Feminism Critique - Samford 2015

Contents
Feminism K Shell.............................................................................................. 1
2nc Overview................................................................................................... 1
Links................................................................................................................. 1
Privacy Links.............................................................................................. 1
LinksCyber-space Links...........................................................................1
Links Silence on Gender..........................................................................1
Links Policymaking..................................................................................1
Links Hegemony...................................................................................... 1
Links Body Counts...................................................................................1
Impacts............................................................................................................ 1
Extinction Impacts..................................................................................... 1
Impacts: Ethics K-Bomb............................................................................. 1
Impacts: Individual Rejection K-Bomb.......................................................1
Impacts Patriarchy Root Cause.................................................................1
Impacts: AT: Your Link Assumes Domestic Politics While Impact Assumes
International Relations...............................................................................1
Alternative Solvency........................................................................................ 1
Alternative Solves Wall..............................................................................1
A2 Blocks.......................................................................................................... 1
A2: Perm.................................................................................................... 1
A2: Realism................................................................................................ 1
A2: Legal Reforms Solve...........................................................................1
A2: Framework................................................................................................ 1
AFF Answers..................................................................................................... 1
2ac Front-line............................................................................................. 1
Extensions: Patriarchy Not Root Cause of War..........................................1
Extensions: Race Turn...............................................................................1
Alt Fails Extensions.................................................................................... 1
A2: State Link............................................................................................. 1
Link Turns................................................................................................... 1
Feminism K Shell
A) The notion of a private sphere protected from
surveillance leads to domination of women:
Zoya Hasan, 2002 (former professor of political science and the
dean of School of Social Sciences at the Jawaharlal Nehru University),
INDIAS LIVING CONSTITUTION: IDEAS, PRACTICES, CONTROVERSIES,
2002, p. 264-265
I believe that we cannot make much progress for women without utterly
rejecting the idea of a protected private sphere within which the law
does not meddle. The privacy tradi-tion typically conflates two ideas of the protected
sphere: a spatial idea (the home as a privi-leged place), and an institutional idea (marriage as a
privileged relation). It seems to me very clear that the protection of an institution under cover of
the notion of privacy is simply mis-taken; the fact that people are linked as husband and wife
As for the appeal to a

special place, or sanctuary, this seems more plausible, and in some areas (for
example, that of unwanted surveillance ) it may appear appealing .
Typically, however, such an idea of home as a protected place has
served to insu-late family relationships from legal scrutiny; as I shall argue
does not entail that the law has no business in that relationship.
in the following section, it also serves to give special privileges to those whose harmless activities
take place in that place, even though they might be just as harmless when conducted elsewhere.
Even the liberties that we most closely associate with the idea of home
as a protected place (for example, the right to be free from
unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure) would be better
un-derstood to protect persons and their property whether or not they
are at home and whether or not they have a home . Thus the idea of
home as a protected place remains at least ques-tionable.
B) Masculine domination leads to extinction:

Jhyette Nhanenge, 2007 (developmental Africa worker), 2007, Retrieved May
30, 2015 from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/570/dissertation.pdf?
sequence=1/ ns
Technology can be used to dominate societies or to enhance them. Thus both science and technology could have
developed in a different direction. But due to patriarchal values infiltrated in science the type of
technology developed is meant to dominate, oppress, exploit and kill. One reason is that
patriarchal societies identify masculinity with conquest . Thus any technical innovation will continue to
be a tool for more effective oppression and exploitation. The highest priority seems to be given to technology that destroys
life. Modern societies are dominated by masculine institutions and patriarchal ideologies.
Their technologies prevailed in Auschwitz, Dresden , Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq,
Afghanistan and in many other parts of the world. Patriarchal power has brought us acid
rain , global warming , military states, poverty and countless cases of suffering . We
have seen men whose power has caused them to lose all sense of reality, decency and imagination, and we must fear such
The ultimate result of unchecked patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe

and nuclear holocaust. Such actions are denial of wisdom. It is working against natural harmony and
power.
destroying the basis of existence. But as long as ordinary people leave questions of technology to the "experts" we will
continue the forward stampede. As long as economics focus on technology and both are the focus of politics, we can leave
none of them to experts. Ordinary people are often more capable of taking a wider and more
humanistic view than these experts.
C) The alternative is to vote negative. In questioning

the masculine conceptions of the 1AC we are able to
embrace a feminist ethic that challenges the
inequalities and violence of the status quo
Moghadam 01 [Valentine: feminist scholar and author, Violence and
Terrorism: Feminist Observations on Islamist Movements, State, and the
International System Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the
Middle East, vol. 21.1-2, Project Muse]
Our world desperately needs new economic and political frameworks
in order to end the vicious cycle of violence and bring about people-oriented
development, human security, and socio-economic justice, including justice for women.
Such frameworks are being proposed in international circles, whether by some UN circles, the
Women's peace movements

in particular constitute an important countermovement to terrorism, and
they should be encouraged and funded. Feminists and women's groups have long been
involved in peace work, and their analyses and activities have contributed
much to our understanding of the roots of conflict and the conditions
for conflict resolution, human security, and human development. There is now a prodigious
antiglobalization movement, or the global feminist movement.
feminist scholarship that describes this activism while also critically analyzing international relations from
various disciplinary vantage points, including political science. The activities of antimilitarist groups such
as the Women's international League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Women Strike for Peace, and the
Women of Greenham Common are legendary, and their legacy lies in ongoing efforts to "feminize" peace,
human rights, and development. At the third UN conference on women, in Nairobi in 1985, women decided
that not only equality and development, but also peace and war were their affairs. The Nairobi conference
took place in the midst of the crisis of Third World indebtedness and the implementation of austerity
policies recommended by the World Bank and the IME Feminists were quick to see the links between
economic distress, political instability, and violence against women. As Lucille Mair noted after the Nairobi
violence
follows an ideological continuum, starting from the domestic sphere
conference: This [economic] distress exists in a climate of mounting violence and militarism...
where it is tolerated, if not positively accepted. It then moves to the public

political arena where it is glamorized and even celebrated.... Women and children are the prime victims of
this cult of aggression.14 Since the 1980s, when women activists formed networks to work more
effectively on local and global issues, transnational feminist networks have engaged in dialogues and
alliances with other organizations in order to make an impact on peace, security, conflict resolution, and
social justice.. The expansion of the population of educated, employed, mobile, and politically-aware
women has led to increased activism by women in the areas of peace, conflict resolution, and human
rights. Around the world, women have been insisting that their voices be heard, on the streets, in civil
society organizations, and in the meeting halls of the multilateral organizations. Demographic
changes and the rise of a "critical mass" of politically engaged women are reflected in the formation of
many women's groups that are highly critical of existing political structures;
that question
masculinist values and behaviors in domestic politics, international

relations, and conflict; and that seek to make strategic
interventions, formulating solutions that are informed by feminine
values .
An important proposal is the institutionalization of peace education.
2nc Overview
The Kritik outweighs and turns the case3 reasons
A) Extinction is inevitable in a world of patriarchy
extend our Nhanenge evidence says patriarchal
values kill the environment and lead to a nuclear
holocaust.
B) Patriarchy is the root cause of conflictour
Moghadam evidence says that a gendered lens is
necessary to understand the roots of conflictwhich
the plan just papers over.
C) Its try or die for the alternative: our Hasan 2002
evidence says well never make much progress for
women until we reject the idea of a private sphere
immune from surveillance which means the plan and
the permutation cant access the alternative
solvency.
Links
Privacy Links
(--) Equality between the sexes requires intervention by
the governmentwhich privacy prohibits.
Catherine MacKinnon, 1983 (Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law at
Michigan Law), 1983. Re-trieved May 30, 2015 from
http://politicalscience.tamu.edu/documents/faculty/MacKinnonPrivacy_v_Equality.pdf
In this like a right to privacy looks like an injury got up as a gift. Freedom
from public intervention coexists uneasily with any right that requires social
preconditions to be mean-ingfully delivered. For example, if inequality is
socially pervasive and enforced, equality will require intervention , not
abdication , to be meaningful. But the right to privacy is not thought to
require social change. It is not even thought to require any social
preconditions, other than nonintervention by the public.
(--) The right to privacy separates women and prevents

collective action.
To fail to recognize the meaning of the private in the ideology and reality of
womens subordination by seeking protection behind a right to that privacy is
to cut women off from collective verification and state support in the same
act. I think this has a lot to do with why we cant organize women on the abortion issue. When
women are segregated in private, separated from each other, one at a time,
a right to that privacy isolates us at once from each other and from public
recourse. This right to privacy is a right of men to be let alone to oppress
women one at a time.
It embodies and reflects the private spheres existing defini-tion of
womanhood. This is an instance of liberalism called feminism, liberalism applied to women as if we are
It reinforces the division between public and private that is

not gender neutral. It is at once an ideological division that lies about wom-ens shared experience
and that mystifies the unity among the spheres of womens violation. It is a very material
division that keeps the private beyond public redress and depoliticizes
womens subjection within it. It keeps some men out of the bedrooms of other men.
persons, gender neutral.
(--) Privacy reinforces womens inequality to men

Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1991(Catharine A. MacKinnon is Professor of Law at
the University of Michigan Law School, March, 1991; Yale Law Journal, " Reflections on
Sex Equality Under Law," EE2001-hxm P, Retrieved 6/23/15 MD )
The law of reproductive control has developed largely as a branch of the law of privacy, the law that keeps
The problem is that while the private has

been a refuge for some, it has been a hellhole for others , often at the same time. In
out observing outsiders. Sometimes it has. n137
gendered light, the law's privacy is a sphere of sanctified isolation, impunity, and unaccountability. It
surrounds the individual in his habitat. It belongs to the individual with power .
Women have been

accorded neither individuality nor power . Privacy follows those with power
wherever they go, like and as consent follows women. When the person with
privacy is having his privacy, the person without power is tacitly imagined to
be consenting. At whatever time and place man has privacy, woman wants to have happen, or lets
happen, whatever he does to her. Everyone is implicitly equal in there . If the woman needs
something -- say, equality -- to make these assumptions real, privacy law does nothing for her, and
even ideologically undermines the state intervention that might provide the
preconditions for its meaningful exercise. n138 The private is a distinctive
sphere of women's inequality to men . Because this has not been recognized ,
the doctrine of privacy has become the triumph of the state's abdication of women in the name of freedom
and self-determination. n139
(--) Non-interference in the private sphere reinforces

womens inequality:
Louise Marie Roth, 1999 ( Louise is an associate proffersor, sociology at the
University of Arizona, "The Right to Privacy Is Political: Power, the Boundary Between
Public and Private, and Sexual Harassment," Law and Social Inquiry, Winter, 1999, 24
Law & Soc. Inquiry 45 , EE2001-JGM, P.64-650)
Feminist scholars have revealed that noninterference in the private realm

has the effect of reinforcing power and powerlessness (MacKinnon 1989).
Formal equality fails to engender real equality, and even reinforces
inequality , because power relations from the public realm operate with impunity in the arena of nonintervention. In guaranteeing a right to privacy in
the private sphere to all citizens, the liberal state legitimates an area in which
inequalities of power based on resources, knowledge, and symbolic
attributions can act with impunity
(MacKinnon 1989; Polan 1993; Hoff 1991). The
development of a feminist critique of the legal and ideological division of private and public, of personal
is the personal
political in the sense that the private sphere contains power relations that
mirror those outside it, but systemic power also influences the right to
privacy. The arbi- trariness of the discursive boundary between public and private
subjects it to the influence of social power .
and political, led to the feminist mantra, The personal is political. Not only
(--) Looking through a gendered lens means we should

reject privacy:
Elizabeth M. Schneider 1991 (Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School,
Visiting Professor of Law, Harvard Law School,1991. B.A. 1968 Bryn Mawr
College, M.Sc. 1969 The London School of Economies and Political Science,
J.D. 1973 New York University Law School. The Violence of Privacy, 23
Conn. L. Rev. 973 (1990-1991) [ 28 pages, 973 to 1000, Retrieved 6/24/15
file:///C:/Users/Mayra/Downloads/23ConnLRev973.pdf MD]
This symposium celebrates the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut.2 Griswold has been heralded for
introducing a newv era of possibility for the right to privacy. In the years since .Griswold was decided,
protection of a sphere of family privacy from state interference has been

viewed as "good." Yet, understood through a lens of gender, and more particularly shaped
the concept of privacy is more complex and

ambiguous. The notion of the family as a sphere of privacy, immune from state interference, is central
by the experiences of battered women,
to Griswold. But Griswold involved a state law that prohibited contraception and is premised on an
idealized vision of marriage as "enduring and intimate," promoting "harmony in liv-ing ."
For women
in the United States, intimacy with men, in and out of marriage, too often
results in violence. The concept of freedom from state intrusion into the
marital bedroom takes on a different meaning when it is violence that goes
on in the marital bedroom. The concept of marital privacy, established as a
constitutional principle in Griswold, historically has been the key ideological rationale for
state refusal to intervene to protect battered women3 within ongoing
intimate relationships. For this reason, at the same time that we celebrate Griswold, we also must
examine its underside: the dark and violent side of privacy
(--) The concept of privacy allows a womens

subordination
The concept of privacy poses a dilemma and challenge to theoretical and practical work on
woman-abuse. The notion of marital privacy has been a source of oppression to
battered women and has helped to maintain women's subordination within
the family. However, a more affirmative concept of privacy, one that encompasses liberty, equality,
freedom of bodily integrity, autonomy, and self-determination, is important to women who have been
The challenge is not simply to reject privacy for battered women and
opt for state intervention, but to develop both a more nuanced theory of
where to draw the boundaries between public and private and a theory of
privacy that is empowering.
battered.
(--) The right to privacy protects the strong to exploit the weak
Charles Sykes 1999 (Senior Fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Institute,
THE END OF PRIVACY, 1999, EE2001-JGM, p.227 Retrieved 6/23/15 MD)
Democratic society separates areas that are subject to government control

from those private zones where individuals are free to make their own choices and live their own
lives. "The state does this by centering its self-restraint on body and home,
especially bedrooms," MacKinnon writes. "By staying out of marriage and the
family-essentially meaning sexuality, that is, heterosexuality-from
contraception through pornography to the abortion decision, the law of
privacy proposed to guarantee individual body integrity, personal exercise of
moral intelligence and freedom of intimacy ." But MacKinnon rejects such restraint,
because women had no guarantee that they had access to such rights . There
could he no "inviolable personality" protected by privacy because women were not inviolable. " For
women the measure of the intimacy has been the measure of the
oppression," she declaimed. "This is why feminism has bad to explode the private. This is why
feminism has seen the personal as the political. The private is public for those for whom
the personal is political. In this sense, for women there is no privat e.... Feminism
confronts the fact that women have no privacy to lose or to guarantee ."9 In tier critique
of privacy, feminist theorist Susan Moller Okin similarly argued, "The protection of
the privacy of the domestic sphere in which inequality exists is the protection
of the right of the strong to exploit and abuse the weak."10
(--) The private sphere allows for men to not be

prosecuted
Thus, in the so-called private sphere of domestic and family life, which is purportedly
immune from law, there is always the selective application of law. Significantly, this selective application of
protect male domination. For

when the police do not respond to a battered woman's call for
law invokes "privacy" as a rationale for immunity in order to

example,
assistance, or when a civil court refuses to evict her assailant, the woman is
relegated to self-help, while the man who beats her receives the law's tacit
encouragement and support .10 Indeed, we can see this pattern in recent legislative
and prosecutorial efforts to control women's conduct during pregnancy in the form
of "fetal" protection laws. These laws are premised on the notion that women's childbearing
capacity, and pregnancy itself, subjects women to public regulation and control. Thus, pregnant
battered women may find themselves facing criminal prosecution for drinking
liquor, but the man who battered them is not prosecuted .17
(--) Privatizing abuse prevents public solutions to abuse:

Although battering
has evolved from a "private" to a more "public" issue, it has not become a
serious political issue, precisely because it has profound implications for all of
our lives."8 Battering is deeply threatening. It goes to our most fundamental assumptions about the
However, I have also been stunned by the depth of social resistance to change.
nature of intimate relations and the safeness of family life. The concept of male battering of women as a
"private" issue exerts a powerful ideological pull on our consciousness because, in some sense, it is
By seeing woman abuse as "private," we

affirm it as a problem that is individual, that only involves a particular male-female
relationship, and for which there is no social responsibility to remedy. Each of us
needs to deny the seriousness and pervasiveness of battering , but more
significantly, the interconnectedness of battering with so many other aspects of
family life and gender relations. Instead of focusing on the batterer, we focus
something that we would like to believe.'6
on the battered woman, scrutinize her conduct, examine her pathology and
blame her for not leaving the relationship ,
Focusing on the woman,
confront the issues of power.
power of patriarchy.
in order to maintain that denial and refuse to

not the man,
perpetuates the
Denial supports and legitimates this power; the concept of privacy is a key
aspect of this denial.
(--) Privacy operates as a mask for inequality

The concept of privacy encourages, reinforces and supports violence against

women.
Privacy says that
violence against women is immune from sanction , that it
is permitted, acceptable and part of the basic fabric of American family life. Privacy
says that what goes on in the violent relationship should not be the subject of state or community
intervention. Privacy says that it is an individual, and not a systemic problem.
Privacy operates as
a mask for inequality, protecting male violence against women .
(--) Privacy encourages violence against women

Although social failure to respond to problems of battered women has been justified on grounds of privacy ,
this failure to respond is an affirmative political decision that has serious public
consequences. The rationale of privacy masks the political nature of the decision. Privacy
thus
plays a particularly subtle and pernicious ideological role in supporting,

encouraging, and legitimating violence against women . The state plays an affirmative
role in permitting violence against battered women by protecting the privileges and prerogatives of
battering men and failing to protect battered women, and by prosecuting battered women for homicide
These failures to respond, or selective responses, are part of

"public patterns of conduct and morals. 5
when they protect themselves.
(--) The isolation of privacy rights allows violence to go

unchallenged:

When clerks in a local court harass a woman who applies for a restraining order against the violence in her
Society is organized to permit violence in the

home; it is organized through images in mass media and through broadly
based social attitudes that condone violence. Society permits such violence to go
unchallenged through the isolation of families and the failures of police to
respond. Public, rather than private patterns of conduct and morals are implicated. Some police
officers refuse to respond to domestic violence; some officers themselves abuse their
spouses. Some clerks and judges think domestic violence matters do not belong in court. These
failures to respond to domestic violence are public, not private, actions ."1
home, they are part of the violence.
(--) Privacy rhetoric masks inequality and subordination:

Definitions of "private" and "public" in any particular legal context can and do constantly
shift. Meanings of "private" and "public" are based on social and cultural assumptions of
what is valued and important, and these assumptions are deeply genderbased.
Thus, the interrelationship between what is understood and experienced as "private" and
"public" is particularly complex in the area of gender,
where the rhetoric of privacy has
masked inequality and subordination. The decision about what we protect as "private" is a
political decision that always has important "public" ramifications. 20
(--) Privacy bolsters the patriarchy

Zoya Hasan, 2002 (former professor of political science and the dean of
School of Social Sciences at the Jawaharlal Nehru University), INDIAS LIVING
CONSTITUTION: IDEAS, PRACTICES, CONTROVERSIES, 2002, p. 264
These cases dramatically illustrate the dangers that face women jumping on
the privacy bandwagon. Privacy is inherently a retrograde value, linked with
the idea of a protected pa-triarchial sphere of authority.
(--) Privacy rights justify and perpetuate sexual inequality.

Annabelle Lever, 2005 (Honorary Senior Fellow in the Philosophy
Department of University Col-lege London), MINERVA, 2005. Retrieved May
30, 2015 from http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie//vol9/Feminism.html
Can legal rights to privacy be reconciled with democratic principles of government? Alt-hough many people
privacy rights have been

accused of justifying and perpetuating sexual inequality and, to date, we lack
a persuasive account of the relationship between privacy rights and the
political rights of individuals in a democracy. Indeed, given feminist criticisms
believe that the right to privacy is an important democratic right,
of the right to privacy, it is an open question whether or not it is possible to

justify legal rights to privacy on democratic grounds .
(--) Privacy rights prevent the state from altering the

power between men and women, thus justifying sexual
inequality.
Annabelle Lever, 2005 (Honorary Senior Fellow in the Philosophy
Department of University Col-lege London), MINERVA, 2005. Retrieved May
30, 2015 from http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie//vol9/Feminism.html
For instance, what distinguishes liberalism, as a political tradition, is a tendency to iden-tify the freedom,
equality and happiness of individuals with the absence of state scrutiny and regulation. (Gutmann 1996,
women, like other disadvantaged social groups, will often need state
aid in order to achieve the freedom and equality promised by their legal
rights. In so far as privacy rights prevent the state from altering the balance
of power be-tween men and women, therefore, they will perpetuate sexual
64-68). But
inequality and undemocratic government in ways that are typically liberal

(MacKinnon 1983, ch. 8).
(--) The right to privacy shields battery & marital rape.

The
existing distribution of power and resources within the private sphere will be
precisely what the law of privacy exists to protect. It is probably not
coincidence that the very things feminism regards as central to the
subjection of womenthe very place, the body; the very relations, heterosexual; the very
activities, intercourse and reproduction; and the very feelings, intimate from the core of what is
covered by privacy doctrine. From this perspective, the legal concept of
privacy can and has shielded the place of battery, marital rape, and womens
exploited labor, has preserved the central institutions whereby women are deprived of identity,
When the law of privacy restricts intrusions into intimacy, it bars change in control over that intimacy.
autonomy, control and self-definition; and has protected the primary activity through which male
supremacy is expressed and enforced. Just as pornography is legally protected as individual freedom of
expressionwithout questioning whose freedom and whose expression and at whose expense
abstract privacy protects abstract autonomy, without inquiring into whose

freedom of action is being sanctioned at whose expense.
(--) Privacy re-entrenches coercion and aggression against

women
Patricia Boling, 1996 (associate Professor of Political Science, University
of California, Berkeley) PRIVACY AND THE POLITICS OF INTIMATE LIFE, 1996,
p. 9-10
Given the false assumption that privacy benefits all equally and promotes intimacy and mutuality,
MacKinnon thinks that
coercive.
it is difficult getting anything private to be perceived as

When what men do is private, their aggression is not
She continues:
seen at all, and women are seen to consent to it .[Thus, f]or women the measure of
intimacy has been the measure of the oppression. This is why feminism has had to
explode the private . This is why feminism has seen the personal as the
political. The private is public for those for whom the personal is political. In this sense, for women
there is no private, either normatively or empirically. Feminism confronts the fact that
women have no privacy to lose or to guaran-tee .To confront the fact that women have
no privacy is confront the intimate degreadation of women as the public order.
(--) Privacy merely protects male power.

Patricia Boling, 1996 (associate Professor of Political Science, University
of California, Berkeley) PRIVACY AND THE POLITICS OF INTIMATE LIFE, 1996,
p. 10
In sum, MacKinnon identifies the private, intimate realm as the realm of
politics from womens point of view, which is consistent with her view that
sexual objectification is the normative way men treat women. Sex becomes
politics and privacy merely a tool for obscur-ing and protecting male power.
(--) Right of privacy endangers rather than empowers

women
Karen Struening, 2002 (professor at City College of New York) NEW
FAMILY VALUES: LIBERTY, EQUALITY, DIVERSITY, 2002, p. 40
MacKinnons rejection of privacy doctrines rests on her conviction that
women exercise very little self-determination in their personal relationships
with men. She argues that the right of privacy endangers rather than
empowers women, because it always benefits the more powerful person in a
relationship.
(--) Privacy reinforces unconstrained power of men

CONSTITUTION: IDEAS, PRACTICES, CONTROVERSIES, 2002, p. 255
appeals to the alleged privacy of the home have routinely accompanied
defenses of the marital rape exemptions, and of non-interference with
domestic violence and with child abuse . It is not that in principle people dont sometimes
Thus,
grant that a showing of coercion voids the presumption of non-interference. However, as MacKinnon says,
the
problem is getting anything private to be perceived as coercive. In the

marital home, there is a pre-sumption of consent. What this means is that
there is a presumption that anything a man does in the marital home is all
right. As MacKinnon states: it is not womens privacy that is being protected here,
it is the males privacy. Recognizing a sphere of seclusion into which the
state shall not enter means, simply, that males may exercise unconstrained
power.
(--) We should be skeptical of claims that privacy

enhances the interests of women and children
CONSTITUTION: IDEAS, PRACTICES, CONTROVERSIES, 2002, p. 256.
when appeals to privacy appear to protect the
inter-ests of women (or children), we should be skeptical, asking whose
interests are really ad-vanced. Laws that protect the modesty of women from violation by the
What this history tells us is that even
eyes or even the touch of a stranger appear in one way protective of women; and they have been used by
the concept of
womanly modesty is inextricable from the history of patriarchy, and it
subjects women to asymmetrical limitations on their freedom.
feminists who hope to squeeze progressive results out of antiquated codes. However,
(--) Declaring the home to be a womans sphere devalues

and discredits women as a group
SALLY F. GOLDFARB 2000 (Goldfarb teaches Family Law, Sex Discrimination,
and Torts at Rutgers School of Law she also has taught Professional Responsibility.
Violence Against Women and the Persistence of Privacy, OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL
Volume 61, Number 1, 2000, Retrieved 6/25/15,
file:///C:/Users/Mayra/Downloads/61OhioStLJ1.pdf MD)
If, as the preceding discussion suggests, the market-family dichotomy is inaccurate, inequitably applied,
and logically incoherent what function does it erve? One answer is that it simultaneously fortifies and
Designating the domestic

sphere as private ensures that those who lack power within that sphere will
continue to experience uncertainty and insecurity within it, while those who
possess power will continue to enjoy its benefits . 130 Furthermore, placing a veil of
privacy over family interactions conceals from the participants and from
society as a whole the public significance of those interactions -that is, the
extent to which gendered patterns within the family mirror and support larger
social patterns of sex inequality in society.1 31 When women internalize the
conceals unequal power relations between men and women. 129
message that interactions in the family are personal, it becomes impossible

to take political or legal action to change the family .1 32 In addition, declaring
the home to be the woman's sphere, and then declaring that sphere to be
separate from the legal order, devalues and discredits women as a group by
implying that they are not important enough to merit the concern of the legal
system. 13
LinksCyber-space Links
Online privacy is used to further patriarchy:
Cathy Brennan, 8/25/2013 (Priorities, Man,
http://youareasplendidbutterfly.com/2013/08/25/priorities-man/#more-123,
Accessed 6/30/2015, rwg)
Much has been made about privacy over the last four decades. The
discussion of Privacy is invoked most commonly to protect a Mans right to
sexual debase or exploit Women. In an online environment , with the rapid
expansion of data now available from a simple Google search and the
willingness of individuals to volunteer their information, calls for Privacy
(from Men) are becoming even louder, as Men apparently seek the right to
discuss all manner of disgusting perversion without having Women notice or
comment on it. The topic of Privacy is an important concept for feminists to
parse, because it does not work for Women .
(--) Privacy in cyberspace re-entrenches traditional

gender norms
Anita L Allen, May 2000 (Anita LaFrance Allen-Castellito is the Henry R. Silverman
Professor of Law and professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School,
Gender sand Privacy in Cyberspace, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 5,
Symposium: Cyberspace and Privacy: A New Legal Paradigm? (May, 2000),

pp. 1175-1200 Published by: Stanford Law Review, Retrieved 6/23/15,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1229512 MD)
women in cyberspace do not enjoy the same level and types of
desirable privacy that men do. Women face special privacy problems in
cyberspace because there, too, they are perceived as inferiors, ancillaries, and
safe targets and held more accountable for their private conduct . In short, the
complex gendered social norms of accessibility and inaccessibility found in
the real world are also found in the cyberworld. 17 That privacy may be a special
problem for women in cyberspace is an especially disturbing possibility since " women may be
more concerned than men about information gathering and their privacy online.9918 In Part I of this essay, I briefly review Uneasy Access, highlighting its central claims and
However,
contributions. In Part II, I provide some examples of women who have used cyberspace to attain certain
objectives and discuss the role that privacy plays in the reaching of those goals. I conclude that the privacy
of women in cyberspace is more at risk than that of men.19 Some of the worst features of the real world
are replicated in cyberspace, including disrespect for women and for the forms of privacy and intimacy
women value.
(--) Privacy in cyber-space needs to be challenged from a

woman-centered perspective
Anita L Allen, May 2000 (Anita LaFrance Allen-Castellito is the Henry R.
Silverman Professor of Law and professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Law
School, Gender sand Privacy in Cyberspace, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 5,
Symposium: Cyberspace and Privacy: A New Legal Paradigm? (May, 2000),
pp. 1175-1200 Published by: Stanford Law Review, Retrieved 6/23/15,

Too little privacy in cyberspace is something of a problem for anyone who
wants privacy, whether male or female. But too much privacy in cyberspace can be
a problem, too. Cyberspace privacy (including anonymity, confidentiality, secrecy, and encryption) can
obscure the sources of tortious misconduct, criminality, incivility, surveillance, and threats to public health
and safety.lO Since too little or too much privacy can be a problem for both men and women and their
common communities, why focus on gender in cyberspace ?
A woman-centered perspective
on privacy in cyberspace is vital because only with such a perspective can we
begin to evaluate how the advent of the personal computer and global
networking, conjoined with increased opportunity for women, has affected
the privacy predicament that once typified many American women's live
Links Silence on Gender

(--) Issues devoid of gender are a clear indicator of
hegemonic masculinity; this has created a situation where
masculine is the norm.
Kronsell 06, Annica Kronsell: Assistant Professor of Political Science at the
University of Lund, edited by Brooke A. Ackerly: Assistant Professor in the
Department of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, Maria Stern: Lecturer
and Researcher at the Department of Peace and Development Research,
Goteborg University, and Jacqui True: Senior Lecturer in the Department of
Political Studies at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, Feminist
Methodologies of International Relations, 2006, Cambridge University p. 109
I became interested in what Hearn and Parker (2001: xii) call the silent unspoken, not necessarily easily
Silence on gender is a
determining characteristic of institutions of hegemonic masculinity and this is a
key point. It indicates a normality and simply "how things are." men are the
standards of normality, equated with what it is to be human , while this is not spelled
out (Connell 1995: 212). Hegemonic masculinity "naturalizes the everyday practices
of gendered identities" (Peterson and True 1998: 21). This has led to the rather
perplexing situation in which "men are persons and there is no gender but
the feminine (Butler 1990: 19). Hence, masculinity is not a gender; it is the norm. It
observable, but fundamentally material reality" of institutions.
should be noted that in the Swedish context, this masculinity norm derives from a standard associated
normality, reproduced within

organizations and how that can be approached methodologically. The goal is
to problematize masculinities and the hegemony of men (cf. Zalgwski 1998a: 1).
This is a risky enterprise because masculine norms, when hegemonic , are never really
a topic of discussion. They remain hidden - silenced yet continue to be affirmed in the
daily practice of the institutions. Kathy Ferguson (1993: 8), for one, suggests we challenge that
with white, heterosexual, male bodies. What I focus on is the
which is widely acceptable, unified, and natural, and instead perceive it as being in need of explanation.
Breaking the silence is to question what seems self-explanatory and turn it

into a research puzzle, in a sense, by making the familiar strange. It means giving the
self-explanatory a history and a context. Cynthia Enloe (2004; 1993) encourages feminists to use
curiosity to ask challenging questions about what appear as normal,
everyday banalities in order to try to understand and make visible, for example,
as she does, the gender of` international relations (IR) both as theory and as practice. The
first step is to question even the most banal or taken-asgiven of everyday
practices of world politics. In her study on womens collective political organizing in Sweden,
Maud Eduards (2002: 157) writes that the most forbidden act" in terms of gender
relations is to name men as a political category, which transfers men from a
universal nothing to a specific something. If this is so, how can we actually study such
silences? What are the methods by which we can transcend this silence on gender?
Links Policymaking
(--) Policymaking ignores gender
Marshall 1997 [Catherine, professor at the University of North Carolina,
Feminist Critical Policy Analysis: A perspective from post-secondary
education, pg. ix-x]
Policy researchers and analysts have gained and retained legitimacy by
focusing on the problems and methods identified by powerful people. Those
with a different focus are silenced, declared irrelevant, postponed, coopted,
put on the back burner, assigned responsibilities with no training, budget,
personnel or time, or otherwise ignored. Policies, -- authoritative
agreements among powerful people about how things should be
have been made without a feminist critical glance. These two volumes
focus on those areas of silence, on the policy issues at the fringe and on the
kinds of policy analysis methods, findings and recommendations that will
disrupt but will also open possibilities. The two volumes identify theories and
tools for dismantling and replacing the politics, theories and modes of policy
analysis that built the masters house. The individual chapters illustrate how
and why to expand policy questions and policy analysis methods to
incorporate critical and feminist lenses, demonstrating the promise
of politics, analysis and policymaking that thoughtfully and
thoroughly works to uncover any source of oppression, domination
or marginalization and to create policies to meet the lived realities, needs,
aspirations and values of women and girls and others kept on the margin. The
volumes name and develop a new field: Feminist critical Policy Analysis. The
promise of this field lies in its incorporation of perspective that write against
the grain: the feminist, critical stance, with policy analysis that includes
methods for focusing on the cultural values bases of policies; deconstruction
of policy documents; analysis of a policy intention and its potential effects,
such as affirmative Action and Title IX; studies of the micropolitical, for
example, the dynamics of a school board task force for sexual harassment, a
tenure systems effect on women academics, or the role of girls access to
computers in the implementation of computer policies; and analyses of
policies, programs and political stances that do focus on neglected needs in
schooling. Policymakers and analysts need to pause in order to
recognize how issues of gender, the needs of particular groups like the
urban poor, women and non-dominant nationalities are left out of
education policy analyses. In order to connect effectively, women need to
take a hard look at the structures and arenas of policy. By presenting
literatures, methods and examples, these books name the field: feminist
critical policy analysis leap at the challenge.
Links Hegemony
(--) The advantage claims of the affirmative are part of a
hyper-masculine conception of international relations as a
collection of threats which can only be emasculated by
extending our political and military domination. Their
demand for hegemony over the world logically extends to
the elimination of all that is foreign
Steans 98 [Jill: Senior Lecturer in International Relations Theory, Director
of the Graduate School for the University of Birmingham, Gender and
International Relations, An Introduction, page 108-109]
Critical approaches to International Relations criticize the state centrism of realism, not only because it is
inherently reductionist, but also because it presents a view of the state as a concrete entity with interests
and agency. Not only does the state act, but the state acts in the national interest. Those who adopt critical
approaches view the state in dynamic rather than static terms, 15 as a process rather than a thing. The
The state is made by the

processes and practices involved in constructing boundaries and identities,
differentiating between the inside and the outside. Andrew Linklater has recently
state does not exist in any concrete sense; rather it is made.
argued that critical approaches to the study of International Relations centre around understanding the
processes of inclusion and exclusion, which have in a sense always been the central concerns of the
discipline. However, as Linklater contends, critical theorists understand that these processes have also
In the making of
the state the construction of the hostile other which is threatening and
dangerous is central to the making of identities and the securing of
boundaries. Indeed, David Campbell argues that the legitimation of state power
demands the construction of danger outside. The state requires this
discourse of danger to secure its identity and for the legitimation of state
power. The consequence of this is that threats to security in realist and neo-realist
thinking are all seen to be in the external realm and citizenship becomes
synonymous with loyalty to the nation-state and the elimination of all that is foreign.
worked to include and exclude people on the basis of race, class and gender.
Jean Elshtain has argued that the problems of war and the difficulties of achieving security in the so-called
anarchy of the international realm, should not be seen as problems which are not rooted in the
compulsion of interstate relations as such. Rather, they arise from the ordering of modern, technological
society in which political elites have sought to control the masses by the implementation of the
mechanism of the perfect army. Elshtain argues that to see war as a continuation of politics by other
means, is to see a continuation of the military model as a means of preventing civil disorder. In critiquing
dominant conceptions of security in International Relations, feminists have, to some extent, echoed the
arguments of non-feminist critical thinkers, but have been concerned to show what is lost from our
feminist political
theorists have demonstrated that in much Western political thought the
conception of politics and the public realm is a barracks community, a realm
defined in opposition to the disorderly forces which threaten its existence .22
This same conception of politics is constructed out of masculine hostility
towards the female Other. One sees in the development of this political
discourse a deeply gendered subtext in which the citizen role is in all cases
identified with the male.23 Hartsock believes that this sets a hostile and combative dualism at
understanding of security when gender is omitted. As was noted in chapter 4,
the heart of the community men construct and by which they come to understand their lives.24
Links Body Counts

(--) The rhetoric of the affirmative only fuels the fire,
trying to convey the lose associated with war in mere
numbers. Only through using feminist geopolitics can we
speak out for the silenced other, the necessary
casualties.
Hyndman 07 Associate Professor, Department of Social Science, Simon
Fraser University
Jennifer, "Feminist Geopolitics Revisited: Body Counts in Iraq," February,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=2&hid=119&sid=d02929fe-0ccf-423f-bcaac336eca5f5a3%40sessionmgr114]
The Two Wars: From Afghanistan to Iraq A number is important not only to
quantify the cost of war, but as a reminder of those whose dreams will never
be realized in a free and democratic Iraq. (Ruzicka 2005) The dead of Iraq
as they have from the beginning of our illegal invasionwere simply written
out of the script. Officially they do not exist. (Fisk 2005) The fatality
metrics of war, the body counts of soldiers and civilians killed in violent
conflict, represent a geopolitics of war in themselves. The quotations above
capture, in the first case, the efforts of an American activist who tried to
insert the body count into the geopolitical script of a free and democratic
Iraq, and in the second, the observations of a British journalist critical of the
invasion of Iraq, lamenting the invisible, mounting deaths of Iraqis that
peaked in July 2005. The deaths of militarized soldiers are officially counted ,
described, and remembered by the armies that send them in to fight and the
families they leave behind; the deaths of civilians are not. Casualties might
be thought of as masculinized (soldier) and feminized (civilian) sides of the
body count ledger amassed by both official and unofficial sources. Although
counting is an important device for remembering, it also flawed in the way it
transforms unnamed dead people into abstract figures that obfuscate the
political meanings of the violence and its social and political consequences.
Counting bodies does not sufficiently account for the remarkable destruction
of lives and livelihoods occurring in Iraq. No metric or measure of trauma and
violence should dominate the meanings of suffering and loss. Global media
do provide us with overwhelming information about the scope and number of
atrocities occurring across the world, making their meaning and scope
difficult to grasp. There is too much to see, and there appears to be too
much to do anything about. Thus, our epochs dominating sense that
complex problems can be neither understood nor fixed works with the
massive globalization of images of suffering to produce moral fatigue,
exhaustion or empathy, and political despair (Kleinman and Kleinman 1997,
9). Nonetheless, what we see or read is partial in two senses: it is a selective
and always incomplete representation of the crisis at hand, and it has been
fashioned in particular ways that are at once institutionalized and convey
dominant kinds of meaning (Shapiro 1997). Vision is always a question of

the power to seeand perhaps of the violence implicit in our visualizing
practices, so an optics is a politics of position (Haraway 1991, 192, 193).
These partial representations shape our responses, or not, to the geopolitics
of war and the suffering at hand. Much of routinized misery is invisible;
much that is made visible is not ordinary or routine (Kleinman, Das, and
Lock 1997, xiii). How violent conflict and death is represented in the context
of war is at least as important as how much destruction and death wreaks
havoc on a society. The more difficult question is how to produce responsible
relational representations of war that convey meanings of loss, pain, and
destruction without further fuelling conflict. How does one represent the
futility and tragedy of civilian death without promoting vengeance? More
important, which impressions and understandings 38 Volume 59, Number 1,
February 2007 of war actually shape public opinion and government actions,
so that struggles to end such violence may be successful? In revisiting
feminist geopolitics in relation to body counts, I argue for analyses that
contextualize the effects of violence by connecting the lives and deaths of
victims counted during war to those of the audience that consumes that
information. Accountability, I contend now as then, is predicated on embodied
epistemologies and visibility, but fatality metrics fail to embody the casualties
of war. Feminist geopolitics is about putting together the quiet, even silenced,
narratives of violence and loss that do the work of taking apart dominant
geopolitical scripts of us and them. Although the deconstruction of such
scripts is vital, feminist geopolitics aims to recover stories and voices that
potentially recast the terms of war on new ground.
Impacts
Extinction Impacts
(--) Extend our Nhanege evidencethe ultimate result of
unchecked patriarchy is ecological catastrophe and
nuclear holocaust.
(--) Patriarchy risks nuclear war
Betty Reardon, 1993 (Director, Peace Education Program, Columbia,)
WOMEN AND PEACE, 1993, pp. 30-1.
A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the
macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of dominance , not parity, which motivates defense
ministers and government leaders to strut their stuff as we watch with increasing
horror. Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are
radically inappropriate for the nuclear age . To prove dominance and control, to distance ones
character from that of women, to survive the toughest violent initiation, to shed the sacred blood of the hero, to collaborate
with death in order to hold it at bay all of these patriarchal pressures on men have traditionally reached resolution in ritual
fashion on the battlefield. But there is no longer any battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that if a nuclear power were
losing a crucial, large-scale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles because of
some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend, instantly or eventually, to all
living things, all the air, all the soil, all the water. If we believe that war is a necessary evil, that patriarchal assumptions
are simply human nature, then we are locked into a lie, paralyzed. The ultimate result of unchecked
terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust.
(--) Try or die for the alternativeas long as we live in a

patriarchal society extinction is a real possibility:
Mary E. Clark, 2004 (PhD and professor of biological studies @ Berkeley),
2004. Retrieved May 30, 2015 from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_01994005307/Rhetoric-patriarchy-war-explaining-the.html
I thus conclude that the language of international politics today is "gendered" by the
political insecurity experienced by leaders of earlier patriarchies , and that the presence
of women in such governments has little effect on the framework of public
dialogue. (I recall hearing Geraldine Ferraro, when running for Vice-President in
1984, assure an interviewer that she would not hesitate to push the "nuclear
button" if necessary.) Hence, it is not our X and Y chromosomes that are at issue
here; it is the gendered world view that underpins our institutions and frames our
behaviors. As long as those in power "think" in this patriarchal box, we
will live in a globally-armed camp, where war-leading even to the annihilation of
our species- is a constant, real possibility.
(--) Patriarchy leads to militarism and warfare.

sequence=1/ ns
Militarism and warfare are continual features of a patriarchal society because they
reflect and instil patriarchal values of control and competition . The elite exercise illegitimate,
inappropriate and inequitable power over the subordinate groups. The subordinate groups have therefore limited access to
the type of power that is necessary to mobilize resources to achieve self-determined ends. Thus the subordinate groups
have difficulties to get their basic needs met. These groups include women, children, people of colour, poor people, nonhuman animals and nature. Hence, patriarchalism is based on racism, sexism, class exploitation and ecological destruction.
(Adams 1993: 4; Warren 2000: 205-206, 210). Patriarchy is a closed circle of institutional and individual ways of thinking,
speaking and behaving. They are rooted in the patriarchal conceptual framework, which is a faulty belief system. Faulty
150 beliefs
(patriarchal conceptual framework) leads to impaired thinking and language of

domination (sexist and naturist), which leads to behaviours of domination (control,
exploitation, violence, rape, murder) which makes life unmanageable for marginalised
groups. If the circle is not broken, it becomes an unhealthy vicious circle . (Warren 2000: 207,
210-211).
(--) Patriarchy will lead to the end of the world

sequence=1/ ns
Western patriarchal societies may have been shaped even before Plato's time. It is at least clearly depicted in Plato's
"The Republic". The ruling elite have been able over time through their command of resources to control culture
disproportionate to their number. This hegemony has created structures in societies, which ensured the continuation and
expansion of oppression. The Western patriarchy is therefore a legacy. Its deep penetration has
shaped our ideas of our selves and our relations . Its conceptual framework is deeply entwined in modern
culture. Little is kept out from its destructive rational and logical network. The conceptual framework has been applied in
different ways throughout Western history. In the current historical moment, the focus is on developing the rational global
economy grounded in rational egoism. Thus, patriarchalism is taking a totalised form. It wants to
appropriate all remaining space on the earth, and all of its living things . Only those who are rich
in monetary terms can afford to get a space on earth. The rational economy will throw off any democratic or social control.
It will subsume any constrain to its maximisation. Finally, it will devour the social. Patriarchy will end in death
of nature and destruction of the Others. However, since the master is dependent on the
Others, also he will die - unless of course he will abandon his mastery. (Plumwood
1993: 190-195).
(--) The hegemonic masculinity perpetuated by the aff

justifies military adventurism, turning the case.
Tickner 01 [J. Ann, prof at the School of International Relations, USC,
Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the PostCold War Era, p.
49]
feminists
have pointed to the masculinity of strategic discourse and how this
may impact on understanding of and prescriptions for security ; it
may also help to explain why womens voices have so often been seen as
inauthentic in matters of national security. Feminists have examined how states
legitimate their security-seeking behavior through appeals to types
of hegemonic masculinity. They are also investigating the extent to which state and
national identities, which can lead to conflict, are based on gendered constructions. The
valorization of war through its identification with a heroic kind of
Claiming that the security-seeking behavior of states is described in gendered terms,
masculinity depends on a feminized, devalued notion of peace seen

as unattainable and unrealistic. Since feminists believe that gender is a variable social
construction, they claim that there is nothing inevitable about these gendered distinctions; thus, their
analyses often include the emancipatory goal of postulating a different definition of security less
dependent on binary and unequal gender hierarchies. preferred policys flawed assumptions, it does not
account for the origins of the particular policy whose flaws go unrecognized: In this case groupthink does
not explain why administration leaders were considering an invasion option in the first place. Implications
Theories address causality on a fundamental

level only if they address why the invasion policy was under consideration in
the first place. While President Bush had personal motives for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,
of Ideological and Non-rational Influences
personality traits should not necessarily be considered causal. For example, although Bushs religious
beliefs and his lack of cognitive complexity may be relevant factors, the connection with Iraq is imprecise.
Such traits may have facilitated approval of the invasion policy but were not responsible for its emergence
and its prominence. One may with more confidence view Bushs personal animosity toward Iraqs ruler as
another tipping factor that made the invasion policy more attractive. If U.S. society exhibits a perennial
need for an external enemy, in part due to widespread nationalist attitudes, then the convergence of
Christian evangelical and Zionist ideologies in the U.S. perhaps helps explain the choice of Iraq, rather than
a different target. At the societal level, and among political elites, a sense of national chosenness and
superiority, as well as racism, may make the U.S. more war-prone in the Middle East, due to evangelicals
beliefs about the Holy Land, and due to domestic political incentives for championing Israel. Ideological
beliefs may have rendered U.S. leaders more susceptible to manipulation by those like Iraqi exile Ahmed
Chalabi, or the government of Ariel Sharon in Israel, which may have fed the U.S. false intelligence reports
about Iraqi weapons in order to promote a U.S. invasion that served their own political agendas.
(--) Masculine views of international relations exclude

other possible solutions, that makes warfare and policy
failure inevitableIraq proves
Lieberfeld 5 [Daniel, Associate Professor of Social and Political Policy @
Duquesne University, PhD in IR from Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,
THEORIES OF CONFLICT AND THE IRAQ WAR, International Journal of Peace
Studies, Volume 10, Number 2, Autumn/Winter 2005,
http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol10_2/wLieberfeld10n2IJPS.pdf]
observers have also located motives for the invasion decision in Bushs
relationship with his father: Given the continual comparisons with his father
within the Bush family, and how far he was from being a self-made man, Bush junior may
have felt compelled to prove himself by surpassing his father and
overthrowing Hussein, which his father had rejected doing after the 1991 Gulf war. Moreover,
going to war with Iraq may have enhanced the younger Bushs sense of his own virility, given his
sensitivity to the fact that his father had been publicly labeled a wimp
(Schweizer and Schweizer, 2004, 388; see also Woodward, 2004, 421). Feminist theories of
international relations highlight the causal role of gender in war . These theories
Some
generally assume that increasing womens roles in governance and public decisionmaking would lessen
Such theories might account for the invasion decision with

reference to key administration members sense of masculinity and to gendered images of
the adversary (see Cohn, 1993), or to the relative absence of women (pace Condoleezza Rice) from
war and violence.
the highest levels of decision-making authority. Interpretations stressing motivated biases posit that Bush
and his inner circle were genuinely convinced that Iraq was a major threat and that, due to their emotional
and cognitive predispositions, they seized on ambiguous intelligence information as confirmation of their
biases.
Impacts: Ethics K-Bomb

(--) Ethical responsibility to reject patriarchyit leads to
unjust domination
sequence=1/ ns
The two characteristics, which benefit in a racist and/or patriarchal society are white
and male. Since both are received by birth, the benefits are not based on merit, ability, need,
or effort. The benefits are institutionally created, maintained and sanctioned. Such systems
perpetuate unjustified domination . Thus, the problem lays in institutional structures
of power and privilege but also in the actual social context . Different groups have different degrees of
power and privilege in different cultural contexts. Those should be recognized, but so should commonalities where they
exist. However, although Ups cannot help but to receiving the institutional power and privileges it is important to add that
they are accountable for perpetuating unjustified domination through their behaviours, language and thought worlds. That
is why ecofeminism is about both theory and practice. It does not only try to understand and analyze, it also finds it
important to take action against domination . (Warren 2000: 64-65). Patriarchy is an unhealthy
social system. Unhealthy social systems tend to be rigid and closed. Roles and rules are non-negotiable and determined by
those at the top of the hierarchy. High value is placed on control and exaggerated concepts of rationality, even though,
paradoxically, the system can only survive on irrational ideologies.
Impacts: Individual Rejection K-Bomb

(--) You should reject sexism as an individual--we need to
integrate gender into our struggles and discussions
Chew 07 staff, Chinese Progressive Association
[Huibin Amee, June 16 2007, "Left Turn: Notes from the Global Intifada,"
http://www.leftturn.org/?q=node/699]
This shallow vision of gender justice has so permeated even progressive circles, that our very definition of
sexism is merely seen as a set of cultural

behaviors or personal biases; challenging sexism is simply seen as breaking these gender
expectations. But sexism is an institutionalized system, with historical,
political, and economic dimensions. Just as it was built on white supremacy and
capitalism, this country was built on patriarchyon the sexual
subjugation of women whether in war or peace, slavery or conquest; on the abuse
of our reproductive capacity; the exploitation of both our paid and unpaid labor. Truly
taking on an anti-sexist agenda means uprooting institutional
sexism is circumscribed. Too often,
patriarchy . To do so we must first, as a society, overcome our fears of

addressing feminist issues and views. A deep analysis of how patriarchy operates is
typically absent across progressive organizing in the USwhether for affordable housing, demilitarization,
immigrant rights, or worker rights. In all of these struggles, women are heavily affected, and moreover,
organizers working on these

issues do not recognize how they are gendered. In the process, they prioritize mens
experiences, and perpetuate sexism. Gender is ghettoized, rather
than fully integrated into radical struggles. Appended to the main concerns of
affected disproportionately in gendered ways, as women. Yet too often,
other movements, it is at best engaged on a single-issue, not systemic basis.
Impacts Patriarchy Root Cause

(--) Failure to account for the ontological roots of modern
politics ensures serial policy failure we will repeatedly
reproduce the same problems that we seek to solve
Dillon & Reid 2000 [Michael & Julian, Prof of Politics & Prof of
International Relations, Global Governance, Liberal Peace, and Complex
Emergency, Alternatives: Social Transformation & Humane Governance
25.1]
As a precursor to global governance, governmentality, according to Foucault's initial account, poses the
question of order not in terms of the origin of the law and the location of sovereignty, as do traditional
accounts of power, but in terms instead of the management of population. The management of population
is further refined in terms of specific problematics to which population management may be reduced.
These typically include but are not necessarily exhausted by the following topoi of governmental power:
economy, health, welfare, poverty, security, sexuality, demographics, resources, skills, culture, and so on.
Now, where there is an operation of power there is knowledge, and where there is knowledge there is an
in every society the

production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and
redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its
powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its
ponderous, formidable materiality.[ 34] More specifically, where there is a policy
problematic there is expertise, and where there is expertise there, too, a policy problematic will
emerge. Such problematics are detailed and elaborated in terms of discrete
forms of knowledge as well as interlocking policy domains . Policy domains reify the
operation of power. Here discursive formations emerge and, as Foucault noted,
problematization of life in certain ways by turning these epistemically and politically contestable orderings
of life into "problems" that require the continuous attention of policy science and the continuous
resolutions of policymakers .
Policy "actors" develop and compete on the basis of the

expertise that grows up around such problems or clusters of problems and
their client populations. Here, too, we may also discover what might be called "epistemic
entrepreneurs." Albeit the market for discourse is prescribed and policed in ways that Foucault indicated,
bidding to formulate novel problematizations they seek to "sell" these, or otherwise have them officially
adopted. In principle, there is no limit to the ways in which the management of population may be
problematized. All aspects of human conduct, any encounter with life, is problematizable. Any
problematization is capable of becoming a policy problem. Governmentality thereby creates a market for
policy, for science and for policy science, in which problematizations go looking for policy sponsors while
Reproblematization
of problems is constrained by the institutional and ideological investments
surrounding accepted "problems," and by the sheer difficulty of challenging
the inescapable ontological and epistemological assumptions that go into
their very formation. There is nothing so fiercely contested as an epistemological or ontological
policy sponsors fiercely compete on behalf of their favored problematizations.
assumption. And there is nothing so fiercely ridiculed as the suggestion that the real problem with
problematizations exists precisely at the level of such assumptions. Such "paralysis of analysis" is precisely
what policymakers seek to avoid since they are compelled constantly to respond to circumstances over
which they ordinarily have in fact both more and less control than they proclaim. What they do not have is
serial policy failure--the fate and the fuel of all

policy--compels them into a continuous search for the new analysis that will
extract them from the aporias in which they constantly find themselves
enmeshed.[ 35] Serial policy failure is no simple shortcoming that science
and policy--and policy science--will ultimately overcome. Serial policy failure is
rooted in the ontological and epistemological assumptions that fashion the
ways in which global governance encounters and problematizes life as a process
precisely the control that they want. Yet
of emergence through fitness landscapes that constantly adaptive and changing ensembles have
continuously to negotiate. As a particular kind of intervention into life ,
global governance
promotes the very changes and unintended outcomes that it then serially
reproblematizes in terms of policy failure. Thus, global liberal governance is
not a linear problem-solving process committed to the resolution of objective
policy problems simply by bringing better information and knowledge to bear
upon them. A nonlinear economy of power/knowledge, it deliberately installs socially
specific and radically inequitable distributions of wealth, opportunity, and
mortal danger both locally and globally through the very detailed ways in which life is
variously (policy) problematized by it. In consequence, thinking and acting politically is
displaced by the institutional and epistemic rivalries that infuse its power/
knowledge networks, and by the local conditions of application that govern
the introduction of their policies. These now threaten to exhaust what "politics," locally as well
as globally, is about.[ 36] It is here that the "emergence" characteristic of governance begins to make its
appearance. For it is increasingly recognized that there are no definitive policy solutions to
objective, neat, discrete policy problems. The "subjects" of policy increasingly also become
a matter of definition as well, since the concept population does not have a stable referent either and has
itself also evolved in biophilosophical and biomolecular as well as Foucauldian "biopower" ways.
Impacts: AT: Your Link Assumes Domestic

Politics While Impact Assumes International
Relations
(--) Domestic relationships of men and women spillover
into warthe language of sexuality and war is seamless:
Workman 96 [Thom, Poli Sci @ U of New Brunswick, YCISS Paper no. 31,
p. 7, January 1996, http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31Workman.pdf]
The practices of war emerge within gendered understandings that
inflect all spheres of social life. As we created "man" and "woman" we simultaneously
created war. Contemporary warfare, in complementary terms, emerges within the inner-most sanctums of
Gender constructs are constitutive of war; they drive it

and imbue it with meaning and sense. War should not be understood as simply
gendered life.
derivative of the masculine ethos, although it numerous facets accord with the narratives and lore of
The faculty of war is our understanding of man and women,

and particularly of the subordination of the
feminine to the masculine. It is the twinning of the masculine and the feminine that
masculinity.
of manliness and womanliness,
nourishes the war ethic. This can be illustrated by examining the infusion of the language of war with
heterosexual imagery typically of patriarchy, that is, with ideas of the prowess-laden male sexual subject
Both sex and war are constituted

through understandings of male domination and female
subordination. The language is bound to be mutually reinforcing and
easily interchangeable. War is a metaphor for sex and sex is a metaphor for war. A recent
conquering the servile female sexual object.
study of nicknames for the penis revealed that men were much more inclined to metaphorize the penis
with reference to mythic or legendary characters (such as the Hulk, Cyclops, Genghis Khan, The Lone
Ranger, and Mac the Knife), to authority figures and symbols (such as Carnal King, hammer of the gods,
your Majesty, Rod of Lordship, and the persuader), to aggressive tools (such as screwdriver, drill,
jackhammer, chisel, hedgetrimmer, and fuzzbuster), to ravening beasts (such as beast of burden, King
Kong, The Dragon, python, cobra, and anaconda), and to weaponry (such as love pistol, passion rifle, pink
The intuitive
collocation of sexuality with domination, conquering, destruction,
and especially instruments of war is confirmed by this study. Both sex
and war, however, are manifestations of the gendered notions of powerover, submission, inequality, injury, contamination, and destruction.
Both practices are integral expressions of patriarchal culture and
proximate to its reproduction. It is hardly surprising that the language of
torpedo, meat spear, stealth bomber, destroyer, and purple helmeted love warrior).11
sexuality and war is seamless.
(--) There is a spill over- domestic violence spills over to

more violence
SALLY F. GOLDFARB 2000 (Goldfarb teaches Family Law, Sex
Discrimination, and Torts at Rutgers School of Law she also has taught
Professional Responsibility. Violence Against Women and the Persistence of
Privacy, OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL Volume 61, Number 1, 2000, Retrieved
6/25/15, file:///C:/Users/Mayra/Downloads/61OhioStLJ1.pdf MD)
intrafamily violence cases provide the most fertile ground for

application of family privacy considerations , 103 those considerations spill
over into cases involving other types of violence against women as -well. The
legal system, predisposed by the separate spheres ideology to see a link
between women and the domestic sphere, often treats any kind of
preexisting relationship between a female victim and her assailant as if it
were a family relationship, with the result that the same "hands-off'
treatment applies. For example, cases of rapes committed by dates, boyfriends,
Although
acquaintances, and other nonstrangers are far less likely to result in

prosecution and conviction than rapes by strangers. 104 The response to such
cases, as to cases of marital rape, is conditioned by the law's reluctance to interfere
in ongoing relationships.' 05 Carrying this reasoning to an extreme, judges and lawyers have
occasionally construed the sexual contact between a rapist and rape victim as an intimate relationship in
itself, by this logic, the forced sexual contact constitutes a private interaction entitled to legal
noninterference rather than a public act subject to full legal consequences.' 0 6 A similar pattern emerges
in the legal response to homicides of women. The lenient treatment traditionally available to a husband
who discovered his wife in the act of adultery and murdered her in the "heat of passion" is increasingly
being applied to cases of men who murdered a girlfriend, fiancee, or former wife in response to her real or
imagined departure or disloyalty.' 0 7
Alternative Solvency
Alternative Solves Wall

(--) Extend our Moghadam evidencequestioning
masculinist values is critical to formulate solutions that
are informed by feminine values.
(--) Removing patriarchal ways of thinking allows us to
successfully solve war:
Workman 96 [Thom, Poli Sci @ U of New Brunswick, YCISS Paper no. 31,
p. 5, January 1996, http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31Workman.pdf]
The gender critique of war provides a generalized account of wars and the way they are
fought. The gender critique tells us why we have wars at all. While it is suggestive with respect to the
frequency, character, and scope of war, it does not try to account for the timing and location of specific
wars.
It tells us why war is viewed widely as an acceptable practice or

way to resolve human differences (although this acceptance invariably is accompanied
with obligatory protestations of reluctance). The gender critique of war, for example, cannot account for
the timing and location of the 1991 Gulf War, although it can provide an explanation of the warring
proclivities of modern Western states, especially the inconsistency between the peaceful rhetoric of the
US and its incessant warring practices. It can account for the spectre of war in the aftermath of Vietnam,
with the end of the Cold War, and with the election of George Bush. It is less able to account for the
appearance of war in the Middle East in January of 1991. The opening intellectual orientation of the
gender critique of war rests upon a constructivist view of human understanding and practice, that is, a
view that anchors practices, including war, within humankind's self-made historico-cultural matrix. This
view is contrasted starkly with those that ground human practices psychologically or biologically or
War is not viewed as a natural practice as if delivered by the Gods; it

arises out of human-created understandings and ways-of living that have evolved
genetically.
over the millennia. More specifically, the assumption that men (the nearly exclusive makers and doers of
war) are biologically hard-wired for aggression and violence is resisted, as is the related notion that
women are naturally passive and non-violent.
The explanation for war will not be
found in testosterone levels. It is not the essential or bio-social male that makes war.
War is the product of the gendered understandings of life
understandings of the celebrated masculine and the subordinated
femininethat have been fashioned over vast tracts of cultural time. And
since war arises from human-created understandings and practices
it can be removed when these understandings change. War is not
insuperable. Indeed, the rooting of war in human created phenomena is recognized as a response
to the political incapacitation associated with biologically determinist arguments: "Attempts of genetic
determinists to show a biological basis for individual aggression and to link this to social aggression, are
not only unscientific, but they support the idea that wars of conquest between nations are inevitable."8
(--) The feminist methodology advances our

understanding and is objectively better than other
approaches
Kronsell 06, Annica Assistant Professor of Political Science at the
University of Lund, edited by Brooke A. Ackerly: Assistant Professor in the
Department of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, Maria Stern: Lecturer
and Researcher at the Department of Peace and Development Research,
Goteborg University, and Jacqui True: Senior Lecturer in the Department of
Political Studies at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, Feminist

Methodologies of International Relations, 2006, Cambridge University.
feminist theorizing about methodology should
include a more worked-out account of what scholarly collectives should look
like. This approach provides the conceptual basis on which to argue that
mainstream scholarship should, for methodological reasons, attend to and
take account of feminist, postcolonial, and other situated standpoints. Taking
account of feminist work in international relations will advance our collective
understanding of international relations, and will make mainstream work
more objective and less distorted. Theorizing what the structure of a scholarly
feminist collective should look like highlights how the organization and procedural
norms of the discipline pose obstacles to advancing our understanding of
international Relations. Current feminist epistemology in International Relations emphasizes the
situatedness of individual researchers, but the approach advanced here suggests that individual
decisions are only part of the story; our disciplinary structure cannot be
neutral in terms of epistemology. Some feminist epistemological approaches tend to
In this chapter I have suggested that
emphasize the benefit of cultivating multiple perspectives, moving away from standpoint epistemologys
original emphasis on the superiority of the subjugated standpoint. But this approach provides no political
The "live
and let live" approach poses little obligation on mainstream scholars, and
does nothing to break down scholarly segregation. In failing to emphasize
that some approaches are better than others, it obscures the weaknesses of
mainstream approaches and permits mainstream scholars to dismiss
feminist work. (Of course, this is not the fault of these feminist epistemologies.) To the extent that
leverage for those who wish to argue that mainstream scholars must attend to feminist work.
arguments make any difference, it is important to have grounds for demanding that mainstream scholars
attend to feminist work and take it seriously, as opposed to ignoring it. In this chapter I develop the basis
for saying that they must do so, not only because ignoring this work is unfair or sexist, but also because
doing so blocks them, and the broader discipline, from a better, fuller understanding of politics.
Attending to feminist perspectives (and the perspectives of other marginalized groups)

should force a transformation of dominant paradigms and give us all a better
understanding of international relations. This is an epistemological
argument, then, grounded in feminism and pragmatism, for adopting a
methodology of inclusion; for ensuring that feminist voices are articulated
and heard in scholarly discussions of international relations .
(--) Recognizing violence in the private sphere as part of a

pattern of domination empowers women:
Kimberl Crenshaw 1991 (Crenshaw is an American scholar in the field of
Critical race theory, and a professor at UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law School
where she specializes in race and gender issues, Mapping the Margins:
Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color, Stanford Law
Review, Vol. 43, No. 6 (Jul., 1991), pp. 1241-1299, Retrieved 6/25/15,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1229039.pdf?acceptTC=true, MD)
Over the last two decades,
women have organized against the almost routine

violence that shapes their lives.1 Drawing from the strength of shared experience, women
have recognized that the political demands of millions speak more powerfully than the pleas of a few
isolated voices.
This politicization in turn has transformed the way we understand
violence against women. For example, battering and rape, once seen as private
(family matters)a nd aberrational( errants exual aggression),are now largely recognized as part of
a broad-scale system of domination that affects women as a class .2 This
process of recognizing as social and systemic what was for- merly perceived
as isolated and individual has also characterized the identity politics of African
Americans, other people of color, and gays and lesbians, among others. For all
these groups, identity-based politics has been a source of strength,
community, and intellectual development The problem with identity politics is not that it
fails to transcend difference,
(--) The feminist question must be an explicit part of any

policy discussion its the only hope of preventing
violence
Enloe 04 [Cynthia: Professor of Womens Studies at Clark University, The
Curious Feminist, page 129-130]
Asking feminist questions openly, making them an explicit part of
serious foreign policy discussion, is likely to produce a much more
clear-eyed understanding of what is driving any given issue debate
and what are the probable outcomes of one policy choice over
another. Precisely because the United States currently has such an impact on the internal political
workings of so many other countries, we need to start taking a hard look at American political culture. If
this globalizing culture continues to elevate a masculinized
"toughness" to the status of an enshrined good, military needs will
continue to be assigned top political priority, and it will be
impossible for the United States to create a more imaginative, more
internationally useful foreign policy. Cultures are not immutable. Americans, in fact,
are forever lecturing other societies - Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Russia, Mexico, France - on how they
U.S. citizens, however, have been loath to lift up the

rock of cultural convention to peer underneath at the masculinized
presumptions and worries that shape American foreign policies . What
should remake their cultures.
would be the, most immediate steps toward unraveling the masculinized U.S. foreign policy knot? A first
step would be for both congressional and presidential policymakers to stop equating "security" with
military superiority. A second step would be to muster the political will for Congress to ratify the
International Criminal Court treaty, the land mines treaty, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. A
third step would be for Democrats and Republicans to halt their reckless game of "chicken" regarding both
the anti-missile defense system and increases in U.S. military spending. A fourth step would be to shelve
U.S. efforts to remilitarize Europe and Japan. Together, these four policy steps would amount to a realistic
A feministinformed analyst always asks: "Which notions of manliness are

shaping this policy discussion?" and "Will the gap between women's and men's access to
strategy for crafting a less militarized, less distortedly masculinized foreign policy.
economic and political influence be widened or narrowed by this particular policy option?" By deploying
feminist analytical tools, U.S. citizens can clarify decisions about whether to foster militarization as the
by deploying feminist
analysis, Americans are much more likely to craft a u.s. foreign
policy that will provide the foundation for a long-lasting global
structure of genuine security, one that ensures women, both in the
United States and abroad, an effective public voice.
centerpiece of the post-Cold War international system. Moreover,
(--) Gendered analysis is critical to comprehend and

change the gender and power hierarchies that oppress
people
Tickner 06 [Feminist Methodologies or International Relations, J. Ann
Ticker: Professor, School of IR at USC, edited by Brooke A. Ackerly: Assistant
Professor in the Department of Political Science at Vanderbilt University,
Maria Stern: Lecturer and Researcher at the Department of Peace and
Development Research, Goteborg University, and Jacqui True: Senior Lecturer
in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Aucfkland, New
Zealand, 2006, Cambridge University Press p. 21-22]
Feminists claim no single standard of method of correctness or feminist way
to do research (Reinharz 1992: 243); nor do they see it as desirable to construct one.
Many describe their research as a journey, or an archeological dig, that draws on
different methods or tools appropriate to the goals of the task at hand, or the
questions asked, rather than on any prior thodo1ogical commitment more
typical of IR social science (Rcinharz 1992: 211; CharleS4 1994: 6; Jayaratfle and Stewart
1991: 102; Sylvester 2002). Feminist knowledge building is an ongoing process
tentative and emergent, feminists frequently describe knowledge-building as emerging rough
conversation with texts, research subjects, or data (Rcinharz 1992: 230)b Many feminist scholars
prefer to use the term epistemological perspective rather than
methodology to indicate the research goals and orientation of an ongoing
projects the aim of which is to challenge and rethink what is claimed to be
knowledge, from the perspective of womens lives (Reinhart 1992: 241). Feminist
scholars emphasize the challenge to and estrangement from conventional knowledge-building caused by
feminist
knowledge has emerged from a deep skepticism about knowledge which
claims to be universal and objective but which is, in reality, knowledge based
on mens lives, such knowledge is constructed simultaneously out of
disciplinary frameworks and feminist criticisms of these disciplines.7 Its goal
is nothing less than to transform these disciplinary frameworks and the
knowledge to which they contribute. Feminist inquiry is a dialectical process listening to women and understanding how the subjective meanings they
attach to their lived experiences are so often at variance with meanings
internalized from society at large (Nielsen 1990: 26). Much of feminist scholarship is
both transdisiplinary and avowedly political; it has explored and sought to
understand the unequal gender Hierarchies as well as other hierarchies of
power, which exist in all societies, and their effects on the subordination of
women and other disempowered people with the goal of changing them .8 I
the tension of being inside and outside ones discipline at the same time. Given that
shall now elaborate on four methodological perspectives which guide much of feminist research: a deep
concern with which research questions get asked and why; the goal of designing research that is useful to
women (and also to men) and is both less biased and more universal than conventional research; the
centrality of questions of reflexivity and the subjectivity of the researcher; and a commitment ot
knowledge as emancipation.
(--) Alternative- Less privacy would empower women

Anita L Allen, May 2000 (Anita LaFrance Allen-Castellito is the Henry R. Silverman
Professor of Law and professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School,
Gender sand Privacy in Cyberspace, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 5, Symposium:
Cyberspace and Privacy: A New Legal Paradigm? (May, 2000), pp. 1175-1200
Published by: Stanford Law Review, Retrieved 6/23/15,
To talk about women and privacy in cyberspace will ultimately take us beyond
traditional feminist concerns. We need to confront the implications of the ability to
interact as one or more persons of the opposite sex or as sexless personae .
Ibelieve that we also need to be open to the moral task of approving and
disapproving the ways in which women voluntarily use the Internet and the
Web to enhance or abrogate their privacy. What are arguably excesses of voluntary
concealment and exposure made possible by technology point to a need (barely visible when I wrote
policymakers to confront basic questions

within political theory about whether in a liberal society there can be such a
thing as wanting, as well as having, too little privacy. Uneasy Access assumed that,
women could get real privacy, they would want it. Recent experience in cyberspace
suggests, though, that some women, who finally have the ability to demand real privacy and intimacy,
are opting for less rather than more of it, using their freedom to abrogate
Uneasy Access) for liberal privacy theorists and
privacy.
Hence the question posed by writer Margaret Talbot: "Is it possible to invade your own privacy
A2 Blocks
A2: Perm
(--) The perm is unnecessarythe Kritik solves for 100%
of the AFF and is the root cause of their harmsa 1% risk
that the permutation gets co-opted is a reason to vote
negative.
(--) The inclusion of the masculine norms of the AFF shuts
off feminist options:
Tickner 03 [J. Ann, prof at the School of International Relations, USC, The
Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10(2), p. 54]
the war in Iraq is a masculine
approach. The emphasis on a strong military response closes off other
more conciliatory options. This is not the same thing as saying that men always favor the
use of force while women always favor more peaceful responses. Women supported this
war, too, although there was a significant gender gap on the issue, at least until the
war started. What I am saying that we are all socialized into regarding masculine
So to get back to your question, yes, I do think that
norms as the correct way to operateparticularly in matters of foreign policy. This

has the negative effect of shutting off other options . And the framing of the war
on terrorism as good versus evil reflects the kind of dichotomous thinking that feminists find deeply
problematic, as I have illustrated with my definition of gender. Feminists have written a great deal about
the dangers of either/or categorizations and the tolerance for ambiguity, both of which could be useful
here.
(--) Perm fails plans methodological and epistemological

approach is antithetical to that of feminist theory.
3-5]
It is this lack of connection that motivates many of the issues raised in this book. While I have attempted to site feminist
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
perspectives within the discipline, it will become clear from the topics addressed that
as the misunderstandings over the potential usefulness of feminist approaches raised by some of the questions above, I
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
believe that they lie in the fact that
valorization of characteristics associated 4 introduction 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. Conventional IPE has typically
focused on issues such as the economic behavior 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
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 womens, as well as some mens, life chances and to prescribe ways in
which these hierarchical social relations might be eliminated . These
different realities and normative agendas lead to different
generally taken a top-down approach focused on the great powers,
methodological approaches.
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
While
in perceived realities discussed above.
(--) The attempt to empower women by removing legal

restraints ignores the economic, cultural, and social
structures of society:
Tickner 92 [Ann, Professor @ the School of International Relations USC,
B.A. in History, U London, M.A. in IR, Yale, PhD in pol science, GENDER IN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSFEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON ACHIEVING
GLOBAL SECURITY, pg. 12]
Most contemporary feminist perspectives define themselves in terms of
reacting to traditional liberal feminism that, since its classic formulation in the
works of Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill, has sought to draw
attention to and eliminate the legal restraints barring women's access to full
participation in the public world. Most contemporary feminist scholars, other
than liberals, claim that the sources of discrimination against women run
much deeper than legal restraints : they are enmeshed in the economic,
cultural, and social structures of society and thus do not end when legal
restraints are removed . Almost all feminist perspectives have been
motivated by the common goal of attempting to describe and explain the
sources of gender inequality, and hence women's oppression, and to seek
strategies to end them. Feminists claim that women are oppressed in a
multiplicity of ways that depend on culture, class, and race as well as on
gender. Rosemary Tong suggests that we can categorize various
contemporary feminist theories according to the ways in which they view the
causes of women's oppression. While Marxist feminists believe that
capitalism is the source of women's oppression, radical feminists claim that

women are oppressed by the system of patriarchy that has existed under
almost all modes of production. Patriarchy is institutionalized through legal
and economic, as well as social and cultural institutions. Some radical
feminists argue that the low value assigned to the feminine characteristics
described above also contributes to women's oppression. Feminists in the
psychoanalytic tradition look for the source of women's oppression deep in
the psyche, in gender relationships into which we are socialized from birth.
(--) Adding women and stirring will failthe reaffirmation

of existing power structures by the affirmative will
prevent feminist perspectives from being heard:
27-28]
In her assessment of the potential for finding a space in IR for feminist theory in the realist and liberal
to incorporate
gender, theories must satisfy three criteria: (1) they must allow for the possibility
of talking about the social construction of meaning; (2) they must discuss
historical variability; and (3) they must permit theorizing about power in
ways that uncover hidden power relations. Whitworth claims that, in terms of
these three criteria, there is little in realism that seems conducive to
theorizing about gender.76 The liberal paradigm that has sought to enlarge concerns beyond
approaches of the interparadigm debate, Sandra Whitworth has suggested that,
the state-centric, national-security focus of realism might seem more promising; however, according to
Whitworth, it is ahistorical and denies the material bases of conflict, inequality, and power. Introducing
women and gender to the liberal paradigm would also encounter the same problems noted by critics of
Attempts to bring women into IR feed into the

mistaken assumption that they are not there in the first place . As
Cynthia Enloe tells us, women (as well as marginalized people more generally) are highly
involved in world politics, but existing power structures, institutionalized in the
split between the public and private spheres and what counts as important, keep them from
being heard.77
liberal feminism.
(--) Theres no net benefit to assimilating women into

patriarchy.
Peterson 92 [Spike, prof of Political Science at the U of Arizona, Gendered
States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory, p.8]
In general, the deconstructive project documents the extent and tenacity of androcentric bias and the cultural codification
of men as "knowers." It reveals women's exclusion from or trivialization within masculinist accounts and, especially,
women's "absence" there as agents of social change. But even more significant, " adding
women" to
existing frameworks exposes taken-for-granted assumptions
embedded in those frameworks. Across disciplines, feminists dis-cover the
contradictions of "adding woman" to constructions that are literally
defined by their "man-ness": the public sphere, rationality , economic
power, autonomy, political identity, objectivity. The systematic inclusion of
womenour bodies, activities, knowledge challenges categorical
givens, disciplinary divisions, and theoretical frameworks . It became
it was not possible simply to include women in those

theories where they had previously been excluded, for this exclusion
forms a fundamental structuring principle and key presumption of
patriarchal discourse. It was not simply the range and scope of objects that required transformation:
increasingly clear that
more profoundly, and threateningly, the very questions posed and the methods used to answer them . . . needed to be
seriously questioned. The political, ontological and epistemological commitments underlying patriarchal discourses, as
well as their theoretical contents required re-evaluation. 46 The reconstructive project marks the shift "from recovering
ourselves to critically examining the world from the perspective of this recovery ... a move from margin to center." 47 Not
simply seeking access to and participating within (but from the margins of) androcentric paradigms, feminist
reconstruction explores the theoretical implications of revealing systemic masculinist bias and systematically adding
women. Not surprisingly, the shift from "women as knowable" to "women as knowers" locates feminism at the heart of
contemporary debates over what constitutes science and the power of "claims to know." This is difficult terrain to map, so
I start from a vantage point that I hope is reasonably familiar.
A2: Realism
(--) Realism is inherently masculine and makes violence
inevitable
Tickner 92 [J. Ann, Professor of International Relations and Director of the
Center for International Studies at the University of Southern California, 1992.
Gender in International Relations, p. 41-44]
Behind this reification of state practices hide social institutions that
are made and remade by individual actions. In reality, the neorealist
depiction of the state as a unitary actor is grounded in the historical
practices of the Western state system: neorealist characterizations of state behavior, in
terms of self-help, autonomy, and power seeking, privilege characteristics associated with the Western construction of
the national security functions of

states have been deeded to us through gendered images that
privilege masculinity. The Western state system began in seventeenth-century Europe. As described by
masculinity. Since the beginning of the state system,
Charles Tilly, the modern state was born through war; leaders of nascent states consolidated their power through the
Success in war continued

to be imperative for state survival and the building of state
apparatus.38 Throughout the period of state building in the West, nationalist movements have used gendered
coercive extraction of resources and the conquest of ever-larger territories.
imagery that exhorts masculine heroes to fight for the establishment and defense of the mother country. The collective
identity of citizens in most states depends heavily on telling stories about, and celebration of, wars of independence or
national liberation and other great victories in battle. National anthems are frequently war songs, just as holidays are
celebrated with military parades and uniforms that recall great feats in past conflicts. These collective historical memories
are very important for the way in which individuals define themselves as citizens as well as for the way in which states
command support for their policies, particularly foreign policy. Rarely, however, do they include experiences of women or
female heroes. While the functions of twentieth-century states extend well beyond the provision of national security,
national security issues, particularly in time of war, offer a sense of shared political purpose lacking in most other areas of
public policy.39 The state continues to derive much of its legitimacy from its security function; it is for national security
that citizens are willing to make sacrifices, often unquestioningly.40 Military budgets are the least likely area of public
spending to be contested by politicians and the public, who are often manipulated into supporting military spending by
When we think about the state acting in matters of

national security, we are entering a policy world almost exclusively
inhabited by men. Men make national security policy both inside and
outside the military establishment. Carol Cohn argues that strategic discourse,
with its emphasis on strength, stability, and rationality, bears an
uncanny resemblance to the ideal image of masculinity . Critics of U.S. nuclear
linking it with patriotism.
strategy are branded as irrational and emotional. In the United States, these defense intellectuals are almost all white
men; Cohn tells us that while their language is one of abstraction, it is loaded with sexual imagery.45 She claims that the
discourse employed in professional and political debates about U.S. security policy would appear to have colonized our
minds and to have subjugated other ways of understanding relations among states. Cohn suggests that this discourse
has become the only legitimate response to questions of how best to achieve national security; it is a discourse far
removed from politics and people, and its deliberations go on disconnected from the functions they are supposed to serve.
Its powerful claim to legitimacy rests, in part, on the way national security specialists view the international system.
(--) The realism inherent in international relations

excludes womens voices and femininity this prevents
women from gaining influence in security policies
Blanchard 03 Instructor, School of International Relations, USC
Eric M., "Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist
Security Theory," Signs 28(4), Summer 2003, p.1292,
http://webcurso.uc.cl/access/content/group/icp0301-1-21-2012/Parte%20B.
%20Teor%C3%ADas%20de%20las%20Relaciones
%20Internacionales/Blanchard,%20E%202003.pdf
Feminist incursions into the field of IR security can be usefully situated on the widening side of the
"widening" versus "narrowing" debate: the former argues that the scope of the neorealist concept of
security needs to be expanded to address a range of threats, utilize a broader spectrum of methodologies,
a move beyond
the study of military force would deal a serious blow to the field's
intellectual coherence while distracting from serious threats (Walt 1991).
and address mounting ethical concerns (Kolodziej 1992); the latter argues that
Critical security discourse has generally invoked, but not engaged, feminist scholarship, and even
approaches that imagined societal sectors of security (Buzan, Waever, and de Wilde 1998) have yet to take
realism, dominated by elite,

white, male practitioners, is a patriarchal discourse that renders women
invisible from the high politics of IR even as it depends on women's
subjugation as a "'domesticated' figure whose 'feminine' sensibilities are both
at odds with and inconsequential to the harsh 'realities' of the public world
of men and states" (Runyan and Peterson 1991, 68-69). Feminists in IR explain the exclusion of
gender seriously (Hansen 2000).3 Feminists in IR argue that
women from foreign policy decisionmaking by pointing to the "extent to which international politics is such
a thoroughly masculinized sphere of activity that women's voices are considered inauthentic" (1992, 4).
Women's traditional exclusion from the military and continuing lack of access to political power at times
presents women with a "catch-22" situation. For example, the importance of a candidate's military service
as a qualification for government office in U.S. political campaigns puts women, who cannot appeal to this
experience, at a disadvantage in obtaining the elite status of national office and thus the ability to affect
defense and security policies (Tobias 1990; cf. Elshtain 2000, 445).
A2: Legal Reforms Solve

(--) Reforms in the squo are not enough
Some reforms have been

institutionalized, and problems of battered women have achieved credibility and visibility. To some
degree, a public dimension to the problem is now recognized. However,
federal, state and private funding resources put into these reform efforts
Work on issues of battered women is now at a turning point.
have been sma ll. There has been little change in the culture of female
subordination that supports and maintains abuse . At the same time, there is a serious
backlash to these reform efforts and many of the reforms that have been accomplished are in serious
jeopardy. For the last several years, while writing a report on national legal reform efforts for battered
women for The Ford Foundation) 4 I have been amazed at the enormous accomplishments of the battered
women's movement over the last 20 years. Indeed, I can think of few recent social movements that have
accomplished so much in such a short time.
A2: Framework
(--) Our framework is that the affirmative should be held
responsible for their plan AND their discursive choices
(--) AndRepresentations are ethical choices which shape
the world in which we livevote negative to hold the AFF
accountable for choices of representations:
Roxanne Lynn Doty, 1997 assistant professor in the Department of Political
Science at Arizona State University, Imperial Encounters, p. 169-171
The cases examined in this study attest to the importance of representational
practices and the power that inheres in them . The infinity of traces that leave no inventory
continue to play a significant part in contemporary constructions of reality. This is not to suggest that representations
have been static. Static implies the possibility of fixedness, when what I mean to suggest is an inherent fragility and
instability to the meanings and identities that have been constructed in the various discourses I examined. For example,
to characterize the South as uncivilized or unfit for selfgovernment~~ is no longer an acceptable representation. This
is not, however, because the meanings of these terms were at one time fixed and stable. As I illustrated, what these
signifiers signified was always deferred. Partial fixation was the result of their being anchored by some exemplary mode of
being that was itself constructed at the power! Knowledge nexus: the white male at the turn of the century, the United
States after World War II. Bhabha stresses the wide range of the stereotype, from the loyal
servant to Satan, from the loved to the hated; a shifting of subject positions in the circulation of colonial power (1983:
31). The shifting subject positionsfrom uncivilized native to quasi state to traditional man and society, for example are
all partial fixations that have enabled the exercise of various and multiple forms of power. Nor do previous oppositions
entirely disappear. What remains is an infinity of traces from prior representations that themselves have been founded not
on pure presences but on differance. The present becomes the sign of the sign, the trace of the trace, Derrida writes
(1982: 24). Differance makes possible the chain of differing and deferring (the continuity) as well as the endless
substitution (the discontinuity) of names that are inscribed and reinscribed as pure presence, the center of the structure
that itself escapes structurality. North-South relations have been constituted as a structure of deferral. The center of the
structure (alternatively white man, modern man, the United States, the West, real states) has never been absolutely
present outside a system of differences. It has itself been constituted as tracethe simulacrum of a presence that
dislocates itself, displaces itself, refers itself (ibid.). Because the center is not a fixed locus but a function in which an
infinite number of sign substitutions come into play, the domain and play of signification is extended indefinitely (Derrida
1978: z8o). This both opens up and limits possibilities, generates alternative sites of meanings and political resistances
that give rise to practices of reinscription that seek to reaffirm identities and relationships. The inherently incomplete and
In this study I
have sought, through an engagement with various discourses in which claims
to truth have been staked, to challenge the validity of the structures of
meaning and to make visible their complicity with practices of power and
domination. By examining the ways in which structures of meaning have been associated with imperial practices, I
have suggested that the construction of meaning and the construction of social,
political, and economic power are inextricably linked. This suggests an ethical
dimension to making meaning and an ethical imperative that is incumbent
upon those who toil in the construction of structures of meaning. This is especially
open nature of discourse makes this reaffirmation an ongoing and never finally completed project.
urgent in North-South relations today: one does not have to search very far to find a continuing complicity with colonial
representations that ranges from a politics of silence and neglect to constructions of terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism,
international drug trafficking, and Southern immigration to the North as new threats to global stability and peace. The
political stakes raised by this analysis revolve around the question of being able to get beyond the representations or
speak outside of the discourses that historically have constructed the North and the South. I do not believe that there are
any pure alternatives by which we can escape the infinity of traces to which Gramsci refers. Nor do I wish to suggest that
we are always hopelessly imprisoned in a dominant and all-pervasive discourse. Before this question can be answered
indeed, before we can even proceed to attempt an answerattention must be given to the politics of representation.
The price that international relations scholarship pays for its inattention to
the issue of representation is perpetuation of the dominant modes of making
meaning and deferral of its responsibility and complicity in dominant

representations.
(--) And forcing them to defend representations is fair: they

chose their representations, they should be responsible for them.
(--) And our framework turns their policy-making good
arguments: Rhetorical analysis is a necessary precursor
to policy making- you cant weigh their advantages
independently of their representations
Dauber 2001( Cori Elizabeth, Associate professor of communications at
the university of North Caroline Chapel Hill, the shot seen round the world:
the impact of the images of Mogadishu on american military operations;
http://muse.uq.edu.au.ts.isil.westga.edu/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v
004/4.4dauber.html)
The impact the Mogadishu images have had on American foreign policy is clear. But their impact is not
inescapable or inevitable. It is based on the incorrect assumption that people can only read images
unidirectionally. No matter how similar, no matter how powerfully one text evokes another, every image is
unique. Each comes from a different historical situation, is placed within a different story, and offers an
Images matter profoundly, but

so do their contexts and the words that accompany them . The implications of this
ambiguous text that can be exploited by astute commentators.
shift in interpretation are potentially profound. Mogadishu, or the mention of a potential parallel with
Rhetoric,
whether discursive or visual, has real power in the way events play out. What
this article makes clear is that rhetoric (and therefore rhetorical analysis) also has
power in the way policy is shaped and defined. In a recent book on the
conflict in Kosovo, the authors note that when the president spoke to the
nation on the night the air war began, he immediately ruled out the use of
ground forces. This was done, they argue, due to fears that leaving open the
possibility of ground force participation would sacrifice domestic public and
congressional (and allied) support for the air war . But "publicly ruling out their use only
Mogadishu, need not be a straightjacket or a deterrent to the use of American power.
helped to reduce Milosevic's uncertainty regarding the likely scope of NATO's military actions," 109 and
Berger,
maintains that 'we would not
have won the war without this sentence .'" 110 It would be difficult to find more
direct evidence for the profound impact and influence public rhetoric and
debate have--and are understood to have-- on policy, policymaking, and
possibly to lengthen the air war as a result. Yet, they report, National Security Advisor Sandy
"who authored the critical passage in the president's speech,
policymakers at the highest level. That means that rhetorical analysis can
have a role to play and a voice at the table before policies are determined .
Academic rhetoricians, through their choice of projects and the formats in which they publish, can
stake a claim to having an important voice at the table- -and they should do
so.
(--) The role of the ballot is a negotiation of knowledge, a

deciding of axes and boundaries. Evaluate our critique by
its ability to reorient political perception and action.
Bleiker 2000 [Roland, coordinator of the Peace and Conflict Studies
Program @ U of Queensland, Popular Dissent, Human Agency, and Global
Politics, p. Google books]
Describing, explaining and prescribing may be less unproblematic processes of evaluation, but only at first
sight. If one abandons the notion of Truth, the idea that an event can be apprehended as part of a natural
order, authentically and scientifically, as something that exists independently of the meaning we have
given it if one abandons this separation of object and subject, then the process of judging a particular
approach to describing and explaining an event becomes a very muddled affair. There is no longer an
objective measuring device that can set the standard to evaluate whether or not a particular insight into
an event, such as the collapse of the Berlin Wall, is true or false. The very nature of a past event becomes
indeterminate insofar as its identification is dependent upon ever-changing forms of linguistic expressions
that imbue the event with meaning.56 The inability to determine objective meanings is also the reason
why various critical international relations scholars stress that there can be no ultimate way of assessing
human agency. Roxanne Doty, for instance, believes that the agentstructure debate encounters an
aporia, i.e., a self-engendered paradox beyond which it cannot press. This is to say that the debate is
fundamentally undecidable, and that theorists who engage in it can claim no scientific, objective grounds
for determining whether the force of agency or that of structure is operative at any single instant.57 Hollis
and Smith pursue a similar line of argument. They emphasise that there are always two stories to tell
neither of which is likely ever to have the last word an inside story and an outside story, one about
agents and another about structures, one epistemological and the other ontological, one about
understanding and one about explaining international relations.58 The value of an insight cannot be
evaluated in relation to a set of objectively existing criteria. But this does not mean that all insights have
the same value. Not every perception is equally perceptive. Not every thought is equally thoughtful. Not
How, then, can one judge? Determining the value

of a particular insight or action is always a process of negotiating
knowledge, of deciding where its rotating axes should be placed and
how its outer boundaries should be drawn. The actual act of judging
can thus be made in reference to the very process of negotiating
knowledge. The contribution of the present approach to understanding transversal dissent could, for
every action is equally justifiable.
instance, be evaluated by its ability to demonstrate that a rethinking of the agency problematique has
revealed different insights into global politics. The key question then revolves around whether or not a
particular international event, like the fall of the Berlin Wall, appears in a new light once it is being
scrutinised by an approach that pays attention to factors that had hitherto been ignored. Expressed in
knowledge about agency can be evaluated by its ability to

orient and reorient our perceptions of events and the political
actions that issue from them. The lyrical world, once more, offers valuable insight. Rene
other words,
Char: A poet must leave traces of his passage, not proofs. Only traces bring about dreams.
(--) Andtheir policy impacts will be subverted by their

discursive choiceswe have to change representations
first or the policy will get co-opted:
Arthur Kleinman, 1996 Professor of Medical Anthropology and Professor
of Anthropology at Harvard, The appeal of experience; the dismay of images:
cultural appropriations of suffering in our times," DAEDALUS Winter 1996, p.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_199601/ai_n8747499/prin
t
Ultimately,
we will have to engage the more ominous aspects of globalization, such as the
commercialization of suffering, the commodification of experiences of atrocity and abuse,

and the pornographic uses of degradation.(36) Violence in the media, and its relation to violence in the
streets and in homes, is already a subject that has attracted serious attention from communities and from
scholars.(37) Regarding the even more fundamental cultural question of how social experience is being
the first issue would seem to be to develop historical,

ethnographic, and narrative studies that provide a more powerful
transformed in untoward ways,
understanding of the cultural processes through which the global regime of

disordered capitalism alters the connections between collective experience and
subjectivity, so that moral sensibility, for example, diminishes or becomes something frighteningly
different: promiscuous, gratuitous, unhinged from responsibility and action.(38) There is a terrible
legacy here that needs to be contemplated. The transformation of epochs is as much about changes in
social experience as shifts in social structures and cultural representations; indeed, the three sites of social
transformation are inseparable. Out of their triangulation, subjectivity too transmutes. The current
transformation is no different; yet perhaps we see more clearly the hazards of the historical turn that we
are now undertaking. Perhaps all along we have been wrong to consider existential conditions as an
ultimate constraint limiting the moral dangers of civilizational change.
AFF Answers
2ac Front-line
1) The alternative doesnt solve the case
A) They have no solution to the immigrant worker
shortage in the United States that is key to
agriculturethats the 1ac Devadoss and Luckstead evidence.
B) They have no solution to the US economy
sustainable immigration is key to the economythats
the Guilford evidenceboth impacts end in extinction.
2) Permute: do the plan and the alternative: no part of
the 1ac is inconsistent with a feminist analysis.
3) Patriarchy isnt the root cause of violence--war is
caused by proximate factors not root causes:
Brian Martin, 1990 (professor of science, technology, and society University
of Wollongong) Uprooting War. 1990. Accessed June 1, 2012 at
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/90uw/uw13.html
I have examined a number of structures
and factors which have some connection with the war system. There is much more
that could be said about any one of these structures, and other factors which could be examined. Here I
wish to note one important point: attention should not be focused on one
In this chapter and in the six preceding chapters
single factor to the exclusion of others. This is often done for example by some
by some
feminists who attribute most problems to patriarchy. The danger of
Marxists who look only at capitalism as a root of war and other social problems, and
monocausal explanations is that they may lead to an inadequate political

practice. The 'revolution' may be followed by the persistence or even expansion of many problems
which were not addressed by the single-factor perspective. The one connecting feature which I perceive in
the structures underlying war is an unequal distribution of power. This unequal distribution is socially
organised in many different ways, such as in the large-scale structures for state administration, in
capitalist ownership, in male domination within families and elsewhere, in control over knowledge by
experts, and in the use of force by the military. Furthermore, these different systems of power are
This means that the

struggle against war can and must be undertaken at many different levels . It
interconnected. They often support each other, and sometimes conflict.
ranges from struggles to undermine state power to struggles to undermine racism, sexism and other forms
Furthermore, the different

struggles need to be linked together. That is the motivation for analysing the roots of war
of domination at the level of the individual and the local community.
and developing strategies for grassroots movements to uproot them.
4) Framework: the judge should evaluate the plan from

a policy perspective:
A) AFF choice: if the AFF presents a policy AFF the NEG
should have to respond in a policy manner, if the AFF
was a critical AFF the NEG should have to respond
with kritiks. It makes debaters more well-rounded.
B) The resolution is phrased as a policy question
therefore the AFF successfully answers the
resolution whether or not the representations are
correct.
C) Evaluating the plan through a policymaking lens is
key to combat immigration surveillance
Kalhan 14 [Anil, J.D. from Yale Law School, Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University.
A.B., Brown University, Immigration Surveillance, Maryland Law Review, Volume 74, Issue 1,
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3646&context=mlr]
Technology, as Erin Murphy has explained, altersrather than just mechanizesthe relationship between the individual and the state.323 With the introduction of new
surveillance and dataveillance technologies, the traditional relationships between individuals and the institutions of immigration control are being reconfigured in fundamental
shifts in migration and

mobility surveillance have garnered exceedingly little attention , analysis, or concerneven as vigorous
debates about surveillance and dataveillance by public and private institutions have emerged in
other settings. These shifts have not simply contributed to a regime of mass enforcement, in which
hundreds of thousands of noncitizens have faced detention and deportation . More fundamentally, the evolution of
ways for both noncitizens and U.S. citizens alike. And yet, compared to other aspects of the expansion of immigration enforcement, these
immigration enforcement institutions, practices, and meanings has also contributed to a more basic transformation of the nature of immigration governancewith implications for
this Article highlights the need for

scholars, advocates, policymakers, and other observers to devote greater attention and scrutiny to the
onset of the immigration surveillance state and its rapid integration into the broader national
surveillance state.
noncitizens and U.S. citizens alike. By recounting and analyzing this transformation and its consequences,
D)The impact is to reject the Kritik or to let the

Affirmative weigh their case.
5) Our engagement with institutions is key to combat
legal atrocities against immigrants
Kalhan 14 [Anil, J.D. from Yale Law School, Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University.
A.B., Brown University, Immigration Surveillance, Maryland Law Review, Volume 74, Issue 1,
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3646&context=mlr]
In this Article, I theorize and assess this underappreciated transformation of the techniques and technologies of immigration enforcementtheir
swift proliferation, enormous scale, likely entrenchment, and broader meanings. Situating this reconfiguration within a larger set of developments
concerning surveillance and technology, I explain how these technologies have
transformed a regime of immigration

control, operating primarily upon noncitizens at the territorial border, into part of a more expansive regime of migration
and mobility surveillance, operating without geographic bounds upon citizens and noncitizens
alike. The technologies that enable this immigration surveillance regime can, and do, bring great benefits. However, their unimpeded
expansion erodes the practical mechanisms and legal principles that have traditionally constrained
aggregations of power and protected individual autonomy, as similarly illustrated in current debates over surveillance in
other settings. In the immigration context, those constraints have always been less robust in the first place. Accordingly, I urge more constrained
implementation of these technologies to preserve zones where immigration surveillance activities do not take place and to ensure greater due process and
accountability when they do. A
complete understanding of immigration enforcement today must account for

how the evolution of enforcement institutions, practices, and meanings has not simply increased the number of noncitizens
being deported but has effected a more basic transformation in immigration governance. The institutions
of immigration surveillance are becoming integrated into the broader national surveillance state
very rapidly. As that reconfiguration proceeds, scholars, policymakers, advocates, and community members need to
grapple more directly with its implications.
6) Permute: do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive

parts of the alternative.
7) The alternative will failFeminist alternatives fail to
disrupt power relationships:
Laura T. Kessler, 2011 (professor of law @ University of Utah, Seattle
University Law Review, Spring 2011, CROWDSOURCING THE WORKFAMILY DEBATE: A COLLOQUY, Accessed via Academic Lexis/Nexis, May
26, 2011)
Since the rise of conservativism in America, there has been much discussion on the
Left about progressives' alleged failure to offer robust alternatives to freemarket and religious fundamentalist ideologies , as well as calls for "courage to open the door of political
and legal thought as if the wolves were not there." The result has been some uncomfortable conversations among
Halley has written

against the idea that feminism is an indispensible element of any adequate theory of
sexuality and gender. She suggests that those interested in developing new insights about
power and sexuality might benefit from "tak[ing] a break from feminism."
8) They ignore the intersectional identities of women:
progressives and tensions in critical left intellectual movements. For example, Janet
Kimberl Crenshaw 1991 (Crenshaw is an American scholar in the field of

Critical race theory, and a professor at UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law School
where she specializes in race and gender issues, Mapping the Margins:
Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color, Stanford Law
Review, Vol. 43, No. 6 (Jul., 1991), pp. 1241-1299, Retrieved 6/25/15,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1229039.pdf?acceptTC=true, MD)
As some critics charge, but rather the opposite-that it frequently conflates or ignores intragroup
In the context of violence against women, this elision of difference in

identity politics is problematic, fundamentally because the violence that many
women experience is often shaped by other dimensions of their identities ,
such as race and class. Moreover, ignoring difference within groups contributes
to tension among groups, another problem of identity politics that bears on efforts to politicize
violence against women. Feminist efforts to politicize experiences of women and
antiracist efforts to politicize experiences of people of color have frequently
proceeded as though the issues and experiences they each detail occur on
mutually exclusive terrains. Although racism and sexism readily intersect in the lives of real
differences.
people, they seldom do in feminist and antiracist practices. And so, when the practices expound identity as
woman or person of color as an either/or proposition, they relegate the identity of women of color to a
location that resists telling.
9) Turn: Class-Focusing on gender distracts from a class-based focusa

superior means of challenging oppression.
Laura T. Kessler, 2011 (professor of law @ University of Utah, Seattle
University Law Review, Spring 2011, CROWDSOURCING THE WORKFAMILY DEBATE: A COLLOQUY, Accessed via Academic Lexis/Nexis, May
26, 2011)
Finally, Williams suggests that we need to shift away from a focus on gender
and pay more attention to class dynamics if we are to make any headway in reshaping
America's system of family supports. This shift will require us to understand class in new
ways. Williams offers two innovations in this regard. First, she suggests that we need to focus not just on the poor, but
also on the "Missing Middle" Americans who are "one sick child away from being fired." Second, Williams asks us to see
class divisions as a cultural problem as much as an economic one. She sees a gaping cultural rift between
white working-class and professional-managerial class Americans that needs to be

addressed, and she describes the rift in poignant detail. She argues that in order to recreate the New
Deal coalition between workers, African Americans, and professional elites, we need to
change the dynamics of everyday politics through cross-class cultural understanding and
gestures of mutual respect.
10)
Turn: Race: The alternatives exclusive focus
on gender undermines efforts to challenge racism.
Kimberle Crenshaw, 1992 (Professor of Law at Columbia University, Southern
California Law Review, March 1992. Accessed via Academic Lexis/Nexis, May
26, 2011)
There are other political dilemmas, that await the women's movement if it does not
undertake the difficult task of constructing a political program that addresses these
intersections. A central problem that was revealed during the Hearings is that women's issues are often seen
by the public as representing the selected concerns of a few well placed, overly
influential white women. One of the most troubling manifestations of this attitude is represented by those who
claim that any Black woman who raises a gender related issue is simply acting on the white women's agenda and not on
that of the Black community. Apparently a Black woman who has been harassed, or raped, or battered cannot conclude on
her own that this behavior is damaging to her as a Black woman. Of course, Black feminists and other feminists of color
have rejected these claims and have labored to uncover the many ways that nonwhite communities are affected by sexism.
However, white feminist politicians and other activists must do their part to address some of the reasons why this
perception persists. Organized women must affirmatively act to make women's isses relevant
to communities of color as well of to working class and poor women. This effort requires
that they go beyond the usual practice of incorporating only those aspects of women's
lives that appear to be familiar as "gender" while marginalizing those issues that seem to
relate solely to class or to race.
11)
Our challenge to the war on terrorism is
necessary to prevent intervention to protect the
masculine order:
Wilcox 03 [Lauren, PhD in IR @ University of Minnesota, BA @ Macalester
College, MA @ London School of Economics, Security Masculinity: The
Gender-Security Nexus]
These statements give several clues as to the implications of barbaric behavior
uncivilized,
. Terrorists are barbaric and
and opposed to democracy. Those who commit evil acts commit attacks against civilization, therefore, being uncivilized
is equivalent to being evil. Finally, terrorists fight without rules, they kill innocents and women, and they are cowards, therefore they are
barbaric and uncivilized. Overall, the message is clearly that of a dichotomous world, in which there are only two choices; civilization or
barbarism, us or them. In order to understand the significance of the use of the discourse of civilization versus barbarism in the war on terror,
a brief history of this discourse is helpful. Applying the label barbaric to people from the Middle East, or any non-white peoples is hardly a
new historical development. In his book Orientalism Edward Said critiques the discipline of Oriental Studies in the European and American
academies for reproducing stereotypes and using their privileged status to create knowledge about people in the Middle East that served to
justify and increase their control and domination over these people. 63 Said describes the relationship between West and the Middle East, as
seen from the West, to be one between a strong and a weak partner, and adds that, many terms were used to express the relationsThe
Oriental is irrational, depraved (fallen), childlike, different; thus the European is rational, virtuous, mature, normal. 64 This relationship is
gendered in that Orientals are assigned traits associated with femininity and inferiority. This dichotomous relationship is replicated in political
The discourse of civilization/barbarism

was used in order to justify colonialism of non-white peoples
throughout the world, and has a long history in US foreign history .
discourses as well as in academic and literary circles.
people labeled uncivilized is considered to be unable to rule themselves, and is need of guidance from
the rules
of humane and civilized warfare do not apply to wars against
barbaric peoples. Against this background, the use of the discourse of barbarism can be seen
more civilized people. The use of force against barbarians is also justified.65 Furthermore,
as an attempt to foretell the coming war and to persuade people of the necessity of using force against alQaeda and their hosts in Afghanistan. The additional measures of control, surveillance, and detention of
Middle Eastern and North African men in the process of securitizing immigration served to harass, demean
contributing to the constructing of the

hegemonic masculinity of American men. The special registration requirements for
and subordinate this inferior masculinity,
the National Security Entry-Exit System is evidence of the gendered inside/outside, us/them distinction in
regards to national identity. This program, instituted as part of the securitization of immigration, serves to
hegemonic
masculinity, which differentiates American men as superior to men in
the Middle East. The special registration requires that men and boys over the age of fifteen with
support the construction and maintenance of the current articulation of
non-immigrant visas from countries in the Middle East, Northern Africa, countries with large Muslim
populations such as Indonesia and Pakistan, and an outlier, North Korea, be interviewed and have their
whereabouts tracked by the INS.66 These persons will be finger printed and photographed, with their
fingerprints matched against fingerprints of known or suspected terrorists and used by law enforcement.
They are also required to submit personal contact information, and are required to notify the Attorney
General when the change addresses. These measures are in addition to the detention and questioning of
thousands of men of Arab or Muslim background after the September 11 that tacks, some allegedly
detained without access to attorneys or proper food.67 The INS has also recently changed its policy on
asylum, as people seeking asylum from thirty-three countries, mostly in the Middle East, are now being
By
concentrating on men as the outsiders Middle Eastern men specifically
service not only as the other that American identity is contrasted
again, but a feminized other that American masculinity is defined
against.
detained pending the processing of their applications, where previously they have been released.68
Extensions: Patriarchy Not Root Cause of War

Patriarchy doesn't explain warpeace is more common,
and patriarchal structures cannot be treated as constants
Levy 98 [Jack, Prof. Pol. Sci. Rutgers, Senior Associate Saltzman Institute
of War and Peace Studies, and Past President International Studies
Association, Annual Review of Political Science, The Causes of War and the
Conditions of Peace, 1:139-165]
Another exception to the focus on variations in war and peace can be found
in some feminist theorizing about the outbreak of war, although most
feminist work on war focuses on the consequences of war, particularly for women,
rather than on the outbreak of war (Elshtain 1987, Enloe 1990, Peterson 1992, Tickner 1992, Sylvester
1994). The argument is that the gendered nature of states, cultures, and the world system contributes to
the persistence of war in world politics. This might provide an alternative (or supplement) to anarchy as an
although
the fact that peace is more common than war makes it difficult to argue that
patriarchy (or anarchy) causes war. Theories of patriarchy might also help answer the second
answer to the first question of why violence and war repeatedly occur in international politics,
question of variations in war and peace, if they identified differences in the patriarchal structures and
gender relations in different international and domestic political systems in different historical contexts,
and if they incorporated these differences into empirically testable hypotheses about the outbreak of war.
Most current
feminist thinking in political science about the outbreak of war, however,
treats gendered systems and patriarchal structures in the same way that
neorealists treat anarchyas a constantand consequently it cannot explain
This is a promising research agenda, and one that has engaged some anthropologists.
variations in war and peace.
(--) Equating militarism and patriarchy assumes

traditional gender roles and reinforces domination
hooks 95 [bell, English professor and senior lecturer in Ethnic Studies at
the University of Southern California Feminism and Militarism: A Comment
Women's Studies Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 3/4, Rethinking Women's Peace
Studies (Fall - Winter, 1995), pp. 58-64]
By equaling militarism and patriarchy , these feminists often structure their
arguments in such a way as to suggest that to be male is synonymous with
strength, aggression, and the will to dominate and do violence to others and that to
be female is synonymous with weakness, passivity, and the will to nourish and
affirm the lives of others. While these may be stereotypical norms that many people live out, such
dualistic thinking is dangerous ; it is a basic ideological component of the
logic that informs and promotes domination in Western society . Even when
inverted and employed for a meaningful purpose, like nuclear disarmament, it is nevertheless risky, for it
reinforces the cultural basis of sexism and other forms of group oppression, suggesting as it
does that women and men are inherently different in some fixed and absolute way. It implies that women
by virtue of our sex have played no crucial role in supporting and upholding imperialism (and the
militarism that serves to maintain imperialist rule) or other systems of domination. Often the women who
make such assertions arc white. Black women are very likely to feel strongly that white women have been
quite violent and militaristic in their support and maintenance of racism.
Extensions: Race Turn

Extend our Crenshaw evidencefeminism overlooks
issues of race and tries to place issues affecting women in
one box.
Mainstream feminist approaches unwittingly entrench
racism.
Kimberle Crenshaw, 1992 (Professor of Law at Columbia University, Southern
California Law Review, March 1992. Accessed via Academic Lexis/Nexis, May
26, 2011)
I would like to build upon both those metaphors as a means to uncover the particular
ways in which Black women are silenced between the rocks and the hard places of racism
and sexism. One way of beginning to think about this space is suggested by the
concept of intersectionality. African-American women by virtue of our race and gender
are situated within at least two systems of subordination: racism and sexism . This dual
vulnerability does not simply mean that our burdens are doubled but instead, that
the dynamics of racism and sexism intersect in our lives to create experiences that
are sometimes unique to us. In other words, our experiences of racism are shaped
by our gender, and our experiences of sexism are often shaped by our race. The
rocks and hard places that make it so difficult for Black women to articulate these
experiences, however, are not simply racism and sexism, but instead, the oppositional
politics of mainstream feminism and antiracism. Because each movement focuses
on gender or race exclusive of the other , issues reflecting the intersections of
race and gender are alien to both movements. Consequently, although Black women are
formally constituents of both, their intersectional interests are addressed by neither .
Alt Fails Extensions

(--) Extend our Kessler evidence: feminists in the United
States have failed to provide robust alternatives to freemarket capitalism and religious ideology.
(--) The alt results in the same practices it hopes to
prevent, and fails to secure knowledge claims which could
cause real change.
Stern and Zalewski 09
[Maria Stern, researcher, department of peace and development research @
Gotberg University and Marysia Zalewski, director of centre for gender
studies @ University of Aberdeen, 2009, Feminist fatigue(s): Reflections on
feminism and familiar fables of militarization]
In this section we clarify what we mean by the problem of sex/gender and how it transpires in the context
of feminist narratives within IR which we will exemplify below with a recounting of a familiar feminist
we suspect
part of the reason for the aura of disillusionment around feminism
especially as a critical theoretical resource is connected to the sense that
feminist stories repeat the very grammars that initially incited them as
narratives in resistance. To explain; one might argue that there has been a normative
feminist failure to adequately construct secure foundations for legitimate and
authoritative knowledge claims upon which to garner effective and
permanent gender change, particularly in regard to women. But for poststructural scholars this
failure is not surprising as the emancipatory visions of feminism inevitably emerged
reading of militarisation. To re-iterate, the primary reason for investigating this is that
as illusory given the attachments to foundationalist and positivistic

understandings of subjects, power and agency . If, as poststructuralism has shown us, we
cannot through language decide the meaning of woman, or of femininity, or of feminism, or produce
foundational information about it or her;42 that subjects are effects rather than origins of institutional
practices and discourses;43 that power produces subjects in effects;44 or that authentic and
authoritative agency are illusory then the sure foundations for the knowledge that feminist scholars are
conventionally required to produce even hope to produce are unattainable. Moreover, post-colonial
feminisms have vividly shown how representations of woman or women which masquerade as
universal are, instead, universalising and inevitably produced through hierarchical and intersecting power
relations.45 In sum; the poststructural suggestion is that feminist representations of women do not
feminism produces the

subject of woman which it then subsequently comes to represent. 46 The
correspond to some underlying truth of what woman is or can be; rather
implications of this familiar conundrum are far-reaching as the demands of feminism in the context of the
knowledge/political project of the gender industry are exposed as implicated in the re-production of the
feminism emerges as complicit in violent

reproductions of subjects and knowledges/ practices. How does this recognisable
very power from which escape is sought. In short,
puzzle (recognisable within feminist theory) play out in relation to the issues we are investigating in this
article? As noted above, the broad example we choose to focus on to explain our claims is militarisation;
partly chosen as both authors have participated in pedagogic, policy and published work in this generic
area, and partly because this is an area in which the demand for operationalisable gender knowledge is
ever-increasing. Our suggestion is that the increasing requirement47 for knowledge for the gender industry
about gender and militarisation re-animates the sexgender paradox which persistently haunts attempts to
translate what we know into useful knowledge for redressing (and preventing) conflict, or simply into
hopeful scenarios for our students.
A2: State Link

The belief that the state is always-already patriarchal is a
fiction that prevents the womens movement from
securing lasting changes in gender relations.
Rhode 94 [Deborah L.: Professor, Stanford Law School; Director, Institute
for Research on Women and Gender, Stanford University, April 1994, Harvard
Law Review, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 1181, p. 1184-1186]
In many left feminist accounts, the state is a patriarchal institution in the
sense that it reflects and institutionalizes male dominance. Men control positions of official power and men's interests determine how that
power is exercised. According to Catharine MacKinnon, the state's invocation of neutrality and objectivity ensures that, "[t]hose who have
freedoms like equality, liberty, privacy and speech socially keep them legally, free of governmental intrusion." n15 In this view, "the state
protects male power [by] appearing to prohibit its excesses when necessary to its normalization." n16 So, for example, to the extent that
abortion functions "to facilitate male sexual access to women, access to abortion will be controlled by 'a man or The Man.'" n17 Other
theorists similarly present women as a class and elaborate the ways in which even state policies ostensibly designed to assist women have
institutionalized their subordination. n18 So, for example, welfare programs stigmatize female recipients without providing the support that
would enable them to alter their disadvantaged status. n19 In patriarchal accounts, the choice for many women is between dependence
[*1185] on an intrusive and insensitive bureaucracy, or dependence on a controlling or abusive man. n20 Either situation involves sleeping
with the enemy. As Virginia Woolf noted, these public and private spheres of subordination are similarly structured and "inseparably
connected; . . . the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." n21 This account is also problematic on
many levels. To treat women as a class obscures other characteristics, such as race and economic status, that can be equally powerful in
ordering social relations. Women are not "uniformly oppressed." n22 Nor are they exclusively victims. Patriarchy cannot account adequately for
Neither can the state

be understood solely as an instrument of men's interests . As a threshold matter,
the mutual dependencies and complex power dynamics that characterize male-female relations.
what constitutes those interests is not self-evident, as MacKinnon's own illustrations suggest. If, for example, policies liberalizing abortion
serve male objectives by enhancing access to female sexuality, policies curtailing abortion presumably also serve male objectives by reducing
female autonomy. n23 In effect, patriarchal frameworks verge on tautology. Almost any gender-related policy can be seen as either directly
serving men's immediate interests, or as compromising short-term concerns in the service of broader, long-term goals, such as "normalizing"
A framework that can characterize all state

interventions as directly or indirectly patriarchal offers little
practical guidance in challenging the conditions it condemns. And if women
the system and stabilizing power relations.
are not a homogenous group with unitary concerns, surely the same is true of men. Moreover, if the state is best understood as a network of
institutions with complex, sometimes competing agendas, then the patriarchal model of single-minded instrumentalism seems highly
implausible. It is difficult to dismiss all the anti-discrimination initiatives of the last quarter century as purely counter-revolutionary strategies.
And it is precisely these initiatives, with their appeal to "male" norms of "objectivity and the impersonality of procedure, that [have created]
[*1186] leverage for the representation of women's interests." n24 Cross-cultural research also
suggests that the status of women is positively correlated with a
strong state, which is scarcely the relationship that patriarchal
frameworks imply. n25 While the "tyrannies" of public and private dependence are plainly related, many feminists
challenge the claim that they are the same. As Carole Pateman notes, women do not "live with the state
and are better able to make collective struggle against institutions
than individuals." n26 To advance that struggle, feminists need more
concrete and contextual accounts of state institutions than
patriarchal frameworks have supplied. Lumping together police,
welfare workers, and Pentagon officials as agents of a unitary
patriarchal structure does more to obscure than to advance analysis.
What seems necessary is a contextual approach that can account for
greater complexities in women's relationships with governing
institutions. Yet despite their limitations, patriarchal theories underscore an insight that generally informs feminist theorizing. As
Part II reflects, governmental institutions are implicated in the most fundamental structures of sex-based inequality and in the strategies
necessary to address it.
(--) The state can use its power to further feminist goals.
97-98]
While the relative absence of women from political institutions has led feminists, particularly Western
feminists, to be suspicious of the state, they are also questioning visions of alternative models that
advocate the devolution of power up to international governmental institutions, where often there are even
fewer women in decision-making positions. Universal norms, such as standards of human rights,
articulated at the international level are also being examined for gender bias. Typically, womens
movements, which strive for what they claim is a more genuine form of democracy, have been situated at
the local level or in nongovernmental transnational social movements. As discussed in chapter 3, feminists
have stressed the importance of these movements, not only in terms of their attempts to place womens
issues on the international agenda, but also in terms of their success in redefining political theory and
practice and thinking more deeply about oppressive gender relations and how to reconstitute them.
However, certain feminists have begun to question whether womens participation in these
nongovernmental arenas can have sufficient power to effect change; while they remain skeptical of the
feminists are now beginning

to reexamine the potential of the state as an emancipatory
institution. Particularly for women and feminists from the South, democratization has opened up
some space within which to leverage the state to deal with their concerns; many of them see
the state as having the potential to provide a buffer against an
international system dominated by its most powerful members.
patriarchal underpinnings of many contemporary states, certain
However, a genuinely democratic state, devoid of gender and other oppressive social hierarchies, would
require a different definition of democracy, citizenship, and human rights, as well as a different relationship
with the international system.
Link Turns
Link Turn- Surveillance Tech is bad for women of color
Corrine Mason and Shoshana Magnet 2012 (Corrine works at
Brandon University, Gender and Women's Studies, Faculty Member and
Shoshana is an Associate Professor at University of Ottawa and Member of
the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, Surveillance and
Studies and Violence Against Women, Retrieved 6/22/15 from
http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-andsociety/article/viewFile/vaw/PDF MD)
relationship of women of colour, indigenous women, poor

women, queer folks, immigrants, sex workers and other women vulnerable to
being criminalized by the justice system, the assumption that surveillance measures can
provide protection to VAW victims is problematic. In particular , surveillance technologies that
deepen existing links to the prison industrial complex pose problems for
victims and anti-violence advocates. While anti-violence advocates may see potential in
Given the complex
surveillance technologies such as home security and surveillance systems, reliance on the criminal justice
system for both funding and protection can impact their utility for survivors of violence.
Surveillance targets marginalized and exploited

communities
Corrine Mason and Shoshana Magnet 2012 (Corrine works at
Brandon University, Gender and Women's Studies, Faculty Member and
Shoshana is an Associate Professor at University of Ottawa and Member of
the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, Surveillance and
Studies and Violence Against Women, Retrieved 6/22/15 from
http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-andsociety/article/viewFile/vaw/PDF MD)
the surveillance of vulnerable bodies by the state, policing services

and even social service providers disproportionately target marginalized and
Importantly,
exploited communities . In recent years, feminist and critical race explorations of policing and
surveillance have necessarily included the experiences of Arab, Middle Eastern, South Asian and Muslim
men and women. While such racialized bodies have always been targeted in white supremacist nations,
post-9/11 security rhetoric around national security has helped to shore up surveillance measures. While
honour killings, forced marriages, polygamy and dowry-related murders have received increased and
disproportionate media attention in the U.S. and Canadian media since 9/11, mainstream conceptions of
violence against women of colour are rarely inclusive of harassment, racist violence and sexual abuse at
home and abroad at the hands of military and law enforcement agencies (Ritchie 2006: 139 ).
Such
violent crimes against women are insufficiently attended to in mainstream
anti-violence strategies, and technologies aimed at womens safety may
intensify the surveillance and further criminalization of particular
communities. Surveillance flaws such as those found in iPhones and iPads
are used by the criminal justice system as tools to help them make arrests
(Chen 2008). For those already criminalized and stigmatized, including indigenous people and people of
colour, especially Arab, Middle Eastern and Muslim individuals post-9/11, surveillance flaws will have a
disproportionate effect. Placing marginalized, stigmatized and often criminalized women at the centre
of
feminist surveillance studies reveals that technologies aimed at the

protection from individual abusers, and the arrest of perpetrators, does not
work for all cases of violent practices.
The use of surveillance is used against the less powerful

Louise Marie Roth, 1999 ( Louise is an associate professor, sociology at the
University of Arizona, "The Right to Privacy Is Political: Power, the Boundary Between
Public and Private, and Sexual Harassment," Law and Social Inquiry, Winter, 1999, 24
Law & Soc. Inquiry 45 , EE2001-JGM, P.64-650 Retrieved
6/23/15,file:///C:/Users/Mayra/Downloads/Roth-1999-Law_&_Social_Inquiry.pdf MD)
Surveillance is applied most vigorously to those with the least ability to define
the boundaries between their private and public lives .6 Those with more
power have greater access and opportunity to use surveillance on the less
powerful by monitoring their day-to-day activities with the assistance of video
cameras, guards, police surveillance, and observation by credentialed
experts whose research is funded by various institutions (Foucault 1977, 1978;
Davis 1990; McIntosh 1988). At the same time, the powerful protect their power by preventing the less
powerful from doing the same (Foucault 1977), partially accomplished by residing in communities and
These dynamics are

often a prominent feature of battering relationships, and are also particularly
evident on a large scale in racial domination in the United States , accomplished by
greater social and police surveillance (and incarceration) of nonwhites, especially African
Americans (Collins 1991; Davis 1990). Facility of surveillance is often built into architecture or urban
belonging to associations that are insulated from public access (Davis 1990).
planning (Davis 1990) or into the arrangement of work space within organizations. It is also applied using
the disciplines of science, medicine, and law (Foucault 1977).

Feminism Critique - Samford 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feminism Critique - Samford 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

As for the appeal to a

B) Masculine domination leads to extinction:

The ultimate result of unchecked patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe

humanistic view than these experts.

C) The alternative is to vote negative. In questioning

Women's peace movements

where it is tolerated, if not positively accepted. It then moves to the public

masculinist values and behaviors in domestic politics, international

An important proposal is the institutionalization of peace education.

(--) The right to privacy separates women and prevents

It embodies and reflects the private spheres existing defini-tion of

It reinforces the division between public and private that is

(--) Privacy reinforces womens inequality to men

The problem is that while the private has

Women have been

(--) Non-interference in the private sphere reinforces

Feminist scholars have revealed that noninterference in the private realm

(MacKinnon 1989; Polan 1993; Hoff 1991). The

(--) Looking through a gendered lens means we should

protection of a sphere of family privacy from state interference has been

the concept of privacy is more complex and

(--) The concept of privacy allows a womens

Democratic society separates areas that are subject to government control

(--) The private sphere allows for men to not be

protect male domination. For

law invokes "privacy" as a rationale for immunity in order to

(--) Privatizing abuse prevents public solutions to abuse:

By seeing woman abuse as "private," we

Focusing on the woman,

confront the issues of power.

in order to maintain that denial and refuse to

aspect of this denial.

(--) Privacy operates as a mask for inequality

The concept of privacy encourages, reinforces and supports violence against

Privacy says that

violence against women is immune from sanction , that it

a mask for inequality, protecting male violence against women .

(--) Privacy encourages violence against women

plays a particularly subtle and pernicious ideological role in supporting,

These failures to respond, or selective responses, are part of

(--) The isolation of privacy rights allows violence to go

Conn. L. Rev. 973 (1990-1991) [ 28 pages, 973 to 1000, Retrieved 6/24/15

Society is organized to permit violence in the

(--) Privacy rhetoric masks inequality and subordination:

"public" is particularly complex in the area of gender,

where the rhetoric of privacy has

(--) Privacy bolsters the patriarchy

(--) Privacy rights justify and perpetuate sexual inequality.

privacy rights have been

of the right to privacy, it is an open question whether or not it is possible to

(--) Privacy rights prevent the state from altering the

inequality and undemocratic government in ways that are typically liberal

(--) The right to privacy shields battery & marital rape.

abstract privacy protects abstract autonomy, without inquiring into whose

(--) Privacy re-entrenches coercion and aggression against

it is difficult getting anything private to be perceived as

(--) Privacy merely protects male power.

(--) Right of privacy endangers rather than empowers

(--) Privacy reinforces unconstrained power of men

problem is getting anything private to be perceived as coercive. In the

(--) We should be skeptical of claims that privacy

(--) Declaring the home to be a womans sphere devalues

Designating the domestic