogation of this issue, however, entails a closer look at the division of topics and themes adopted in the anthologies under review.

3. ABANDONING HUMAN RIGHTS IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE FOR FEMINISMJ. Ann Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 2001. GENDERING WORLD POLITICS: ISSUES & APPROACHES IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA, p. 19-20.

Attempts to incorporate race and class into theoretical analysis have moved feminism closer to postmodernism. Indeed, one of postmodernism's strongest appeals to many feminists has been its focus on difference; its rejection of male-centric thought has allowed space within which to legitimize voices of the marginalized, whose experiences have not been part of conventional knowledge construction. 42 But, in spite of the positive value of these moves, feminism has an uneasy and complex relationship with postmodernism. A developing post-postmodern critique warns of the perils of tolerating cultural relativism; it also warns of the dangers of skepticism about all knowledge claims, for such skepticism could lead to an abandonment of the political project of reducing women's subordination that has motivated feminism since its early beginnings. For example, Maria Nzomo claims that removing the possibility of appealing to universal ideals, such as human rights, would serve to diminish the strategies available to women. 43 If feminism loses sight of its political goals, certain feminists fear that power will remain where it is. Moving attention from women's subordination to gender constructions, or from agents to structures, makes it more difficult to determine ways of emancipating women.


A2: Feminism K – No Link – Military

1. MILITARY SERVICE NO LONGER CONSTRUCTS CITIZENSHIP OR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AS MASCULINE – IT IS NOW DISCONNECTED FROM GENDERED CONSTRUCTIONS OF CITIZENR. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999.CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 100.

Despite its emphasis on the military obligations of all male citizens, the Selective Draft Act does not represent the epitome of the Citizen-Soldier tradition, because it does not link military service to participatory citizenship. That is to say, as I have argued throughout this study, the Citizen-Soldier constitutes a normative ideal that links military service to participatory citizenship; it is not merely an empirical description of a military made up of liberal citizens. Nor can it be reduced to the idea that citizens serve in the military only temporarily, as some have argued.” Rather, the Citizen-Soldier tradition makes soldiering central to the process of becoming a citizen, because martial practices instill in citizens the virtues required for participation in self-government aimed at the common good. Thus, because the Selective Draft Act did not connect the national draft with a reworked version of participatory citizenship suited for America’s new status as a nation-state, it does not fully exemplify the political theory of the Citizen-Soldier. Although the act does incorporate some elements of the Citizen-Soldier tradition, it must be understood as part and parcel of the watershed transition from the civic republican model of participatory citizenship to the liberal model of individualism that occurred over the course of the Progressive era. That is, the Selective Draft Act drafted men into federal service as individuals rather than as members of a community-based militia. Thus, the act both came out of and fed into the increasing hegemony of liberal individualism in a newly unified society that had previously been characterized by civic republican ideals. Though the American militia system did indeed need to change in light of twentieth-century contingencies, America’s increasingly liberal milieu undermined the possibility of reconfiguring civic republican ideals — such as the linkage between military service and participatory citizenship—for a newly constructed national state. Military service would no longer go hand in hand with substantive participation in the process of self-government.

2. MILITARY SERVICE IS NO LONGER TIED TO NOTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP, EVEN IF IT STILL HOLDS SOME MASCULINE IDEAS R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999.CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 143.

In beginning our exploration of the possibility for “women” to occupy the category of the Citizen-Soldier, we must first note that military service no longer attaches to citizenship within the American context. As I argued in chapter 4, by the time of the Selective Draft Act of 1917, participatory citizenship had been disconnected from military service and had in fact been seriously undermined by the rise of liberal individualism. In other words, though all male citizens were required to serve in the military, this service was not coupled with the possibility of substantive participation in self-government—that is, with republican citizenship. Moreover, after the Vietnam War, mandatory service in the military was completely eliminated as a requirement of citizenship. We now have an all-volunteer force of professional soldiers officially subordinate to civilian elected officials. Yet despite these changes, engagement in martial practices within the U.S. military still produces armed masculinity; it is just not explicitly linked to citizenship.


A2: Feminism K – No Link – Civic Engagement

1. WOMEN’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOCIETY ARE NOT RELEGATED TO THE PRIVATEAlison M. Jaggar, Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies, 2005. WOMEN AND CITIZENSHIP, p. 103.

The contrast between civil society and the state is also frequently overdrawn, even though the associations of civil society are often referred to as nongovernmental organizations and the voluntary nature of their activities is often contrasted with the coercion associated with the state. Civil society is just as intertwined with the state as it is with the market. Many organizations in civil society exist in order to influence the state; conversely, they, like all social institutions, are regulated by the state, even though they are not under its direct control. Sometimes governments give money to NGOs, but sometimes they take money from them. Individuals’ opportunities for political equality and full citizenship are often affected by their positions in civil society; for instance, leaders of NGOs directed to serving women are frequently hired as “gender-expert” consultants to corporations, states, or UN agencies (Hawkesworth 2oo1:231). Some NGOs, called by their critics “para-statal” organizations (Schild 1998:105), have become simply vehicles for the delivery of state services. Other organizations, which replace state activities in the social sector and function as repair networks for economic and political disintegration processes, are less accurately described as nongovernmental than as semigovernmental organizations (Lang 1997:112). Thus, civil society does not exist as a sphere separate from the state; instead, it is necessarily enmeshed with the state, as it is with the economy, in a complex, changing, and interdependent web of relationships that are both oppositional and symbiotic.

2. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT REDUCES US/THEM THINKING THAT LEADS TO WAR R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 8-9.

Replacing military service with a broader vision of civic service would facilitate the inclusion of all Americans in the practices constitutive of republican citizenship and would thereby minimize the risks of fusion, homogeneity, and the construction of a totalizing identity. In addition, my rereading of civic republican theory through the lens of contemporary feminist theory strives to move away from the idea of citizenship as an identity and toward are conceptualization of citizenship as a set of civic practices. Because identity always forms in opposition to what it excludes, emphasizing a common identity risks exacerbating the vicious side of the Citizen-Soldier tradition — its chauvinism, exclusion, and conformity. In addition, if this deep sense of civic identity is produced predominately through military service, this makes nationalistic military conquest more likely. In order to wage war, one must strongly identify as a member of a “people” or a “nation,” and this type of deep identification most easily develops in opposition to an “enemy” on whom one wages war.

3. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IS VITAL TO DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND EQUAL CITIZENSHIPR. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 8-9.

Shifting from an emphasis on military to an emphasis on service should help minimize the vices inherent in the Citizen-Soldier tradition and help change our definition of citizenship from a common identity to participation in a set of civic practices. Civic service does not require the same depth of identification, as does military service. Participation in a wide variety of civic practices as one part of one’s life produces a multidimensional, less totalizing form of identity. Engagement in such civic practices could constitute individuals as American citizens, but not as purely American and nothing else. Moreover, situating military service within a broad array of civic practices should remind us that a democratic society has a military not just to defend its borders but also to defend its democratic principles, including equality and participatory citizenship.


A2: Feminism K – Permutation Solves

1. WORKING WITHIN GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACIES IS CRITICAL TO CREATING A FRAMEWORK IN WHICH FEMINIST GOALS CAN SUCCEEDAndrea Cornwall, Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, et. al., 2004.FEMINISMS IN DEVELOPMENT: CONTRADICTIONS, CONTESTATIONS, AND CHALLENGES, accessed 5/3/07, http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/bulletin/Introduction35.4.pdf

Several commentators reflected that while professionalisation did loosen links with feminism, it has also provided livelihoods, work, and indeed identities, for feminists. The need to resource progressive work and projects requires some acceptance of the objectives and framings of those that hold the purse strings. Yet equally, it is still possible to find ways to work with gender in ways that are congruent with transformational agendas. The articles giving detailed accounts of how feminists have worked in different institutional sites contain some pointers as to how this can be done. Maitrayee Mukhopadhyay and Ramya Subrahmanian describe the disjunctures and dissonances that have accompanied the mainstreaming agenda as it has taken shape in several settings. Maitrayeee asks how possible it is to enforce gender equity commitments if institutions don’t have the promotion of gender rights or gender justice as their objective. Drawing on the instructive example of gender in education policy in Australia, Ramya argues that it is necessary to get things right in many different political arenas to create the kind of synergy that will enable feminists working within government bureaucracies to be successful.

2. BETTER TO INCORPORATE CRITIQUE TO PRODUCE BETTER POLICIESJoe Oloka-Onyango, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Uganda, and Sylvia Tamale, doctoral student in Sociology and Feminist Studies at the University of Minnesota, 1995.HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 698-699.

Brought together, the two dimensions to this debate on identity--one emphasizing sameness, the other difference--are not necessarily contradictory, despite the obvious tensions that exist between them. The point to remember is that the process of defining, articulating, and executing the agenda on women's human rights at the international level will take place with or without the involvement of third world women. 33 This is largely due to the differential access to the international institutions of decisionmaking at which such agendas are ramified, in addition to the "missionary zeal" and jingoism by which such activities are frequently driven. 34 This is especially the case when Western and multilateral institutions graft a "gender agenda" onto their activities, as part of the charade of "participation" and "development," which have become the rage in such circles. 35 In the process, these organizations incorporate western (and even some nonwestern) women in their design and propagation. 36 One need only look back to the formulation of the now-dominant "Women-In-Development" (WID) schema of international agencies to appreciate this point. 37 WID's main objective was to provide inter alia, improved access for women to health care, education, credit, and land, paying scant attention to the structural conditions that denied women such rights in the first instance. Despite Rhoda Howard's spirited attempt to defend the program, WID simply sought to pursue the modernization paradigm across the gender divide. WID's ultimate results were little different than the failures in the wider context of underdevelopment as a whole.

3. STATE SOVEREIGNTY IS A VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR FEMINISTS V. Spike Peterson, Professor of Political Science at the University of Arizona, 1992.GENDERED STATES: FEMINIST (RE)VISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY, p. 68.

As a feminist, I would hold on to state sovereignty as the most progressive move possible in a world of intertwined transnational functions—the one most likely to allow women, racial minorities, and the poor to disrupt the reigning hierarchies of privilege. In fact, I find myself in a kind of reverse Schumpeter position. I see the state, as Schumpeter did, championed by economically atavistic groups clinging to national identity for survival while the logic and power of new economic systems sweep across national borders as if they were not there. But while Schumpeter applauded the erasure of old dividing lines and the fading of their irrationally generated hostilities, I want to keep the lines somehow in place.


A2: Feminism K – Alternative Fails

1. TRANSNATIONAL FEMINIST GOALS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT A PRE-EXISTING NETWORK OF FEMINIST ACTIVISTS Andrea Cornwall, Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, et. al., 2004.FEMINISMS IN DEVELOPMENT: CONTRADICTIONS, CONTESTATIONS, AND CHALLENGES, accessed 5/3/07, http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/bulletin/Introduction35.4.pdf

Turning the question of the efficacy of gender advocacy without supportive politics on its head, Jo Beall and Alison Todes argue that explicit gender commitments may have less to offer in processes of change than the advocates of tools such as “gender planning” might have us believe. In their case, the fact that women in Cato Manor in South Africa had a long and active history in community politics was the main factor in ensuring gender equity was advanced. Without this, a technical project of gender mainstreaming alone would have made little difference. Their analysis highlights the critical, and often overlooked, significance of contextual pre-conditions for transformatory gender practice.

2. FEMINIST MOVEMENTS ARE TOO DIVERSE AND FRAGMENTED TO OVERCOME POLITICAL DIFFERENCES Andrea Cornwall, Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, et. al., 2004.FEMINISMS IN DEVELOPMENT: CONTRADICTIONS, CONTESTATIONS, AND CHALLENGES, accessed 5/3/07, http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/bulletin/Introduction35.4.pdf

Running through the commentaries in the last section and throughout the workshop is a renewed concern with the triple locations of the international, the local state and local feminisms. “Development” and development actors are but one part of this wide canvas. What feminism has come to mean in different locales is diverse, and situated in particular histories, particular struggles. Such differences are potentially very divisive and they are and have been a source of ongoing tension between feminists working at international levels in a range of politically located organisations, and between feminists located internationally, regionally and nationally.

3. FEMINIST CRITICS CANNOT OVERCOME THEIR OWN DEPICTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AS UNRELENTINGLY PATRIARCHALCharlotte Hooper, Professor of International Relations at the University of Bristol, 2001.MANLY STATES: MASCULINITIES, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND GENDER POLITICS, p. 226.

The arguments put forward here suggest that the masculinism of IR is even deeper and more entrenched than feminist commentators have so far revealed: the discipline has constructed an all-male space for the production of masculinities, and it is involved in embodying and promoting particular constructions of Anglo-American hegemonic masculinity, which have wider cultural relevance and influence. Even some postpositivist critics continue in the tradition of masculine rivalries and promoting new forms of hegemonic masculinity. If the Anglo-American dominated discipline of IR so thoroughly represents and helps to construct the hegemonic masculinity of the sole remaining superpower, reproducing all the elitism and internal complexities and rivalries of that hegemonic masculinity, then it could appear futile for feminists to try to reform the discipline—and a demoralizingly uphill task to transform it into something else.


A2: Feminism K – Performativity Fails

1. PERFORMATIVE ACTION DENIES AGENCYR. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 5-6.

Despite her theoretical agenda, Butler paradoxically insists that performativity actually entails a lack of freedom: “Performativity is neither free play nor theatrical self-presentation; nor can it be simply equated with performance.” Performance, she tells us, does not occur as a matter of choice but only through the “forced reiteration of norms.” Moreover, not only are gender performances constrained, but in fact constraint operates as “the very condition of performativity.” Indeed, Butler insists that “repetition is not performed by a subject”; there is no “doer behind the deed.” All one can hope for is a micropolitics of parody—a strategy, she stresses, that ultimately may fail to subvert dominant gender norms.’ Thus, Butler’s postmodern framework ironically truncates the very possibility of a radical reconstruction of gender that her earlier work seems to suggest, because her rejection of a “doer behind the deed” eliminates the possibility of meaningful agency. Seyla Benhabib emphasizes this point in her critique of Butler’s theoretical paradigm. Rejecting the “strong” version of postmodernism advocated by Butler, Benhabib accepts the insights of postmodem theory only in their “weak” formulations. That is, she maintains that we can accept the “situatedness” of the subject within “the context of various social, linguistic, and discursive practices” while also holding on to “the desirability and theoretical necessity of articulating a more adequate, less deluded, and less mystified vision of subjectivity.” In other words, we can accept the performative construction of identity without completely annihilating the concept of the subject that forms the necessary prerequisite for meaningful agency. Thus, the political goal, as Benhabib puts it, is to “stop the performance for a while, ... pull the curtain down, and let it rise only if one can have a say in the production of the play itself.” Conversely, Butler exposes the performative construction of identity only to undercut the radical implications of her own argument by denying the possibility of a humanist subject capable of rewriting her own scripts.

2. THE SUBVERSION OF GENDER NORMS ERASES ANY GROUNDS FOR CLAIMS OF JUSTICE OR THE GOOD R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999. CITIZEN-SOLDIERS AND MANLY WARRIORS: MILITARY SERVICE AND GENDER IN THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN TRADITION, p. 5-6.

Furthermore, Butler’s deconstructionist move also destroys the normative basis upon which to argue for the justness of making such changes. And without a normative theory of social justice and human dignity, no basis exists for distinguishing between subversive acts that further liberty, equality, and the rule of law and those that undermine those fragile ideals. To be sure, no one questions Butler’s allegiance to politically progressive politics; however, as Martha Nussbaum rightly points out, “Butler cannot explain in any purely structural or procedural way why the subversion of gender norms is a social good while the subversion of justice norms is a social bad.” Expanding on this line of argument, Nussbaum notes: There is a void, then, at the heart of Butler’s notion of politics. This void can look liberating, because the reader fills it implicitly with a normative theory of human equality or dignity. But let there be no mistake: for Butler, as for Foucault, subversion is subversion, and it can in principle go in any direction. Indeed, Butler’s naively empty politics is especially dangerous for the very causes she holds dear. For every friend of Butler, eager to engage in subversive performances that proclaim the repressiveness of heterosexual gender norms, there are dozens of others who would like to engage in subversive performances that flout the norms of tax compliance, of non-discrimination, of decent treatment of one’s fellow students. To such people we should say, you cannot simply resist as you please, for there are norms of fairness, decency, and dignity that entail that this is bad behavior. But then we have to articulate those norms—and this is what Butler refuses to do. In this passage, Nussbaum cogently articulates the major political problem with a full-scale acceptance of the strong version of postmodemism. That is to say, postmodemism does a good job of exposing the “constructedness” of the subject by political, historical, and ideological forces beyond its control. However, the postmodem rejection of humanist ideals as simply another mask for power actually eliminates the moral basis for opposing those particular forces that we consider unjust.



A2: Feminism K – Alternative is Oppressive

1. FEMINIST PEACE ADVOCATES ONLY QUESTION MALE CONTROL OVER WAR AND NOT MILITARISM ITSELFMichael Emin Salla, professor of the peace and conflict resolution program in the school of international service, American University, PEACE & CHANGE, July 1998, p. 317.

The next two feminist responses to the "women=peace stereotype comes in two strands. In the first, more assertive or aggressive images of women are promoted, and feminine equivalents of the images used in promoting the men=war stereotype need to be revived. This is done in order for women to be able to compete on more equitable terms in social systems dominated by masculine values of competitiveness, aggression and individualism. Bernice Carroll argues that these feminists "question the male monopoly of violence more than they question the use of violence itself."

2. THE NOTION OF WOMEN AS PEACEFUL AND MEN AS WARMONGERS MAINTAINS PATRIARCHY THROUGH ESSENTIALISMMichael Emin Salla, professor of the peace and conflict resolution program in the school of international service, American University, PEACE & CHANGE, July 1998, p. 317-318.

The second strand of this qualified rejection argues that more assertive or militant images of women need to be revived in order for women to compete with men in individualistic, aggressive and competitive societal systems without going as far as adopting the bellicosity of the men and war stereotype. Adrienne Harris argues that "the opposition between masculine war -making and nurturing peaceful women... is deeply problematic.... Artmis and Athena, mythic representations of women of mind and action, wisdom and authority... have been neglected." According to Judith Steihm, dismissing the women=peace stereotype leads to rejection of dichotomous conceptions of society into protectors and protected, i.e., men protecting women and children, and instead promotes the notion of citizen defenders where "citizens [are] equally liable to experience violence and equally responsible for exercising society's violence." This approach goes by a variety of terms, e.g., "liberal feminism" or "women and justice ethic" which are predicated on gender equality in contrast to gender difference which is the main characteristic of woman=peace stereotype.


A2: Feminism K – Alternative is Oppressive

1. FEMINIST ANALYSIS CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR RACE AND CLASS OPPRESSION Cricket Keating, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Siena College, 2005.NWSA JOURNAL, Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 90-91.

While the importance of consciousness-raising as a feminist and radical democratic practice should be recognized, critiques of second-wave feminism suggest that the method itself must be rethought and reworked. Although the second-wave feminist movement was articulated as a struggle for liberation and inclusion for all women, women of color, third-world women, working-class women, and lesbians, among others, have critiqued it for its own exclusionary practices. In particular, critics point the second-wave movement's failure to fully incorporate struggles against global, racial, class, and sexual inequalities into its analyses, goals, and strategies. In Black Feminist Thought, Patricia Hill Collins argues that "even today African-American, Hispanic, Native American women and Asian American women criticize the feminist movement and its scholarship for being racist and overly concerned with white, middle-class women's issues" (1990, 7). According to Collins, "theories advanced as being universally applicable to women as a group on closer examination appear greatly limited by the white middle-class origins of their proponents" (1990, 7). By failing to incorporate close attention to racial, class, sexual, national, and other differences and the unequal power dynamics among women themselves that have been linked to those differences into feminist analysis and practice, the movement failed to build or sustain long-standing feminist coalitions across lines of race, class, sexuality, and nationality. As Barbara Smith notes, failing to build a coalitional feminism is a failure of feminism itself: "Feminism is the political theory and practice that struggles to free all women: women of color, working-class women, poor women, disabled women, lesbians, old women—as well as white, economically privileged, heterosexual women. Anything less than this vision of total freedom is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement" (1990, 25).

2. SPEAKING FOR A UNIFIED GROUP OF ‘WOMEN’ OBSCURES DIFFERENCES Cricket Keating, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Siena College, 2005.NWSA JOURNAL, Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 92.

In addition to the search for commonalities as the analytic focus of the consciousness-raising method, the assumption that women make up a unified category often made it difficult to point out and address power imbalances among women themselves. In her account of the 1981 National Women's Studies Association Conference on racism in the feminist movement, Chela Sandoval notes that the emphasis on unity was extremely alienating for women of color and that efforts to demand "the recognition of differences from the inside of this unity . . . were either ignored or seen as acts of betrayal" (1990, 66). Indeed, Anita Shreve notes that among the former consciousness-raising group members that she interviewed, only one woman, an African American, "brings up what is perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of the legacy of the woman's movement—that of women exploiting other women" (1989, 180).

3. WESTERN FEMINISM REINFORCES THE GENDER BIASES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Joe Oloka-Onyango, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Uganda, and Sylvia Tamale, doctoral student in Sociology and Feminist Studies at the University of Minnesota, 1995.HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 698.

In tandem with such an approach, feminists in third world contexts must be wary of cooptation and exploitation--a trait of western societies that appears to not respect boundaries of sex--particularly because the dominant mode of international feminism reflects the dominant character and color of international relations, Bourgeois/white, often predatory, and paternalistic. As Maivân Lâm has recently pointed out in an article aptly entitled, Feeling Foreign in Feminism, the agenda of Western feminism appears not only to be off target, but also "filmic." According to Lâm, Western feminism is "too cleanly and detachedly representational, with little connection to the ongoing lives of women who have experienced racial or colonial discrimination. . . ."


A2: Feminism K – Alternative Homogenizes

1. TURN, A SINGLE APPROACH TO FEMINISM WILL NOT WORK, ALL WOMEN’S INTERESTS ARE NOT THE SAME AND THE CRITICISM DOESN’T BRIDGE THIS GAPJill Vickers, professor of political science at Carleton University, 2002.GENDER, RACE, AND NATION: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, p. 87-88.

Our methodology must alert us to any false assumptions that all women have interests in common. This is especially important as we choose our theoretical framework. The development gap approach reveals that wealth is concentrated in ‘Western’ countries; postcolonial theorists argue that this concentration contributes to the mass poverty of women worldwide. The gender gap approach identifies variables that contribute to women’s poverty in rich and poor countries alike. Both explanatory systems are needed, as are two levels of analysis – local and transnational. Moreover, an issue as complex as women’s poverty requires careful, systematic comparison and a mix of methods including historical analysis, economic analysis, and ideological/discourse analysis to reveal both differences and similarities in women’s experiences.

2. TURN: FEMININE GENDER ROLES CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT THROUGH EXCLUSION AND BINARY TACTICSJudith Butler, Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California at Berkeley, 1993.BODIES THAT MATTER: ON THE DISCURSIVE LIMITS OF “SEX”, p. 35-36.

Inasmuch as certain phantasmatic notions of the feminine are traditionally associated with materiality, these are specular effects which confirm a phallogocentric project of autogenesis. And when those specular (and spectral) feminine figures are taken to be the feminine, the feminine is, she argues, fully erased by its very representation. The economy that claims to include the feminine as the subordinate term in a binary opposition of masculine/feminine excludes the feminine, produces the feminine as that which must be excluded for that economy to operate.

3. A MONOLITHIC VIEW OF PATRIARCHY REDUCES WOMEN TO VICTIMS AND CAN NEVER SOLVECatherine Eschle, lecturer in politics at the University of Strathelyde in Glasgow, 2001. GLOBAL DEMOCRAY, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS & FEMINISM, p. 97-98.

Finally, patriarchy is characterized as a totalizing, oppressive, and politically harmful concept that eradicates women’s agency. In particular, the radical feminist catalog of male violence and atrocities against women is now widely rejected as reducing women to victims and as complicit in sexist and racist discourses of women’s vulnerability and need for protection. For many contemporary feminists, this sits uneasily with efforts to reconstruct democracy and uncover women’s political agency


A2: Feminism K – Alternative Can’t Solve Racism

1.GLOBAL FEMINISM IGNORES THE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF OPPRESSIONCaren Kaplan, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Religious Studies at the University of Arizona, 1998.MAKING WORLDS: GENDER, METAPHOR, MATERIALITY, p. 64.

Notions such as “global feminism” have stood for a kind of Western cultural imperialism by eliding the diversity of women’s agency in favor of a Western model of women’s liberation that celebrates individuality and modernity. Anti-imperialist movements have legitimately decried this form of feminist globalizing. Yet we know that there is an imperative need to address the concerns of women around the world in the historicized particularity of their relationship to multiple patriarchies as well as to international economic hegemonies.

2.WITHOUT COMPARITIVE STUDY OF MULTIPLE AND OVERLAPPING OPPRESSIONS FEMINISM WILL FAILCaren Kaplan, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Religious Studies at the University of Arizona, 1998.MAKING WORLDS: GENDER, METAPHOR, MATERIALITY, p. 64.

We need creative ways to move beyond constructed oppositions without ignoring the histories that have informed these conflicts or the valid concerns about power relations that have represented or structured the conflicts up to this point. We need to articulate the relationship of gender to scattered hegemonies such as global economic structures, patriarchal nationalisms, “authentic” forms of traditions, local structures of dominations, and legal-juridical oppression on multiple levels. Transnational feminist practices require this kind of comparative work rather than the relativistic linking of “differences” undertaken by proponents of “global” feminism; that is, they need to compare multiple, overlapping, and discrete oppressions rather than to contruct a theory of hegemonic oppression under a unified category of gender.

3. FEMINISM DOES NOT ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF RACIAL MINORITIESAlicia D. Boisnier, Ph.D. Candidate Organizational Behavior, Haas School of Business University of California, Berkeley, September 2003.SEX ROLES: A JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_5-6_49/ai_107203499.

Several theorists suggest that Black women are less likely than White women to identify as feminists. Hemmons (1974) posited that the women's movement did not specifically address issues central to the concerns of Black women, and Kelly (2001) reiterated that, even today, contemporary feminism fails to be relevant to young Black women's lives. Therefore, although Black women may support the premises of the women's movement, they may not ultimately identify with being feminist. Further, Myaskovsky and Wittig (1997) found that Black women and other Women of Color were far less likely than White college women to identify publicly as feminists. In fact, Black feminist writers (e.g., Walker, 1983) first used the term "womanist" to describe their distinct interpretation of feminism. Therefore, it is important to consider the possibility that the womanist model may be applied to a more diverse group of women because it is not limited by the requirement that a woman adopt the term "feminist," (and any predetermined ideas she has about the corresponding identity) and may, therefore, be more appropriate for, or relevant to, the Black woman's experience.


A2: Feminism K – Alternative Essentializes

1.EVEN WHEN USED FOR EMANCIPATORY PURPOSES, FEMINISM RESULTS IN FORCED CONFORMITY AND FAILURE OF THE MOVEMENTJudith Butler, Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California at Berkeley, 1990.GENDER TROUBLE, p. 4-5.

My suggestion is that the presumed universality and unity of the subject of feminism is effectively undermined by the constraints of the representational discourse in which it functions. Indeed the premature insistence on a stable subject of feminism, understood as a seamless category of women, inevitably generates multiple refusals to accept the category. These domains of exclusion reveal the coercive and regulatory consequences of that construction, even when the construction has been elaborated for emancipatory purposes.

2. FEMINISM’S PURPOSES WILL TURN BACK ON THEMSELVES BECAUSE IT FORCES A STABLE SUBJECT OF WOMANHOODJudith Butler, Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California at Berkeley, 1990.GENDER TROUBLE, p. 4-5.

This problem is not ameliorated through an appeal to the category of women for merely “strategic” purposes, for strategies always have meanings that exceed the purposes for which they are intended. In this case, exclusion itself might qualify as such an unintended yet consequential meaning. By conforming to a requirement of representational politics that feminism articulate a stable subject, feminism thus opens itself to charges of gross misrepresentation.

3. ASSUMPTIONS OF WOMEN’S PEACEFULLNESS REIFY PATRIARCHYChristine Sylvester, Professor of Political Science at Northern Arizona, 1996.INTERNATIONAL THEORY: POSITIVISM AND BEYOND, p. 268.

Everyday feminist theorizers say women are a real absence in International Relations. Some outliners bear down heavily on identity by positing a special knowledge of peace immanent in women’s bodies and/or in their usual activities of caretaking. This supposedly demarcating experience forecloses mediations on ‘women’ involving factors of race, class, generation, age, sexual style, and other location and situational identities. It assumes that ‘a’ meaning of ‘women’ is already present and ready to be exhumed, recorded, counted, and correlated. When not essentialist and ethnocentric, it can reify, and simply turn topsy, the patriarchal assignments bestowed on us.


A2: Feminism K – Alternative Ignores Difference

1.FEMINISM IGNORES RACE, CLASS, AND OTHER CULTURAL MODALITIES AND ONLY MAINTAINS DOMINATIONJudith Butler, Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California at Berkeley, 1990.GENDER TROUBLE, p. 13.

If one “is” a woman, that is surely not all one is; the term fails to be exhaustive, not because a pregendered “person” transcends the specific paraphernalia of its gender, but because gender is not always constituted coherently or consistently in different historical contexts, and because gender intersects with racial, class, ethnic, sexual, and regional modalities of discursively constituted identities. As a result, it becomes impossible to separate out “gender” from the political and cultural intersections in which it is invariably produced and maintained.

2. THE SUBJECT OF FEMINISM CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO BE “THE WOMAN” OR PATRIARCHY IS REIFIED AND THE MOVEMENT FAILSJudith Butler, Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California at Berkeley, 1990.GENDER TROUBLE, p. 5-6.

Perhaps the problem is even more serious. Is the construction of the category of women as a coherent and stable subject an unwitting regulation and reification of gender relations? And is not such a reification precisely contrary to feminist aims? To what extent does the category of women achieve stability and coherence only in the context of the heterosexual matrix? If a stable notion of gender no longer proves to be the foundational premise of feminist politics, perhaps a new sort of feminist politics is now desirable to contest the very reifications of gender and identity.

3. STATE SUPPORTED GENDER NORMS CRUSH THE MOVEMENTJudith Butler, Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California at Berkeley, 1997.EXCITABLE SPEECH, p. 101.

When the task of reappropriation, however, is taken up within the domain of protected public discourse, the consequences seem more promising and more democratic than when the task of adjudicating the injury of speech is given over to the law. The state resignifies only and always its own law, and that resigification constitutes an extension of its jurisdiction and its discourse. Consider that hate speech is not only a production of the state, as I have tried to argue, but that the very intentions that animate the legislation are inevitably misappropriated by the state. To give the task of adjudicating hate speech to the state is to give that task of misappropriation to the sate. It will not simply be a legal discourse on racial and sexual slurring, but it will also reiterate and restage those slurs, reproduce them this time as state-sanctioned speech.


A2: Feminism K – A2: War Impacts

1. BLAMING PATRIARCHY FOR ALL WAR IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVEBarbara Ehrenreich, journalist, former Professor of Journalism at UC-Berkeley, 1997. BLOOD RITES, p. 232.

In trying to understand what war is, we have been mislead, I would argue, by the apparent linkage between war and various other institutions-hierarchies of class, gender, and political leadership, for example. Analyze any war-making society and, sure enough, you will find the practice of war apparently embedded in and dependent upon that society’s economy, culture, system of gender relations, and so forth. But change that economy and culture—as in going from a hunting-gathering to an agricultural way of life, or from agriculture to industry—and war will, most likely, be found to persist. So it is the autonomy of war as an institution that we have to confront and explain. Is war something which really does have “a life of its own”?

2. WAR IS NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH MASCULINISM Barbara Ehrenreich, journalist, former Professor of Journalism at UC-Berkeley, 1997. BLOOD RITES, p. 231.

But the inclusion of women has gone far enough to cast serious doubts on any theory of war that derives exclusively from considerations of gender. War has been seen by many cultures as a male initiation rite and a defining male activity, but it need not remain so. When war cases to serve one “function”—for example, the capture of prisoners for human sacrifice or the seizure of land for agricultural expansion—it generally finds another. So war has come to depend less on the human social institutions that have sustained it for centuries, if not millennia. One of these is male supremacy, as embodied in the all-male warrior elite; another is that superb social instrument of war, the nation-state, in whose name all major wars have been fought for more than two hundreds years. To anyone who had believe that war could be abolished by severing its links to male privilege, or by healing the artificial division of our species into nations, the end of the twentieth century can only bring gloom. War has little loyalty to even the most warlike of human institutions and may, ominously enough, have little use for humans themselves. Twentieth-century military technologists have already begun preparations for a version of war in which “autonomous weapons” will be “given the responsibility for killing human beings without human direction or supervision.”

3. CHANGING CONCEPTIONS OF GENDER DOES NOT PREVENT MILITARISM Michael Lind, Whitehead Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, January 20, 2005.OF ARMS AND THE WOMAN, accessed 5/15/07, http://feminism.eserver.org/of-arms-and-the-woman.txt.

This recurrent focus on little sisterhoods, mobilizing against "gendered" nation-states, multinational capitalism and racial and religious prejudice, owes a lot to the Marxist dream of a transnational fraternity of workers (in a new form, as a transnational sorority of feminists) and even more to the hope of early twentieth-century peace crusaders such as Jane Addams that the women of the world can unite and put an end to war and exploitation. Enloe tries to justify the attention paid to quite different groups of women in various countries with the claim that "no national movement can be militarized"--or demilitarized?--"without changing the ways in which femininity and masculinity infuse daily life." Even if "militarization," however defined, does result in certain kinds of gender relations, it does not follow that altering masculine and feminine roles will, in itself, do much to reverse the process. Something may, after all, be an effect without being a cause. Rejecting the feminist approach to international relations does not mean rejecting the subjects or the political values of feminist scholars. Differing notions of masculinity and femininity in different societies, the treatment of women and homosexuals of both sexes in the armed forces, the exploitation of prostitutes by American soldiers deployed abroad, the sexual division of labor both in advanced and developing countries: all of these are important topics that deserve the attention that Enloe awards them. She shows journalistic flair as well as scholarly insight in detailing what abstractions like the Caribbean Basin Initiative mean in the lives of women in particular Third World countries. Still, such case studies, however interesting, do not support the claim of feminist international relations theorists that theirs is a new and superior approach.


Date post:	29-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamtram
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

FEMINIST KRITIK SHELL - wcdebate.com · Web viewOne way that feminist theorists have responded to...

Documents