NOTES

NEG
Two important things
1. Gender v. Sex Sex is biological. Gender is a social construction, often masculine and feminine. This kritik
discusses how the characteristics of masculinity are enacted in international politics power, control,
domination, rationality, realism. The feminine other not just women but those who are otherized or outside
the norm are irradiated by those hegemonic forces.
2. But you say, a lot of the cards are about women. Yes, very true. Think about it logically. These are feminist
writers; of course they would use examples of gender that reference womens relationship to men. Also, it is
important to understand that women are not submissive and/or peaceful by nature/biologics; rather,
power (masculinity) has defined women as submissive and peaceful.
AFF
The generics are here: realism, cede the political, no root cause, perm. I think there are some good Latin
America specific arguments about the ALT. Ill explain those here.
1. Essentialism The ALTs gendered focus assumes a homogenized understanding of women. Examples:
victims, passive, submissive. This reifies traditional notions of femininity and masculinity. Example: women
are constantly seen as helpless = they become helpless. This links to their cards about machismo and Latin
America more so than the security portion of the debate.
2. Intersectionality this argues that the ALT does not take into account other identity categories like race,
class and ethnicity. This is particularly important for Latin Americans given their history of colonization. The
ALT is very single-issue and cannot solve for power when it only focuses on one type.

1NC
International politics are in need of an overhaul because of gendered relations between the
United States and Latin America. The AFFs economic engagement is locked into an
unquestioned system of machismo that inevitably fails
De Oliveira in 2000
Jose Batista Loureiro De Oliveira. PhD Psychology Department, University of Bologna, Italy. Deconstructing
Machismo: Victims of Machismo Ideology Dominating in Brazil. Prepared for delivery at the 2000 meeting of
Latin American Studies Association. March 2000.
As I have said at the beginning, the visions in this paper are very persona l and empirical. I have stressed the
main characteristics of machismo in the patriarchal context. Machismo cannot be understood outside gender,
and gender relations evoke class, race, and ethnicity (see Connell, 1985 and Kimmel, 1987, 2000) as gender is
much more than XX and XY genetic combinations: it has its own roots in the historical and societal
constructions of relations. To understand gender, then, we must constantly go beyond gender. The same
applies in reverse. We cannot understand class, race or global inequality without constantly moving towards
gender. Gender relations are a major component of social structure as a whole, and gender politics are among
the main determinants of our collective fate . (Connell 1995:48) Gender and gendered things in the Latin
world are almost inflexible: men should be a macho and women should be a passive otherwise, it can be very
suspicious and can become a motive for inquisition (at personal level and/or institutional control). It seems
that the borders between m en and women are not very flexible, but all the worse they are a biological code of
distinction (concerned primarily with external phenotypes as the genotype is a code of biological redu c
tionism). In sex role theory, action (the role enactment) is linked to a structure defined by biological difference,
the dichotomy of male and female not to a structure defined by social relations. This leads to categoricalism,
the reduction of gender to two homogenous categories, betrayed by the persistent blurring of s ex differences
with sex roles. Sex roles are defined as reciprocal; polarization is a necessary part of the concept. This leads to a
misperception of social reality, exaggerating differences between men and women, while obscuring the
structures of race, cl ass and sexuality. It is telling that discussions of the male sex role have mostly ignored
gay men and have little to say about race and ethnicity.(Connell 1985:27) Historical background can define a
very wide range of effects and facts in any cultural social economic context. I refer, in particular in the Brazilian
context to the studies of masculinity which is not open, not concerned. Worse, it seems that we have become
ashamed of speaking about men, gender relations, and machismo (or at least view thes e discussions as
offensive). For Latinos, men who are interested in studying men sound quite suspicious, as real men should
not take into consi d eration other men. We study men as scientists, as authors, as presidents or the other
government officials, as soldiers or kings. But rarely, if ever, do we study men as men; rarely do we make
masculinity the object of inquiry as we examine mens lives. If men have been traditionally the benchmark
gender (and women the other), then studies of men and masculini ty have never made masculinity itself the
object of inquiry. Mens studies akes masculinity as its problematic, and seeks to explore mens experiences as
men not in some social roles. While our experience is structured by its social structural location social roles
define individual enactments of them it is also equally true that gender structures the dimensions of those
roles. Other factors such as race, class, ethnicity, and age will mediate the generalizability of our explanations,
but masculinity as problematic opens up entirely new areas for social scientific study. (Kimmel 1987:11) I do
not want to make of gender a flag, but it is a very important social element and has influence in so many
important decisions from schools to family setting. It i s important to stress that gender is practice at an
individual and institutional level. The institutions are not neutral. The gender goes through institutional
ideologies and power, and it all plays an important role in constructing social configurations. Machismo is not
an isolated fact: it is constructed in so many different fields of society such as media, family, school, army,
university, and politics and so on. It is quite difficult for the Latin world to consider machismo. The
institutional power is huge and different religious backgrounds occupy in a large scale the collective
conceptions of gender (see Central do Brasil, Salles 1999). It is difficult to pass from sex role approach to social
construction of gender, especially when the democr acy is under construction, because of militarism
domination and low recognition of national culture (throughout history, many white and black people shared a
lack of appreciation for Brazilian culture in general, looking towards Europe, particularly Franc e and Great
Britain, for valid a tion. Davis 1999:6) If men are changing at all, however, it is not because they have stumbled
upon the limits of traditional masculinity all by themselves. For at least two decades, the womens movements
(and also, sinc e 1969, the gay liberation movement) has suggested that the traditional enactments of
masculinities were in desperate need of overhaul. For some me, these critiques have prompted a terrified

retreat to traditional constructions; to other it has inspired a serious reevaluation of traditional worldviews,
and offers of support for the social, political, and economic struggles of women and gays. (Kimmel 1987:10)
And the AFFs gendered security discourse causes inevitable violence. Regardless of PLANs
purpose their masculine epistemology relies on a logic of conflict that ignores structural
violence. The feminization of the Other through security causes all future policy making to fail.
Shepherd 2007
[Laura J., Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, Victims, Perpetrators and Actors Revisited:1 Exploring
the Potential for a Feminist Reconceptualisation of (International) Security and (Gender) Violence, BJPIR: 2007 VOL 9, 239256]
As Spike Peterson and Jacqui True comment, our sense of self-identity and security may seem disproportionately threatened by societal challenge to
gender ordering (Peterson and True 1998, 17). That is, the performance of gender is immanent in the performance of security and vice versa, both
concern issues of ontological cohesion (as illustrated in Table 2). Taking this on board leads me to the conclusion that perhaps security is best

conceived of as referring to ontological rather than existential identity effects. Security, if seen as
performative of particular configura- tions of social/political order, is inherently gendered and inherently related to
violence. Violence, on this view, performs an ordering functionnot only in the theory/practice of
security and the reproduction of the international, but also in the reproduction of gendered
subjects. Butler acknowledges that violence is done in the name of preserving western values (Butler 2004, 231); that is,
the ordering function that is performed through the violences investigated here, as discussed above, organises political authority and subjectivity in an
image that is in keeping with the values of the powerful, often at the expense of the marginalised .
Clearly,

the west does not author all violence, but it does, upon suffering or anticipating injury,
marshal violence to preserve its borders, real or imaginary (ibid.). While Butler refers to the violences
undertaken in the protection of the sovereign state violence in the name of securitythe preservation of borders is also
recognisable in the conceptual domain of the inter- national and in the adherence to a binary materiality of gender. This adherence is
evidenced in the desire to fix the meaning of concepts in ways that are not challenging to the
current configuration of social/political order and subjectivity, and is product /productive of the
exclusionary presuppositions and foundations that shore up discursive practices insofar as those foreclose the
heterogeneity, gender, class or race of the subject (Hanssen 2000, 215). However, the terms used to describe
political action and plan future policy could be otherwise imagined. They could remain that which is, in the present,
never fully owned, but always and only redeployed, twisted, queered from prior usage and in the direction of urgent and expanding political purposes
(Butler 1993, 228). The concepts both produced by and productive of policy could reflect an aversion to essentialism, while recognising that strategic
gains can be made through the temporary binding of identities to bodies and constraining of authority within the confines of the territorial state. This is,
in short, an appeal to a politics of both/and rather than either/or. Both the state (produced through representations of security and vio- lence)

and the subject (produced through representations of gender and violence) rely on a logic of sovereignty and
ontological cohesion that must be problematised if alternative visions of authority and
subjectivity are to become imaginable. International Relations as a discipline could seek to
embrace the investigation of the multiple modalities of power, from the economic to the bureaucratic, from neoliberal capitalism to the juridical. Rather than defending the sovereign boundaries of the discipline from the
unruly outside constituted by critical studies of develop- ment, political structures, economy and law, not to mention the
analysis of social/ political phenomena like those undertaken by always-already interdisciplinary feminist scholarship,

IR could refuse to fix

its own boundaries, and refuse to exercise sovereign power, in terms of authority, over the meanings of its objects of analysis.
Future research on global politics could look very different if it were not for the inscription of
ultimately arbitrary disciplinary borderlines that function to constrain rather than facilitate
understanding. It may seem that there is a tension between espousing a feminist poststructural politics and undertaking research that seeks to
detail, through deconstruction, the ways in which particular discourses have failed to manifest the reforms needed to address security and violence in the
context of gendered subjectivity and the constitution of political community. In keeping with the ontological position I hold, I argue that there is

nothing inherent in the concepts of (international) security and (gender) violence that
necessitated their being made meaningful in the way they have been. Those working on policy
and advocacy in the area of security and violence can use the reconceptualisation I offer to enable people to imagine
how their being-in-the-world is not only changeable, but perhaps, ought to be changed (Milliken
1999, 244). As a researcher, the question I have grown most used to hearing is not What? or How? but Why?. At every level of
the research process, from securing funding to relating to the academic community, it is necessary to be able to construct a convincing and coherent
argument as to why this research is valuable, indeed vital, to the field in which I situate myself. A discursive approach acknowledges that my legitimacy
as a knowing subject is constructed through discursive practices that privilege some forms of being over others. In the study of security,

because of the discursive power of the concept, and of violence, wh ich can quite literally be an
issue of life and death, these considerations are particularly important . Further- more, as a result of
the invigorating and investigative research conducted by exemplary feminist scholars in the field of IR,17 I felt
encouraged to reclaim the space to conduct research at the margins of a discipline that itself
functions under a misnomer, being concerned as it is with relations inter-state rather than inter- national. As Cynthia Enloe has

expressed it, To study the powerful is not autocratic, it is simply reasonable. Really? ... It presumes a priori that
margins, silences and bottom rungs are so natu- rally marginal, silent and far from power that exactly how they are kept there could not possibly be of
interest to the reasoning, reasonable explainer (Enloe 1996, 188, emphasis in original). If this is the case, I am more than happy to be unreasonable, and
I am in excellent company.

The ALT is to reject the AFF and endorse a method of gendered policy making. This act places
epistemology first and foremost in order to challenge hegemonic masculinity in our
international policies.
Beland 2009
Daniel Beland. Gender, Ideational Analysis, and Social Policy Social Politics: International Studies in Gender,
State and Society. Vol 16 Num 4. Pp 558-581. Winter 2009
As far as the policy stream is concerned (Kingdon 1995), one of the main roles of ideational processes
is to provide experts and politicians with policy alternatives that frequently reect shared
assumptions about how to solve the problems of the day (Hall 1993). According to Blyth (2002),
during times of stability, existing insti- tutional settings help actors dene their goals and their
interests in order to design relevant policy alternatives to address the problems they face. In
periods of acute uncertainty, however, prevailing institutional frameworks are weakened and
actors frequently turn to new policy ideas in order to master this uncertainty and put forward
new policy alternatives and blueprints. Once embedded in particular institutional settings, these ideas
can serve as cognitive locks that are instrumental in reproducing policy institutions over time
(Blyth, 2002). Overall, even beyond episodes of perceived crisis, ideational processes help actors and make
sense of their interests (e.g. Blyth 2002; Hay forthcoming; Jenson 1989; King 1973; Schmidt forthcoming;
Steensland 2006; Stone 1997; Weir 1992; for a different perspective on this issue: Padamsee 2009). This
remark is important because it is typically in the mirror of their perceived interests that actors design and/or
select specic policy alternatives (Blyth 2002). The scholarship on paradigmsgendered and
otherwisehas been inuential in regard to the analysis of policy alternatives. According to
political scientist Peter Hall (Hall 1993, 279), policy paradigms are cognitive belief systems that
articulate the goals of political actors with policy alternatives and instruments aimed at
addressing concrete social and economic problems. For Hall (1993), paradigm shifts occur only when
the hierarchy of policy goals held by key policy actors is transformed. In other words, a paradigm shift is a
change in the actors goals that can strongly inuence policy development. In his 1993 article, Hall
builds on Thomas Kuhns work on scientic revolutions (Kuhn 1962) to dene paradigm shifts. Such a
scientic analogy is problematic because the policy- making process is a political rather than a purely
technocratic affair (Muller, 2005).4 Furthermore, beyond its scientic overtone, the concept of paradigm
may suggest that the policy ideas held by experts and political actors are truly coherent
philosophical constructions. This is a major issue because policymakers typically borrow from
various sources in order to construct specic policy alternatives. More generally, the policy
assumptions they share do not necessarily take the form of a coherent paradigm (Wincott forth- coming). In
fact, some scholars argue that the concept of policy paradigm is typically more adapted to the study of
economic ideas than to the analysis of social policy debates, which do not always involve the explicit clash
between broad and well-dened theories, as is often the case in economics (Palier 2008). is often the case in
economics (Palier 2008). Despite these cautionary remarks, the concept of policy paradigm is a useful
analytical tool for students of gender and social policy (e.g., Jenson, 1989; Lewis 2002; OSullivan
1999). For example, these scholars have drawn on the concept of policy paradigm to uncover the changing
status of gender equality as a policy goal in contemporary societies. The idea that policy actors can share
relatively stable assumptions and goal hierarchies over time is a key insight that can improve
our understanding of the relationship between gender and policy change. Ito Pengs analysis of the
1990s paradigm shift in Japanese social policy provides ground to this claim. According to Peng (2003),
organizations like the Womens Committee for the Improvement of Ageing Society successfully mobilized to
change the traditional vision of social care, which, in turn, helped trigger a paradigm shift that altered the
social policy goals and priorities of Japanese state actors (Peng 2003). In this special issue of Social Politics,
Knijn and Smit (2009) refer to the concept of policy paradigm to compare and contrast three distinct
contemporary discourses about the reconciliation of work and family life. As they suggest, each of these three
paradigms features specic assumptions about social risks, the relationship between the state and society, and
the public private dichotomy. Jenson (2009) studies the convergence of policy ideas surrounding the
concept of social investment, which has become increasingly inuential across the advanced industrial world
since the 1980s. For her, the shift from social protection to social investment points to a recon- guration

of contemporary citizenship regimes. Jensons analysis (Jenson 2009) contributes to the contemporary debate
about the transnational diffusion of ideas and its impact on policy change, an issue also discussed in the
recent literature on gender and social care (Mahon 2006; White 2008). Perhaps one of the most systematic
uses of the concept of para- digm in the literature on gender and social policy is Jane Jensons earlier work on
protective legislation in France and the United States before 1914 (Jenson 1989). In contrast with Hall (1993),
who expli- citly draws on her contribution in his 1993 article, Jenson does not focus exclusively on economic
ideas, and she uses the term societal paradigm, which refers to a shared set of interconnected premises which
make sense of many social relations. Every paradigm contains a view of human nature, a denition
of basic and proper forms of social relations among equals and among those in relationship of
hierarchy, and specication of relations among institutions as well as a stipulation of the role
of such institutions. (Jenson 1989, 239) For Jenson, these assumptions help political actors choose
between possible policy alternatives. More similar to George Steinmetzs (1993) social-regulation para- digms
than to Halls policy paradigms (Hall 1993), societal para- digms are explicitly related to the formation of
group identities and the reproduction of categorical inequalities. Jensons idea of societal paradigm has
perhaps even more in common with the non-Marxist concept of ideology formulated by British political
theorist Freeden (1978, 2003). Moreover, the concept of universe of political dis- course formulated by
Jenson and Mahon (1993, 79) in their work on Swedish social democracy has a very similar meaning to the one
of societal paradigm: The terrain on which actors struggle over representation is the universe of
political discourse, a space in which identities are socially constructed. The universe of
political discourse encodes an accepted set of meanings about who the legitimate actors are,
the place they hold in politics, the appropriate site of political struggle, and the form of social
relations ought to take. (For a more systematic discussion on the concept of universe of social discourse, see Padamsee 2009). Overall, Jensons concept of societal paradigm is especially useful for
the analysis of the gender-social policy nexus, which is largely about the interactions among constructed, gendered identities, categorical inequalities, and relations of power and hierarchy. 5 Interestingly, the
concept of societal paradigm illustrates a key contribution of the scholarship on gender to the ideational
literature: the emphasis on the relationship between ideational processes and categorical inequalities. Such
social inequalities refer to dichotomous categories like black/white and female/male (Tilly 1998).
Although some ideational researchers like Lieberman (2002) pay direct atten- tion to categorical
inequalities, most of the non-feminist policy lit- erature on ideas remains largely silent about such
inequalities. By pointing to the interaction between ideational processes, categorical
inequalities, and policy change, students of gender relations such as Jenson could push nonfeminist ideational scholars to pay closer attention to categorical inequalities, including
gendered ones.

Overview
Vote negative to reject the AFFs reliance on traditional masculine policy making. Gender
becomes footnoted in international relations and as a result the United States enacts paternal
policies with Latin America through security discourse. Voting negative endorses a method of
Gendered Policy Making that starts from a question of epistemology when debating policy
change. Extend the BELAND evidence the classroom is a key starting point in training future
students of gender relations.
Economic engagement with Latin America is framed through security measures that ignore
structural violence. Impact is inevitable war and conflict. Structural violence feeds the
instability of the international system resulting in extinction. We must start with the AFF - their
security politics are detrimental to our understanding
Moylan in 2013
Tom Moylan. Gender, Security, and Making it as a Category of Analysis in International Politics. eInternational Relations. March 12 2003.
Cynthia Enloe, in her interview with Theory Talks, talks about how there are all kinds of health professionals,
all kinds of educators and environmentalists, climate change, sea level rise experts and so onand they are
providing security (Schouten and Dunham 2012, p.10). So why do we not think of them in that context?
Mainstream IR theorists, prominently realists, consider security solely in terms of state security one that can
protect itself and its citizens from an anarchic international system, despite the fact that most wars since 1945
have been fought within states and not across international boundaries (Tickner and Sjoberg 2010, p.203). IR
feminists define security more broadly, as the diminution of all forms of violence including domestic
violence, rape, poverty, gender subordination, economic, and ecological destruction (Tickner and Sjoberg 2010,
p.203-204). This redefinition of security provides us with very different view of the world and the effects of
what are considered security policies. Several prominent feminist studies have exposed how security of the
state can be a direct cause of insecurity for the more vulnerable in society.One such study is Moons Sex Among
Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations in which she shows how the Korean government actively
promoted prostitution in areas surrounding US military bases in Korea to encourage the presence of US troops
there (Blanchard 2003, p.1295). Another such study is Christine Chins In Service and Servitude that shows
how the Malaysian government used the provision of cheap foreign domestic labor, mainly Filipina and
Indonesian women working in terrible conditions, to ease ethnic tensions and garner the support of the middle
class (Tickner and Sjoberg 2010, p.200). We can see here that by putting on our gendered lenses and looking
directly at womens issues, there is a lot more than simple diplomacy or economics going on in these cases. One
criticism of these studies is that they are domestic issues that do not fall within the realm of international
politics that deals purely with military and interstate matters. Feminists would disagree with this due to their
belief that the international and the domestic are inextricably linked, and this separation is detrimental to our
understanding; and that their separation could be equated to the public/private dichotomy that allows
domestic abuse to carry on without intervention (Blanchard 2003, p.1296). A further reason for mainstream
scholars not accepting this definition of security can be read when Tickner cites Walts 1991 paper in her
explanation for the persistence of the traditional view of security and power: Security specialists believe that
military power remains a central element of international politics and that the traditional agenda of security
studies is, therefore, expanding rather than shrinking (Tickner 1997, p.624).

LINKS

Security War
The AFFs focus on the high politics of war ignores the structural violence feminine others
suffer. Security analysis fails because International Relations is only discussed through
masculinized concepts of war and peace
Sylvester in 2012
Christine Sylvester. War Experiences/War Practices/War Theory. Millennium Journal of International
Studies.
What if International Relations (IR) were to turn its usual view of war around and start not with states,
fundamentalist organisations, strategies, conventional security issues and a weapons system, and not with the
aim of establishing the causes of war, as has so often been the case? What if we think of war as experience, as
something ordinary people observe and suffer physically and emotionally depending on their locations? To
date, much of IR has been operating comfortably in a world of theoretical abstractions states, systems,
power, balances, stakeholders, decision-makers, peace, war tacitly leaving people and war to journalists,
novelists, memoirists, relief workers, anthropologists, womens studies and social history to flesh out. 1 This
means that IR is not addressing one of the key elements of war: its actual mission of injuring human bodies
and destroying normal patterns of social relations. Neglecting the human elements for strategic and interest
politics renders the injurious nature of war a consequence rather than the actual focal point of war. 2 It also
makes it more difficult to appreciate the decentralised aspects of many contemporary wars, which is to say the
dispersal of authority to people who are routinely off IRs grid like the Liberian peace women who forced
Charles Taylor into peace talks and the kidnapped war women led by Black Diamond, who simultaneously
gained notoriety as fierce combatants in the bush. 3 As well, IR knows about the political economies and
security mercenaries of war, 4 but often finds the individuals who sustain and benefit from war less pertinent
than the international web of interactions they create, thus potentially missing links in chains that start and
end with people. Much of IR actually seems unprepared for the presence, let alone the power, of ordinary
people in international relations, whether those people walk through the Berlin Wall and help shift Cold War
polarity, or toss out autocrats in the Arab Spring revolutions. Ordinary people are overwhelmingly absent in IR
because they are not seen as key stakeholders in IRs versions of international relations . My challenge to the
field is to pay more attention to war as experience, on two grounds: war cannot be fully apprehended unless it
is studied up from people and not only studied down from places that sweep blood, tears and laughter away, or
assign those things to some other field to look into; and people demonstrate time and again that they too
comprise international relations, especially the relations of war, and cannot therefore be ignored or relegated to
a collateral status. IRs feminist wing of war studies, which is still taking shape, has implicitly made those kinds
of propositions the touchstones of its war research. As well, scholars from a number of IRs many camps work
the boundaries of IR theories in ways that can reveal the people of war . Even IR traditions that make a point of operating
above people (neorealism) can briefly mention people in war situations, albeit without elaborating their
experiences or building them into IR theories.

Security Proliferation
Rhetoric of proliferation is part of the security paradigm that justifies masculine violence on
those perceived as threats.
Cohn and Ruddick 3
(Carol, Researcher and Teacher at Harvard Medical Signs, and Sara, author, A Feminist Ethical Perspective on Weapons
of Mass Destruction, http://www.genderandsecurity.umb.edu/cohnruddick.pdf)

Proliferation is not a mere description or mirror of a phenomenon that is out there, but
rather a very specific way of identifying and constructing a problem. Proliferation, as used
in Western political discourse, does not simply refer to the multiplication of weapons of mass destruction
on the planet. Rather, it constructs some WMD as a problem, and others as unproblematic. It does so
by assuming pre-existing, legitimate possessors of the weapons, implicitly not only entitled
to those weapons, but to modernize and develop new generations of them as well . The
problematic WMD are only those that spread into the arsenals of other, formerly non-possessor states.
This is presumably the basis for the licit/illicit distinction in the question; it does not refer to the nature of
the weapons themselves, nor even to the purposes for which they are intended only, in the case of nuclear
weapons, to who the possessor is, where licitness is based on the treaty-enshrined we got there first.
Thus, use of the term proliferation tends to locate the person who uses it within a possessor
state, and aligns him or her with the political stance favoring the hierarchy of state power
enshrined in the current distribution of WMD. The framing of Question Four. ... is it proper to deny
[WMD] possession to others for the same purposes?, seems similarly based in a possessor state
perspective, as it is presumably the possessor states who must decide whether it is proper to deny
possession to others. As we have already stated, we find WMD themselves intrinsically morally indefensible,
no matter who possesses them, and we are concerned about the wide array of costs to any state of
development and deployment. We therefore reject the discourses implicit division of good and bad,
safe and unsafe WMD, (defined as good or bad depending on who possesses them). Our concern is to
understand how some WMD are rendered invisible (o urs) and some visible (theirs); some rendered
malignant and others benign. Here, we join others in noting that the language in which the case against
proliferation is made is ethno-racist and contemptuous. Generally, in Western proliferation discourse as a
whole, a distinction is drawn between the Self(seen as responsible) vs the non-Western Unruly Other. 36
The US represents itself as a rational actor, while representing the Unruly Other as
emotional, unpredictable, irrational, immature, misbehaving. Not only does this draw on
and reconstruct an Orientalist portrayal of third world actors 37; it does so through the
medium of gendered terminology. By drawing the relations between possessors and non-possessors in
gendered terms the prudential, rational, advanced, mature, restrained, technologically- and
bureaucratically- competent (and thus masculine) Self, versus the emotional, irrational, unpredictable,
uncontrolled, immature, primitive, undisciplined, technologically-incompetent (and thus feminine)
Unruly Other the discourse naturalizes and legitimates the Self/possessor states having weapons which
the Other does not. By drawing on and evoking gendered imagery and resonances, the discourse naturalizes
the idea that We / the US / the responsible father must protect, must control and limit her, the
emotional, out-of-control state, for her own good, as well as for ours. This Western proliferation
discourse has had a function in the wider context of US national security politics. With the
end of the Evil Empire in the late 1980s, until the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the US
appeared to be without an enemy of grand enough proportions to justify maintaining its
sprawling military- industrial establishment. This difficulty was forestalled by the construction of the
category of rogue states states seen as uncontrollable, irresponsible, irrational, malevolent, and
antagonistic to the West.38 Their unruliness and antagonism was represented as intrinsic to their
irrational nature; if it were not in their nature, the US would have needed to ask more
seriously if actions on the part of the West had had any role in producing that hostility and
disorder. The discourse of WMD proliferation has been one of the principal means of
producing these states as major threats. To say this is neither to back away from our position
opposing weapons of mass destruction, nor to assess the degree to which WMD in the hands of Other
states actually do threaten the US, the Other states regional opponents, or their own population. But it is
an assessment of the role of WMD proliferation discourse in naturalizing and legitimating otherwisedifficult-to-make-appear-rational programs and expenditures such as National Missile Defense. 39

Security Otherization/Terrorism
Their use of security is articulated through gendered binariesthat requires domination and
elimination of those who threaten the dominant masculine body politic
Wilcox 3
[Lauren, PhD in IR @ University of Minnesota, BA @ Macalester College, MA @ London School of Economics, Security
Masculinity: The Gender-Security Nexus, RCB]

Post-structuralists emphasize not only the discursive process of securitization, but the ways
in which issues of identity factor into this process . Practicing security entails specific state actions not just in external
policies, but in internal politics as well. By labeling external threats, the state constructs a regime of identity by
demarcating who and what is to be feared by us . Security implies not only specific actions, but specific implications
for the identity of what is being secured. David Campbell argues in Writing Security: American Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, that
security is the raison dtre of the state. He further notes hatthe state requires discourses of danger to provide a new theology about who and what
we are by highlighting who or what we are not, and what we have to fear.10 Thus, the process of securitizing can also be a

process to define a nations identity by drawing boundaries between who and what is
acceptable (on the inside) and what is unacceptable (on the outside). Security is implicated in the
production of dichotomies that structure the discipline and the way we think about international relations,
such as inside/outside, self/other, us/them and sovereignty/anarchy. Much of this type of language
was used in reference to terrorist and immigration, including the creation of a hierarchy between
us and them, the criminalization and militarized responses, fears of internal subversion, and the discursive location of
threats being outside the territory of the US.My understanding of security and gender is rooted in feminist
contributions to international relations and security studies as well. Feminist scholarship informs my work in many ways, as feminist theorists, like
critical theorists, attempt to, make strange what has previously appeared familiar [and] to challenge us to question what has hitherto appeared as
natural. 11 Of key importance to this specific study are feminist scholars of IR who take the post-structuralist analysis further, and note how the
dichotomies that constitute the field of international relations are so readily mapped onto gender. Feminist scholar Charlotte Hoopers analysis of
the gendered nature of the field of international relations is similar to Campbells, noting how dichotomies such as

active/passive, war/peace, and order/anarchy are assigned masculine and feminine traits, with
the first being valued over the second. This use of the concept of gender is consistent with how gender is used in this paper. The insights feminist
post-structuralists provide into the gendered nature of the process of drawing borders between us and them and domestic and foreign are
particularly relevant in the context of my research into the securitization of immigration and terrorism, as the discourses used in this context have
clearly made these distinctions. They are also gendered discourses, as they rely on gendered dichotomies. My analysis of the
gendered discourses of terrorism and immigration is based on this type of post-structuralist feminist analysis.Because of the prevalence of gendered
dichotomies in IR and their role in constructing identities and boundaries, the practice of international relations and security is

inextricably linked to identity formation. Feminist scholars of international relations have noted the
extensive association of masculinity and war, and have analyzed how war and IR and masculinities have been mutually
constructed though military service, 12 and by several different kinds of hegemonic masculinities that serve as the prototypical behavior for men
indifferent contexts.13When writing of gender, I want to make clear I do not equate this term to

men and women (or just women for that matter) but, as a system of asymmetrical social constructs of masculinity and femininity.14
While employing a gender analysis of issues such as militarization, war, and terrorism, I will not be addressing such issues as
whether or not men or women are inherently violent or peaceful , or, in response to Francis Fukuyama, what
would happen if women were our political leaders.15 Rather, I use to concept of gender as a symbolic system
organizes many cultural discourses, and is mapped on to certain dichotomies , such as
hard/soft, inside/outside, sovereignty/anarchy, active/passive , as I briefly explained above. As gender is a
normative system in which the concept associated with masculinity in the dichotomy is considered more desirable, gender in International Relations
also serves as a prescriptive formulation. This is not say that actual men and women are irrelevant to gender, but that gender as a

discursive system represents men and women differently, and constructs different social
spaces and functions for them. Race, class, and other variables are also part of a gender
discourse that represents a feminine other that deviates from the masculine norm. The
concept of hegemonic masculinity is also related to the concept of gender . This term, which is
discussed at length in chapter three, indicates the prevailing definition of masculinity, driven by social and political trends and defined against
subordinate masculinities, such as racial minorities and non-heterosexual orientations.

Security Terrorism
Preventing terrorism through economic engagement benevolently masculinizes the state the
threatening other is violently killed off in promotion of a neoliberal order
Bleiker in 2005
Bleiker, Professor of IR @ Queensland University, 2005 p. 189-190
(Roland, International Society and Its Critics Ed. Bellamy)
Let us come back to contemporary world politics in an attempt to illuminate the intertwinement of order and
disorder. Look at what happened after the collapse of the cold war order: once the danger of communism had
vanished, security had to be articulated with reference to a new Peindbild, a new threatening other that could
provide a sense of order, safety, and identity at home. Rogue states were among the new threat images that rose
to prominence when cold war ideological schism gave way to a more blurred picture of global politics (Derrida
2003). This tendency to order the world intensified after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington of
September 2001. The compulsion to extract the eternal out of an ever-more transient world-to use
Baudelairean language-increased dramatically. US foreign and domestic policy sought to re-establish the sense
of order and certitude that had existed during the cold war: an inside/outside world in which, according to the
words of president George W. Bush (2001), 'you are either with us or against us'. Much like Ronald Reagan's
depiction of the Soviet Union as an 'evil empire', the current US reaction to terror is couched in a rhetoric of
'good' versus 'evil'. 'Evil is real', stressed George W. Bush (2002) in his presidential State of the Union address.
'It must be opposed'. What must be stressed as well, though, is that evil here means more than merely 'doing
harm or inflicting pain on innocents' (Katznelson 2002: 7). Terrorists are evil because they attack, as did the
Soviet Empire, the very foundations of Western (and meanwhile quasi-globalized) order: a form of life based
on the principles of liberal democracy and market-oriented capitalism. Few would, of course, question the need
and desirability of defending order and democracy from the threat of terrorism. . But things are more complex..
The relationship between order and disorder is provocatively explored in a recent monograph by Alain Joxe. By
sketching out changes in international politics over the last dozen years, Joxe offers an alternative
characterization of the present global system. The picture he paints is grim: it is a world of increasing disorder,
of constant conflict, rising inequalities, and lacking ethics. The key for Joxe is that .the United States has
become an increasingly powerful global hegemon that refuses to take on socio-political responsibility .
Traditionally, rulers exchanged obedience for protection. But the United States today, Joxe argues, demands
the former without offering the latter. It represses the symptoms of despair while refusing to attack its (causes.
We thus witness the emergence of a fundamentally new form of empire, one that does not occupy territories,
but merely regulates them in two key domains: military and finance . An unprecedented level of military
superiority gives the United States the ability to imprint its vision on the world. And this vision includes the
promoition of a neoliberal economic order which, accordmg to Joxe, operates without any democratic control
or accountability. The result, he stresses, is an empire of disorder: the generation of chaos that cannot be
controlled, not even by the hegemon. The hegemon merely regulates disorder by imposing global norms of
behaviour. Disorder itself is not new, but to day's chaotic world is different, Joxe (2002: 7-94) argues, insofar
as disorder is not a transition period to a new order: it is the order itself.

Hegemony
Hegemony makes great power wars more likely Transition war and stabilization theory are
wrong and rationalizes aggression that causes structural violence that outweigh the AFF
Sjoberg 10
(Laura, Assoc. Prof of Poli Sci @ U of Florida, Gender and International Security: Feminist Perspectives, p 8590)
***[PTT = Power Transition Theory]
A feminist approach suggests several critiques of the PTT research agenda which question the accuracy of its
causal explanations, the normative value of its definitions, and the appropriateness of its empirical predictions.
Feminists argue that gender expectations and assumptions are a constitutive and causal force in global politics . 35 PTTs
failure to acknowledge gender in global politics is reflected in its definition of power, its normative commitment to elitist assumptions about the relevant
actors in global politics, and the variables used to explain empirical phenomena. Power in power transition theory Power transition theorists

see power as the ability to impose one states will on another. 36 Feminists identify this interpretation as power-over 37 and critique its
conceptual narrowness and gendered content. 38 Power-over means that ideologies suit the changing interests of those in power, and not those whose lives are controlled by
them. 38 This is particularly evident in PTTs explanation of how a state obtains power(-over). PTT explains the acquisition of power as having three dimensions: population,
productivity, and political efficiency. 40 As Tammen et al. explain, population is the sine qua non for great power status because it is the potential resource pool that a
nation can begin to mobilize for its economic development and ultimately determines in the long run which nations will remain major powers. 41 Power transition theorists
seem unaware that womens rights vary inversely with population increases. 42 The same is true of labor productivity. States that increase labor productivity do so by
augmenting the export sector. Women fill these new jobs, which are underpaid and risky. Women who had previously been in the household are often still expected to fulfill

view of power also sets up future conflicts. Power-over means that the accumulation of power
is necessarily competitive and zero-sum, making conflict likely if not necessary. Viewing power as zero-sum also presumes a stark
their household functions. 43 PTTs

distinction between self (state) and other(state) where the advantages of accumulated power can be confined to its accumulator. Some states (even great states) are not
primarily or even secondarily concerned with the competitive acquisition of power. 44 In a globalized world, not all power acquisitions are zero-sum . Presuming

the

necessity of competition puts global politics on a path towards conflict, and assuming that power acquisitions can
be contained misrepresents the distribution of gains. Feminists argue that people and states without power-over are not powerless. As Allen argues, To think about power
solely in terms of domination neglects the power that women do have ... empowerment. 45 In fact, the need to theorize power that women retain in spite of masculine
domination has led feminists to explore different sources and manifestations of power. Two important results are understandings of power which Allen categorizes as powerto and power with. 46 Power-to is the capacity of an agent to act in spite of or in response to power wielded over her by others (i.e., rebellion or revolt). 47 Power-with is
the ability to act in concert with other weak actors to match the strength of the dominant power. 48 In this interpretation, by emphasizing plurality and community ...

[feminist

theory] consciously seeks to distance power from domination and understands power
collaboratively. 49 PTT focuses on great states to explain the dynamics of international security. Power transition theorists explain that PTT attacks the central
issue of world politics great power stability. 54 Great power stability matters because the dominant state defines the structure of the international system. Feminist
perspectives question both the state-centrism of PTT and its focus on big states. First, feminists interrogate the state-centrism of PTT. PTT assumes that the state is unitary
with definable interests. Feminists define security in broad terms. In these terms, a secure world would be one without physical, structural, 55 or ecological violence. 56

Feminist
research has shown how those at the political margins can become insecure even while states are
becoming more secure. Women s bodies have been considered the means to an end in debates over the US security force in South Korea, the
prevalence of and possible solutions to AIDS, and debates about refugee camp composition, to name a few. 58 These threats are often more
Security threats are also found in threats to individual lives at the margins of global politics, such as hunger, disease, sexual violence, and small arms. 57

vicious than the threat of great power war. 59 Because many feminists see individual security as central, they critique the hierarchy
that PTT values. Feminist theorizing, as a commitment to under- standing the world from the perspective of the socially subjugated, recognizes that
the least fortunate are the people who are excluded from the consideration of decision-makers and grand theorists. 60

Feminist theorists have been critical of hierarchy for the pressure that it puts on the bottom. PTT does not share this interest. In PTT, the international system is viewed as a
pyramid-shaped hierarchy where at the very top tier is the system s dominant power. The next tier contains the great powers, followed by the medium and small powers.
61 PTTs policy prescriptions demonstrate that power transition theorists not only see the model as accurate, they believe it is beneficial. Tammen et al. characterize small
powers as irrelevant because they pose no threat to the dominant nations leadership in the international system. 62 PTT

suggests that a dominant nation

should convince challengers to live in a world stacked against their interest, because a dominant nation that
successfully co-opts potential challengers ensures that the international status quo will be preserved. 63 In other words, PTT has
a normative investment in a hierarchical international system. Rather than endorse domination, some feminist theorists argue that empathy and care
should be seen as alternatives to domination . Christine Sylvester explains that empathy rests on the ability and willingness to enter into
the feeling or spirit of something and appreciate it fully. It is to hear ... and be transformed in part by our appreciation . 64 An
empathetic approach enables respectful negotiations with contentious others because we can recognize involuntary similarities across
difference as well as differences that mark independent identity . 65 As such, there is no arrogance of uniqueness and precious little
committed defensiveness. 66 Instead of an international structure which excludes most citizens of the world, some feminists suggest connectedness as
an alternative structure. 67 Explanatory variables in great power politics Gender dynamics also act on the empirical phenomena PTT studies. Even taking the
subject matter of PTT (great power competition) on its own merits, feminist analyses question the causal mechanisms that PTT uses. PTT considers power parity and
dissatisfaction. These variables cannot explain the events of interest to PTT for two major reasons. First, while the power transition scenario envisions a possibility that a
peaceful power transition takes place where the challenger is satisfied, the internal logic of PTT makes that a contradiction in terms. Elsewhere, PTT explains that other states
are dissatisfied with the status quo international order because it was put in place by the hegemon for its own benefit. 68 Challengers are, by definition, dissatisfied. Second,
parity of material power- over can be very different depending on the influence of power-to and power-with. Additional forces may be acting on the propensity of great powers
to come into conflict. One such force is international system patriarchy. Patriarchy is the structural and ideological system that perpetuates the privileging of masculinity.

have identified patriarchy as a principal cause for so many of the world s processes [such as] empirebuilding, globalization, modernization. 70 Enloe details: Patriarchal systems are notable for marginalizing the
feminine. That is, insofar as any society or group is patriarchal, it is there that it is comfortable unquestioned to infantilize, ignore, trivialize, or even actively cast
69 Feminists

scorn upon what is thought to be feminized. 71 In an international system of patriarchy, one would expect that dominance would be the ultimate place of honor, and states

would strive to approximate that position. Feminist work suggests that international system

patriarchy could be a key explanatory component

of great power (and other) conflict in the international arena. 72 PTTs research question might be rephrased to ask why, at the moment of
equality, great powers are most likely to engage in conflict. Feminists might suggest that relatively equal great powers come to blows because of state
masculinity. States

prove their masculinity, irrespective of power parity

compete to
. For example, as Ann
Tickner explains, The 1991 Persian Gulf War was frequently depicted as a personal contest between Saddam Hussein and George H. W. Bush and described in appropriate
locker-room or football language. 73 In states competitions, the winner s masculinity is affirmed, while the loser s masculinity is subordinated. In the dominant narrative
of the First Gulf War, the US tough but tender ideal-typical masculinity saved Kuwait s helpless femininity from Iraq s hypermasculinity. 74 The masculinity of the US
was affirmed and valorized while Iraqs masculinity was called into doubt. 75 Feminist theorists have used the term hegemonic masculinity as an analytical tool to
understand this competition. According to Charlotte Hooper, Hegemonic masculinity is constructed in relation to a range of subordinated masculinities in opposition to
femininity. 76 In describing a states hegemonic masculinity, feminists argue that the state organizational practices are structured in relation to the reproductive arena. 77
An ideal-typical masculinity establishes cultural hegemony through moral persuasion and consent, entrenched ideological ascendency, and an ethos of coercion. 78
Hegemonic masculinity consists of the attributes that are most widely subscribed to and least questioned in a given social formation: the common sense of gender as
subscribed to by all men save those whose masculinity is oppositional or deviant. 79 Each hegemonic masculinity is the set of standards to which men are expected to aspire.
Hegemonic or ideal-typical masculinities have been linked to states contextual understandings of heroism on the battle field. Feminists have argued that some men fight wars
while other men could fight wars; war-fighting is always tied to the image of masculinity. 80 Judith Gardam has explained that, often, the social construct of what it is to be
male ... is represented by the male warrior, the defender of the security of the state. 81 In these models, masculinity, virility, and violence have been linked together. 82
Feminists have long argued that hegemonic

masculinities and subordinate masculinities play a role in ordering the

international system. 83 For example, Steve Niva describes the hegemonic tough but tender US masculinity during the First Gulf War as valuing bravery on the
battle field and sympathy and care for civilians. 84 A number of feminist scholars have noted that, some- times, a states hegemonic masculinity
becomes reactionary or hypermasculine in response to threat. 85 Feminists have identified elements of state hypermasculinity in
the US in the post-9/11 era, as well as in the Spanish-American War and the beginning of the Cold War. 86 Feminists argue that variations in the characteristics and salience of
a states hegemonic masculinity over time influence state behavior. Feminist research suggests that the question of whether two powerful states come into conflict as they

conflict becomes more

likely when states hegemonic understandings of masculinity involve conquest, war heroism, competition,
reach power parity might result from the characteristics of the ideal-typical masculinity in that state at the time. In such a scenario,

aggressiveness, or fighting; or some sense of racial or cultural superiority vis--vis a challenger. On the other hand, conflict would be less likely when states
hegemonic understandings of masculinity involved tenderness, stoicism, restraint, or responsibility.

China
Discussions of a rising china threat are inherently gendered presumes the passive femininity
of China any strategies under this lens makes great power conflict more likely Rejection
opens space for new approaches to China that avoid war
Sjoberg 10
(Laura, Assoc. Prof of Poli Sci @ U of Florida, Gender and International Security: Feminist Perspectives, p 9597)
***[PTT = Power Transition Theory]
In PTTs scenario of potential conflict between the US and China, then, the US should not fear a dissatisfied China or attempt co-option. Instead, it
should attempt to understand the interests, values, and needs of those challengers. If challengers took a similar approach, they would not have to choose
between unattainable satisfaction and perpetual dissatisfaction. Along these lines, feminists suggest that the US should include China in deliberative
dialogues, treat the Chinese government and people with empathy and under- standing, and show China and other potential challengers by example that
the strong can defy international system patriarchy unilaterally and stop the cycle of violence. 121 Feminists have argued that inclusive

understanding is key to peaceful coexistence. Spike Peterson clarifies that feminists argue that the domination of women, nature, and
all who are constructed as other is not a matter of essential, atemporal qualities but of socially constructed, historically contingent. 122 In other
words, the voices of marginalization could serve as a bridge between hostile and masculinized states . In these terms, a

dialogue which promoted understanding between the US and China (and their differentiated citizens) would go a

long way towards decreasing the potential for conflict between the two great states. Analyzing the Chinese
overtaking through gendered lenses These feminist reformulations of PTTs key hypotheses provide both alter- native understandings of the potential
for conflict between the US and China and alternative futures. PTT suggests that the question of whether or not that rising will cause conflict between the
two states depends on China s satisfaction or dissatisfaction as it approaches parity with the US. A feminist approach suggests that a good deal of the
possibility for conflict between the US and China might be explained by gender-related variables. The patriarchal nature of the

international system provides an incentive for the US to attempt to maintain dominance. Such a system also
gives China a motivation to seek not parity but supremacy. In addition, the cultural salience of masculinity in each society is
manifested in each states desire to compete with the other. This alternative explanation for the potential competition between the
US and China suggests alternative solutions. Realists like Mearsheimer suggest a combined strategy of economic containment
and military presence, 123 and power transition theorists suggest attempts to co-opt China into satisfaction with
the existing order. Some International Relations scholars outside of the realist paradigm have suggested strategies like GRIT (graduated reciprocation of
tension reduction) in order to establish trust between the US and China. 124 If gendered competition and international system patriarchy

underlie the competition between the two states, however, none of these strategies will be successful. Mearsheimers
containment strategy will incite more competition; power transition theorists co-optation strategy is misdirected
since dissatisfaction is endemic and would not be China s main motive for making war; and trust-building solutions without the
deconstruction of the masculine competition for superiority would just be read as weakness. Seeing gender-as- power both

helps explain the potential for conflict between the US and China and provides a theoretical and practical alternative to that competition in recasting the
genderings of the state and the international system. Some feminists prescribe the strong need to unilaterally deconstruct the cycle
of violence and masculinized competition between great powers in the international arena. States would need to recognize conflicts basis
in competition, posturing, and subordination under patriarchy and deconstruct that in order to head o ff violence. Feminist theorists suggest that the US
and China could come to terms with the gendered nature of their competition by dealing with each other in empathy and in dialogue to try to find a
deeper sense of understanding if not common ground. The path to an empathetic reconstruction of the relationship between the

US and China could begin with the rejection of PTTs claim that hegemonic domination is empirically and normatively

valuable. Domination and the resulting subordination, at the international level as well as at the personal level, are normatively problematic. Therefore,
even if hegemonic dominance did decrease great power warfare, a feminist approach asks if that would be a sort of peace that the international arena
would truly thrive under. Feminist work has consistently read more content into peace than the cessation of great power hot wars. As discussed above,
a feminist approach to the rise of China recognizes the contingencies of the entities of the US and China and the limits of focusing on those two states
where others out- number them several times over and where their competition makes people within their borders insecure even as the state becomes
more secure. A feminist perspective therefore suggests that the US and China (along with other actors traditionally marginalized in global politics)
engage in dialogue about what a peaceful and just international system might be, and that the US begin to reshape the international arena not to co-opt
China but to decrease the pressure of consolidated power in the international arena on those least powerful against it. In doing so, the US and China
would need to come to understand themselves and each other as imperfect, non-omnipotent, gendered actors in an imperfect, gendered world without
more right to decide than anyone else simply because they have more power-over. If the gendered concept of power-over was replaced both in theory and
in practice with a more inclusive understanding of power including power-to and power-with, different resources could be drawn upon both in the
comparative measuring of state power and in redressing the consequences of international hierarchy and subordination at the political margins. A
feminist engagement with PTT suggests that great states, small states, and non-states look for places in the complicated scaffolding of international
power where non-zero sum, anti-systemic, and even emancipatory uses of power could benefit those at the margins of global politics. Employing a

feminist under- standing of security could lead the way to creative solutions of resistance and empowerment in the face of
a competitive and hierarchical international system. Feminist complex and multilayered understandings of power could not only
provide explanatory leverage for great power conflicts, but also for conflicts that defy the logic of PTT. 12

IR Environment
The AFF attempts to solve environmental problems through IR and failsit uses an inherently
gendered understanding of state interaction to problem solving
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]
ecologists such as William Leiss explicitly link man's domination of nature with certain men's domination
over other human beings. Defending the original goals of the scientific revolution as an attempt to liberate human beings from the
constraints of their natural environment and increase their material well-being, Leiss claims that the rationalism of modern science
became caught in a web of social contradictions. The instruments through which human beings have
transformed the resources of nature into means for the satisfaction of material desires have increasingly
come to be regarded as objects of political conflict both domestically and internationally .61 According to Leiss's class
analysis, the real object of domination has not been nature but human beings: through enhanced technological
capabilities certain people have appropriated nature's resources and thereby dominated others. A more rational
science would understand the world in a way that would produce harmony with the environment. But this can be realized only when the
struggle for domination ends, along with disparities in power among groups and nations. 62 Social ecologist Murray
Bookchin, one of the few ecologists who raises the issue of gender relations, also points to the hierarchical structuring of the
contemporary world embodied in man's domination over man, woman, and nature. Bookchin believes that these
modes of domination are historically constructed and can therefore be transcended. He stresses the emancipatory
Social

potential of ecology, a science that recognizes no hierarchy and is therefore in a position to combat domination at all levels. 63 Bookchin claims that
this Western hierarchical thinking, which valorizes male power, devalues women by associating them with its

devalued image of nature. It is this essentialist connection between women and nature, made both by some ecologists and certain
feminists, that contributes to many other feminists' reluctance to espouse an ecological perspective. 64 The immanent connection between women and
nature, linked to women's biological functions, has been criticized by many feminists as demeaning, deterministically excluding women from the
male domain of culture and transcendence. Yet recent work in feminist cultural anthropology disputes claims that this connection is innate and
suggests instead that it is historically contingent: rooted in Western cultural traditions, it has been imposed on other

cultures as part of the Western project of domination. 65 If, as these anthropologists and social constructionist ecofeminists
believe, Western civilization has reinforced the subjugation of women through its assertion that they are closer to nature than men, then the
nature/culture dualism must be challenged rather than ignored. If, as these authors claim, the woman/nature connection is historically contingent,
then there are possibilities for transcending this hierarchical dualism in ways that offer the promise of liberation for both women and nature. Since
the liberation of nature is also the goal of ecology, ecofeminist Ynestra King suggests that feminism and ecology can usefully form an alliance.
According to King, ecology is not necessarily feminist, but its beliefs are quite compatible with those of these social constructionist ecofeminists since
both make their chief goal the radical undermining of hierarchical dualisms. King argues that, since ecofeminists believe that misogyny

is at the root of the dualism between nature and culture that ecologists deplore, ecology is incomplete
without feminism.66 While ecologists such as Leiss have connected the exploitation of nature to class domination, social constructionist
ecofeminists make more explicit an interlocking pattern of dominance relationships that include sexism and racism as well as classism and that, they
claim, are historically tied to the domination of nature. Joan Griscom believes that only when conceptual connections between all
these forms

of repressions are made can the emancipatory potential of ecology be fully realized. 67 According to
ecofeminist Ynestra King, feminism challenges the male-based values of our culture: when coupled with an
ecological perspective, it insists that all human beings, both women and men, remember and accept their
origins in nature. King claims that ecofeminism is in a position to heal the splits in a world divided against itself and built on a fundamental
lie: the defining of culture in opposition to nature. Only by seeking to overcome such hierarchical dualisms can we move
toward a more harmonious relationship with our natural environment. 68 Since women have been associated with a
devalued nature through these hierarchical dualisms, women have a particular are often the worst victims of environmental degradation. But just as
I have argued against perceiving women as victims in the protector/protected discourse of national security, so women must not be seen solely as
victims of environmental degradation but also as agents who must participate equally in the solution of these problems. Since women have not been
well represented in national and international institutions dealing with the environment, their contribution to working for ecological security has
been largely at the grassroots level. For example, the Chipko movement, which began with women hugging trees as a protest against cutting them
down in the Chamoli district of Uttar Pradesh in 1973, met with some success when Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi issued a fifteen-year ban on
the commercial felling of the forests of Uttar Pradesh. Women are also taking part in projects of reforestation; Kenya's Green Belt Movement, started
in 1977 by the National Council of Women, involves women in the establishment of "Green Belt communities" and small tree nurseries. 69 The kind of
knowledge that women bring to these various environmental movements is gained from experience as producers and providers for daily household
needs. However, the belief that this type of knowledge cannot be "scientific" has kept it from being recognized by development and environmental
"experts" as well as foreign policymakers. As long as metaphors such as "global housekeeping" associate ecological

security with the devalued realm of women, it will not become an issue of priority on the foreign policy
agendas of states or in the mainstream discipline of international relations. While it has paid little direct attention to
environmental issues, the conventional discipline of international relations has relied to a great extent on
modernity's mechanistic view of nature in framing its assumptions about the behavior of states in the
international system. Feminist perspectives on ecology reveal not only the hierarchical relationship between

humans and nature that has grown out of this worldview but also the extent to which this unequal
relationship interacts with other forms of domination and subordination, including gender relations. The
hierarchical dualisms discussed in this chapter, such as culture/nature, civilized/wild, North/South, rich/poor, public/private, and
international/local, have been characteristic of the way in which we describe world politics and the interaction of states with
their natural environment. A feminist perspective would argue that not until the boundaries of inequality and
domination these dualisms represent are transcended can true ecological security be achieved. Only through
the emergence of a system of values that simultaneously respects nature, women, and adversity of cultures-norms that have been missing from the historical practices of international statecraft-- can models that
promise an ecologically secure future be devised.

Energy
Constant usage and consumption of nature depletes nature culminating in extinction.
Nhanenge 07
[Jytte: Master of Arts at the development studies at the University of South Africa Ecofeminism: Towards
Integrating the concerns of women,, poor people and nature into development
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/570/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1].
Nature is by the economic individual perceived as being a heap of dead parts laying idle for his profit making. It
is therefore rational to make nature productive by exploitation . However, due to lack of holistic awareness and
his ever-increasing greed the maximizing individual overlooks the reproductive necessities of nature and the
natural limits this brings to his profit making. Hence economic man's greedy and limitless resource
exploitation results in increased scarcity of natural resources and degradation of the environment. Since people
need food, shelter, clothing, medicine and other necessities provided by nature, increased scarcity means that
less resources are available to sustain the lives of women, Others and nature. Thus, when the political system
and its economic market direct natural resources to profit-maximization of rational man, women and Others
cannot produce food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their families. This gives a vicious circle of
hunger, malnutrition, ill health and poverty that ends in death. Thus, the crises of poverty suffered by women
and Others are mainly caused by economic man's greed for natural resources. Economic man also makes
nature poor. The continuous exploitation and pollution of the environment will eventually lead to nature
becoming as dead as science perceives it to be. That may then be called a self-fulfilling prophecy, however, with
one logical blunder: when nature dies, also humanity will perish.

Oil
Rise in oil production trades off with womens participation and visibility in the public sphere
study proves
Ross in 2006

Michael Ross. PhD UCLA Dept of Political Science. Oil and Patriarchy.
http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/ross.pdf
Petroleum perpetuates patriarchy: oil production tends to reduce the number of women who enter the work force, and
hence reduces the likelihood they will gain political influence. Without large numbers of women participating in the
economic and political life of the country, traditional patriarchal institutions will go unchallenged. This dynamic can help
explain the surprisingly low influence of women in mineral-rich states in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Om
an, Alge ria, Libya), Latin America (Chile), Africa (Botswana, Gabon, Mauritania, Nige ria), and the former
Soviet Union (Azerbaijan, Russia). Skeptics m a y argue that oil production cannot be socially harmful if it m e
rely causes wom e n to stay at hom e and consume m o re leis ure. But while an individual m a y prefer leisure to
work, the failure of women to enter the formal labor market can have profound social costs: a reduced incentive to lower
fertility rates, a reduced incentive to invest in female education, reduced opportunities for women to influence household
decision m a king, reduced opportunities to develop new, non-familial social networks, and reduced opportunities to
organize politically.

Oil production affects gender relations study proves that growth based on oil causes
inequalities, resource depletion, authoritarian rule, and civil war
Ross in 2008

Michael L. Ross. Oil, Islam, and Women. American Political Science Review. 102:1. Feb 2008.
Oil production affects gender relations by reducing the presence of women in the labor force . The failure of women to join
the nonagricultural labor force has profound social consequences: it leads to higher fertility rates, less education for girls, and less
female influence within the family. It also has far-reaching political consequences: when fewer women work outside the home, they
are less likely to exchange information and overcome collective action problems; less likely to mobilize politically, and to lobby for
expanded rights; and less likely to gain representation in government. This leaves oil-producing states with atypically strong
patriarchal cultures and political institutions. 1 This argument challenges a common belief about economic development:
that growth promotes gender equality (e.g., Inglehart and Norris 2003b; Lerner 1958). Development institutions like the World Bank
often echo this theme, and it is widely accepted among development experts (World Bank 2001). This paper instead suggests that
different types of economic growth have different consequences for gender relations : when growth encourages women to join
the formal labor market, it ultimately brings about greater gender equality; when growth is based on oil and mineral extraction, it

discourages women from entering the labor force and tends to exaggerate gender inequalities. It also casts new light on
the resource curse. Oil and mineral production has previously been tied to slow economic growth (Sachs and Warner
1995), authoritarian rule (Ross 2001a), and civil war (Collier and Hoeffler 2004). This paper suggests that oil extraction has
even broader consequences than previously recognized: it not only affects a countrys government and economy but also
its core social structures.

Cuba
Resetting US-Cuban ties will lock Cuba into a new masculine regime where the United States
still acts as the paternal father figure
Dufrechou 10
[Stephen, Editor of Opinion and Analysis at News Junkie Post, US-Cuba Relations Doomed To Future
Exploitation, http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/04/30/us-cuba-relations-doomed-to-future-exploitation/]
Indeed, given Cubas already faltering economythat any (hypothetical) new government on the island will have to inheritsuch a debt
as Brady wishes impose will only further cripple an already handicapped Cuba unfairly. A blank slate, instead, should be extended to a
new and democratic Cuba. But perhaps being fair and diplomatic is not the course Washington wishes to

take with a future Cuba. After all, since the end of WWII, the US-led First World nations have
benefited immensely by keeping the so-called Third World economically and politically
dependant on the developed West. This tactic has been a general rule of thumb, as historian T. E.
Vadney has observed: [T]he West wanted to protect its economic stake in the Third World after
1945. That it intended to do so was abundantly clear from its foreign-aid strategies. These were designed mainly to develop infrastructures such as transportation and
communication links, vocational and technical schools, hospitals and clinics, or hydroelectric and irrigation projects. Such public investments were needed to create an
economic environment in which private enterprise might thrive. Indeed, private

enterprise in the Third World has always

meant foreign enterprises in the form of Western businesses, which parasitically exploit the
labor and resources of the already-vulnerable, post-colonial Third World, leaving the host
country powerless to counter the continued Western dominance . Third World debt has always played a large role in these
scenarios, since the Wests answer to Third World development has always been the transparentlyexploitative push to simply privatize more of the host countrys economy , via structural
adjustment loans from the US-dominated World Bank. And this seems to be what Washington
has in mind by placing a six-billion dollar debt on any future, post-Castro government in Cuba.
If Washington can impose this massive debt on a future Cuban government, the World Bank
can then step in and lay yet another structural adjustment loan onto the Third World, which
willagainbenifit only Western business . Only in this case, the exploited country will be Cuba. Thus
Obamas call for a new beginning with Cuba becomes clear; it is a new beginning to impose
foreign aid into the island. And as Vadney notes, Western aid is always tied: In other words, [aid is] granted on the
condition that it be spent on (or tied to) goods and services purchased in the donor country. Foreign aid thus amounted to an indirect subsidy to Western
businesses and labour. Indeed, if this reading of Washingtons consensus on Cuba is correctand if the US has its waythe Cuban

people will only (and tragically) go from living under a non-democratic communist regime to a nondemocratic neo-colonial republic, just like they had lived under before the events of 1959.

Mexico
US-Mexico relations are inherently gendered the U.S. acts as the paternal father figure over
Mexico. The Chicana feminist is constantly ignored in these discussions and remain invisible in
international politics.
Flores in 2000
Lisa A. Flores. PhD. Univ of Utah Department of Communication. Reclaiming the Other: toward a Chicana
Feminist critical perspective. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 24:5, Sept 2000.
Narratives are a central part of Chicana feminism and Chicana feminists, across disciplines and methods, turn
to narratives as sources of knowledge and insight. Given the importance of narratives, I offer a Chicana
feminist critical perspective that outlines both general principles and critical practices that can guide the
Chicana feminist scholar. Each of these critical practices highlights ways of thinking about, identifying, and
assessing narratives. Recognizing that what I offer is not complete, I maintain that two general principles
inform a Chicana feminist critical perspective. The first principle, decolonization, includes the goal of using
academic and personal writings to challenge the neo-colonial practices which shape the lives of Chicanas/os.
Working in tandem with decolonization is intersectionality, or a practice of recognizing the interconnectedness
of gender, race, class, and heterosexuality. While there are numerous possible ways of advancing these two
principles, I identify three critical practices: voice(s), personal experience, and naming. These three critical
practices are among the many that advance a Chicana feminist critical perspective aimed at decolonization and
intersectionality. Because the two main principles inform and shape each other, I discuss them together
throughout my explanation of voice(s), personal experience, and naming. In doing so, I hope to model the
practices as I review them. The lives of Chicanas are marked by a history of colonization . Beginning with the
Spanish conquest of the Americas, to the forced inclusion in the US after the US Mexican war, people of
Indian and Mexican descent have seen their land, their culture, and their lives controlled by others (Elenes,
1997, Gutirrez, 1995 and Meier & Ribera, 1997). Citizenship within the US did not bring the end of
colonization, as Mexican Americans and Chicanas/os have been denied their language and their histories and
have been segregated through economic deprivation. Existing often as los olvidados or the invisible people,
Chicanas/os and Mexican Americans have been situated at the margins of society (Perea, 1995). Chicana
feminism responds to this history through a principle I label decolonization. One important practice of
decolonization is replacing silence with voice. Because Chicana feminists have had few traditional outlets in
which to be heard, central of focus to a Chicana feminist critical perspective is creating and maintaining voice.
As hooks (1989) notes, Oppressed people resist by identifying themselves as subjects, by defining their reality,
shaping their new identity, naming their history, telling their story (p. 43). Thus, the subjects of Chicana
feminist critical analyses are often the voices of Chicanas. For instance, Rebolledo (1988) argues that the
Chicana feminist critic is a facilitator: reproducing and making known the texts of our authors (p. 132). For
Rebolledo, this function is carried out by including large sections of the work she is analyzing in her writing,
thus creating a dialogue between herself and the writer she is studying. Rebolledo is not alone in her desire to
allow the voice of Chicana authors to speak through her work. Indeed much of Chicana feminism is designed to
assert Chicana identities, in part by recognizing and sharing the voices of Chicanas (Alarcn, 1988, ChabramDernersesian, 1992, Herrera-Sobek, 1988 and Snchez, 1985). These voices and stories are often used as a
means to create a sense of community with other Chicanas and other women of color. Moraga (1981) says to
her sister writers in This Bridge Called My Back, We are a family who first knew each other only in our
dreams, who have come together on these pages to make family a reality (p. 19). The Chicana identities that
are expressed and built in their writings are often formed in part through relationships with other Chicanas.
These writings reflect a deep sense of love for other Chicanas that provides a feeling of stability and community
( Alarcn, 1988, Anzalda, 1981, Anzalda, 1987, Anzalda, 1990a, Littlebear, 1981, Viramontes, 1989 and
Yarbro-Bejarano, 1988). Roses (1984) argues, The legacy of [Chicana and Latina authors] can be said to
constitute a counter cultural voice which offers a testimony that the critical literature must validate. That voice
deserves to be heard by an audience as numerous as that commanded by men (p. 103). For Ochoa (1999), this
goal can be met by turning to the everyday strategies of resistance among Mexican American women.
Including the testimony of a number of Mexican American women living in a small suburb of Los Angeles,
Ochoa centers the voices and lives of Mexican American women as they describe the ways in which they create
life amidst racism and economic struggle. This sharing of voice reveals the commitment of Chicana feminists to
profess their identity through their eyes. It places Chicana feminists, marginalized by dominant and Chicano
societies, at their own center, and thus disrupts the colonial practices which have erased Chicanas (ChabramDernersesian, 1993). When Chicana feminists share voice with each other in their works, they bring more

Chicana feminist perspectives into the public domain, thus enhancing societal awareness of Chicana culture.
Claiming and offering multiple voices, English, Spanish, personal, academic, poetic, provide not only instances
of the diversity among Chicanas, but also of the ability of Chicanas to share their own narratives (Davalos, 1998
and Rebolledo & Rivera, 1993). In telling stories, whether their own or other Chicanas, Chicanas become
speaking subjects. The Indian woman can wail, the Chicana activist can march, the Anglicized woman can
speak theory. As Chicana feminism works to embrace the mestizaje heritage, it calls out for an accounting of all
cultures ( Anzalda, 1987 and Saldvar-Hull, 1991). This fluctuation can be seen in the common Chicana
feminist practice of speaking in multiple tongues. Segura and Pesquera (1999) offer examples of the diversity
that comprises Chicanisma. Introducing us to three women they interviewed, Segura and Pesquera (1999)
highlight the overlap and the differences in these womens lives and beliefs. Arguing for the importance of what
she calls sitios y lenguas (sites and discourses), Prez (1998) calls for cultural specificity and multiplicity as
survival strategies that mark Chicanas as Chicanas while still noting the problematics of essentialism. By
shifting languages, from English to Spanish to Spanglish and dialects of Indian, and tones, from prose to poetry
to academic discourse, the different selves that comprise Chicanas surface and speak. These voices and stories
come forth as acts of political resistance that further the larger process of decolonization (ChabramDernersesian, 1993). The inclusion of multiple voices in the conversation serves to disrupt essentialist ideas of
Chicana. Garcia (1990) notes that the label Chicana feminist incorporates a number of different beliefs. As
Chicana feminism grew out of the constraints of a monolithic cultural identity defined by the Chicano
nationalist movement and an overly Anglo representation of women by the womens movement, the need to
recognize diversity and differences among Chicana feminists has remained (Fregoso & Chabram, 1990). The
Chicana feminist scholar can become one voice among many. Her position and her analysis may ring true for
some Chicana feminists, but each study is one possible study and one possible interpretation. For instance, in
the anthology Chicana Creativity and Criticism, Rebolledo, 1988 and Yarbro-Bejarano, 1988 argue with
Alarcn (1988) over the extent to which Chicana feminism should draw on nonChicana/o theory. Their debate,
and other similar ones, become a part of the growth of Chicana feminism.

Mexico Economy
The AFF discusses the Mexican economy without ever discussing the inherent patriarchy that
results in exploitation and violence on women
Orozco-Mendoza 8
(Elva Fabiola, thesis: Borderlands Theory: Producing Border Epistomologies with Gloria Anzaldua,
Virgina Polytechnic Institute and State University, April 24, p. 29-30. DAP)
One of Anzalduas preoccupations regarding the

spatial borderlands has to do with the economic exploitation

that Mexicans, particularly young and poor female populations, experience on the Mexican
side of the borderlands. More directly, she is bothered by the way in which maquiladoras are allowed to operate in the Mexican side
completely undermining the rights of workers. The maquiladora industry in Mexico was created because of the Border Industrialization Program or
BIP. This program was supposedly designed to alleviate the growing rates of unemployment

and poverty by setting up plants all along the Mexican side of the border (Portillo, Independent Television
Service. et al., 2001). The BIP program was launched a year after the conclusion of the Bracero program in 1964, and it was expected to
curtail the illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States (Martnez, 1978). In reality,
American and other transnational companies were putting neo-liberal practices into action
and moved to the Mexican border in order to take advantage of the Mexican cheap labor
(Marchand, 2004), in which, until recently, young, poor women constituted the majority of the workforce .
However, the boom of the maquiladoras in Mexico is related to the creation of NAFTA, the North
American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, United States, and Canada. Despite the widespread opposition to NAFTA,
the program was implemented in January 1, 1994 increasing the number of maquiladoras operating
not only along the border area but in all Mexico (Marchand, 2004). Although one cannot deny that the production of the
maquiladoras has positively affected the Mexican economy, the negative effects for Mexican society surpass the
positive ones. Maquiladoras at the border are in part responsible for the dehumanization and
devaluation of Mexican labor. Since economic success in corporations is measured by their capacity to generate profits, and
profits are greater when the costs of production are less, the value of the workers labor
needs to be constantly devalued by imposing racism and negative stereotypes among the
population. Young and poor females are particularly affected in this chain since they occupy
the lowest level in the social status (Saldivar-Hull, 1991).

Economic Security
The affs vision of economic security ignores gendered violence and marginalizationit relies
on a false public/private dichotomythe alternative solves best
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]
economic nationalist, and Marxist
approaches to international political economy, respectively, are biased toward masculine representations. Hence
the prescriptions that each of these models offers for maximizing economic welfare and security may work to the advantage of
men more than women. I shall now discuss how we might go about constructing feminist perspectives upon which to build less
gender-biased representations of international political economy, perspectives that would include the various economic security
needs of women. The liberal and economic nationalist perspectives both rely on an instrumental, depersonalized definition of rationality that
I have shown that the individual, the state, and class, which are the basic units of analysis for the liberal,

equates the rationality of individuals and states with a type of behavior that maximizes self-interest. These approaches assume that rational action
can be defined objectively, regardless of time and place. Since most nonliberal feminists assume that the self is in part constructed out of one's place
in a particular society, they would take issue with this definition of rationality: agreeing with Marxists, they would argue that individuals and states
are socially constituted and that what counts as rational action is embodied within a particular society. Since rationality is associated

with profit maximization in capitalist societies, the accepted definition of rationality has been constructed
out of activities related to the public sphere of the market and thus distinguished from the private sphere of
the household. Feminists argue that, since it is men who have primarily occupied this public sphere, rationality as we understand it
is tied to a masculine type of reasoning that is abstract and conceptual. Many women, whose lived experiences have been
more closely bound to the private sphere of care giving and child rearing, would define rationality as contextual and personal rather than as abstract.
In their care-giving roles women are engaged in activities associated with serving others, activities that are rational

from the perspective of reproduction rather than production. A feminist redefinition of rationality might
therefore include an ethic of care and responsibility. Such a definition would be compatible with behavior
more typical of many women's lived experiences and would allow us to assume rational behavior that is
embedded in social activities not necessarily tied to profit maximization. It could be extended beyond the
household to include responsibility for the earth and its resources, a concern that is quite rational
from the perspective of the survival and security of future generations. Liberal, economic
nationalist, and Marxist perspectives have all tended to focus their analysis at the systems level, whether it be
the international system of states or the world capitalist economy. Feminist perspectives on political economy should be
constructed from the bottom up, from the standpoint of those at the periphery of the world economy or the international system. Feminist
perspectives should take the individual as the basic unit of analysis, but an individual defined differently from rational economic man. Since
feminists claim that the liberal assumption of individual autonomy and self-sufficiency is unrealistic, feminist perspectives would

assume a connected, interdependent individual whose behavior includes activities related to reproduction as
well as production. In order to capture these productive and reproductive activities, the artificial boundaries between the
world of instrumentally rational economic man in the public sphere of production and the socially rational
activities that women perform outside the economy as mothers, care givers, and producers of basic needs must be
broken down. Destroying these barriers would help to reduce the differential value attached to
the "rational" or "efficient" world of production and the private world of reproduction . Were
childbearing and child rearing seen as more valued activities, also rational from the perspective of reproduction, it could help to reduce the excessive
focus on the efficiency of an ever-expanding production of commodities, a focus whose utility in a world of shrinking resources, vast inequalities, and
increasing environmental damage is becoming questionable. A perspective that takes this redefined individual as its basic

unit of analysis could help to create an alternative model of political economy that respects
human relationships as well as their relation to nature . 44 This feminist redefinition of rationality allows us to take
as a starting point the assumption that the economic behavior of individuals is embedded in relationships that extend beyond the market. Maria
Mies argues that the production of life should be defined as work rather than as unconscious natural activity. Labor must include life-producing work
and subsistence production rather than being restricted to surplus-producing labor. Instead of accepting the sexual division of

labor as natural, feminist perspectives should place the production of life as the main goal of human activity
and work toward breaking down the artificial division of labor created along gender lines that perpetuates
the devaluation of women's work. 45 To make women's work valued by society, the barriers between public and private must be broken
down. Subsistence labor, volunteer work, household work, and reproduction are among the economic activities performed primarily by women that
are not counted as economically productive. Marilyn Waring claims that women have been rendered invisible in national

accounting data. Since these kinds of women's work are not included in the annual reports of the International Monetary Fund, the World
Bank, or the development agencies, projects are not planned with women in mind. While economists have claimed that nonmonetary labor is too
hard to count, Waring suggests some ways, such as time-use data, which would make this possible. 46 If a substantial portion of women's productive
and reproductive activities are taking place on the peripheries of the world economy in households or in the subsistence sector of Third World
economies, feminist perspectives must be concerned with achieving economic justice in these particular

contexts. While agreeing that women's domestic labor should be recognized as work, feminists caution that economic security for

women in households cannot be guaranteed in the family as it is presently constituted. Although the family has been
designated as the private sphere of women, the concept of male head of household has ensured that male power has traditionally been exercised in
the private as well as the public realm. Susan Okin argues that families are not just to women or children as long as women continue to bear a
disproportionate share of child rearing, have lower expected incomes than men, and are left with primary responsibility for supporting and caring for
children if families break up. Okin claims that only when paid and unpaid work associated with both productive and reproductive labor is shared
equally by men and women can the family be a just institution and one that can provide the basis for a just society. 47 As I have already discussed,
Third World development strategies have tended to ignore the subsistence sector where much of women's labor is being performed, with the result
that modernization has had a differential impact on men and women and has in certain instances actually

reduced the position of women. Due to the virtual absence of women from local and national power structures, development programs
have tended to support projects in areas of production that are dominated by men. To achieve economic justice for rural women in the Third World,
development must target projects that benefit women, particularly those in the subsistence sector. Improvements in agriculture should focus on
consumption as well as production; in many parts of Africa, gathering water and fuel, under conditions of increasing scarcity and environmental
degradation, are taking up larger portions of women's time and energy. Since women are so centrally involved in the satisfaction of basic needs in
households and in the subsistence economy, feminist approaches to international political economy must be supportive

of a basic needs approach where basic needs are defined inclusively, in terms of both material needs and the
need for political participation. I have argued that export-oriented development strategies have tended to contribute to domestic
inequality and, in times of recession and increasing international indebtedness, have had a particularly detrimental impact on women; a strategy that
seeks to satisfy basic needs within the domestic economy may thus be the best type of strategy to improve the welfare of women. Local satisfaction of
basic needs requires more attention to subsistence or domestic food production rather than to growing crops for export markets. A more self-reliant
economy would also be less vulnerable to the decisions of foreign investors, whose employment policies can be particularly exploitative of women. 48
Basic needs strategies are compatible with values of nurturance and caring; such strategies are dependency-reducing and can empower women to
take charge of their own lives and create conditions that increase their own security. As Anne Marie Goetz claims, women have been

completely absent from the process of setting national development priorities . I argued previously that women
must be seen as agents in the provision of their own physical security; creating conditions under which
women become agents in the provision of their own economic security is also imperative. Just as women are seen
as victims in need of protection in the protector/protected relationship, when women become visible in the world economy, they tend to do so as
welfare problems or as individuals marginalized from mainstream development projects. Separating women from men, often as an
undifferentiated category, ignores

the importance of relations between men and women and the detrimental effects
of hierarchical gender relationships on women's economic security. It also ignores the ways in which women's varying
identities and development interests as farmers, factory workers, merchants, and householders bear on gender relations in different contexts. 49 To
overcome the problems of essentialization as well as the perception of victimization, women must be represented at all levels of

economic planning, and their knowledge must be seen as valuable rather than unscientific. At a time when
existing political and economic institutions seem increasingly incapable of solving many global problems,
feminist perspectives, by going beyond an investigation of market relations, state behavior, and capitalism,
could help us to understand how the global economy affects those on the fringes of the market, the state, or
in households as we attempt to build a more secure world where inequalities based on gender and other
forms of discrimination are eliminated. Looking at the world economy from the perspective of those on its
fringes can help us think about constructing a model concerned with the production of life rather than the
production of things and wealth. Maria Mies argues that the different conception of labor upon which such a model depends could help
us adapt our life-style at a time when we are becoming increasingly conscious of the finiteness of the earth and its resources.

50

The economy advantage is grounded in gendered epistemology Maximizes competition and

the supremacy of male-centered values
Nhanenge 7
[Jytte: Master of Arts at the development studies at the University of South Africa Ecofeminism: Towards
Integrating the concerns of women,, poor people and nature into development
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/570/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1].
Economics is firmly founded on dualised
values. It has therefore prioritized hard, masculine characteristics as being mannerly in economic profit making.
It has ensured that all soft, feminine traits are considered as being subordinate and disgraceful for the economic individual.
Hence, superior reason is selected over inferior emotion, competition over cooperation, self-interest over
community-interest, maximization over optimization , and the needs of the individual over the needs of society.
The first mentioned are superior human qualities that belong to the Ups, while the second ones are inferior traits that relate to the Downs. This bias
focus on masculine characteristics has produced societies that consist of rational, competing, self-interested, and
profit maximizing individuals. These individuals are often men, but may also include women, as long as they are willing to identify
with the masculine traits and behaviour. The highest goals of these individuals are profit making for their own benefit . To maximize
this objective the Ups are using the Downs as instruments. Hence, any rational individual with respect for himself would be
exploiting nature's resources together with the free or cheap labour of women and Others. This means that all
Downs are perceived as being instruments for the profit making of the Ups.
In order to support this profit-making system science developed the discipline of economics.

Quid Pro Quo

Quid Pro Quos are patriarchal give-gifting. They are incorporated into the larger structure of
masculine globalization and patriarchal capitalism
Standford in 2011
Richard A. Standford. Economy and Government in the Postmodern Era. 2011. Print.
The Postmodern feminist movement has taken up the cause of the gift economy on the macroeconomic level. In
her book, For-Giving: A Feminist Criticism of Exchange, author Genevieve Vaughan makes a case that women
are naturally giving by virtue of their childbirth and child-rearing roles.[7] Men are conditioned toward quid
pro quo exchange that is the basis for what she asserts to be the patriarchal orientation of both capitalism and
communism. In Vaughn's words, "The agenda of feminism is to liberate everyone--women, children and men-from patriarchy" with the replacement of capitalism by a feminist gift economy on a global scale. Vaughan, in a
paper given in the summer of 2002 at the Women's World Conference at the University of Makerere in
Uganda,[8] questioned the morality of market exchange because "exchange creates adversarial relations since
each of the exchangers is trying to get the most possible out of the transaction ." She further indicts patriarchal
capitalism: "By possessing and dominating large amounts of wealth Capitalists - along with other powerful men
in political and religious institutions, can not only keep the wealth in their own hands and but they can also
keep it away from the needs of the many." This is the basis upon which she advocates a feminist movement to
replace patriarchal capitalism with gift economy: "In order to combat this state of affairs it is important to
unite the women's movement with the movement against Globalization and Patriarchal Capitalism, not to look
at feminist issues as those having to do with the self interest of women - according to the logic of exchange - but
to look at feminist issues as having to do with a logic of gift giving as opposed to the logic of the marke t." An
economic response to Vaughns characterization of exchange as adversarial is that exchange, if it is voluntary,
results in both parties to the exchange gaining from the exchange, even if each party perceives him- or herself
to gain at the expense of the other. A voluntary exchange will not take place unless both parties perceive
themselves to gain from the prospective exchange. In this sense, instead of being adversarial, exchange is a
process of meshing diverse human wants to the benefit of both parties to the exchange. Such market meshing
surely is socially preferable to theft or a military process of invasion and capture, both of which clearly are
adversarial. Vaughn also seems to be unaware that most of the market traders in lower-income countries are
women, and that department stores, grocery stores, and other shops in higher-income countries are both
staffed and frequented more often by women shoppers than by men.

Economic Gift Giving

The hospitality of the affirmatives economic engagement is inherently gendered the gift giver
is always master of the house marginalizing the feminine
Hamington in 2010
Maurice Hamington Toward a Theory of Feminist Hospitality Feminist Formation. Vol 22, Num 1. Pp 21-38. Spring
2010.

Hospitality is a performative act of identity: To give comfort or make welcome the stranger, the host must act;
to resettle displaced people, a host nation must act. In the process of this action, the performance of
hospitality, the host whether it is an individual or a nation-state is instantiating identity. There must be an
I who gives, welcomes, and comforts, and that I is only known through action. As Levinas (1969) describes
it, subjectivity is created through welcoming the Other, as hospitality (27). Acts of hospitality actualize
identity. Connecting the personal and the political, Tracy McNulty (2007) suggests that hospitality has a
twofold implication for identity formation: Acts of hospitality constitute the identity of the host, as well as the
identity of the group, culture, or nation for which the host acts. Nevertheless, McNulty observes that the
actualization of this identity has rendered women invisible: An identity that negates the self. For example, she
finds that in the early religious traditions and archaic practices the host is almost invariably male, and
concludes that in these contexts, feminine hospitality is almost an oxymoron (xxvii). Women are denied
opportunities to hold a valued position of host and are thus denied opportunities to participate in these acts of
self-assertion. Women have been historically associated with hospitality, but as a marginalized self in society.
Obviously, feminist hospitality must consciously resist forms of disempowering caregiving . Judith Butlers
(1988) notion of the performative self is useful here. She describes gender as an identity instituted through a
stylized repetition of acts (519; emphasis in original). This is a performative, constructed, and fluid iden- tity.
The acts of gender formation are not entirely freely chosen; rather, they are done to the body within prescribed
social frameworks: My suggestion is that the body becomes its gender through a series of acts which are
renewed, revised, and consolidated through time (523). Despite social discipline placed on behavior, Butler
(1999) leaves open the possibility of subversive performativity: Rather than repeat acts that maintain gender
identity, one can choose to displace the very gender norms that enable the repetition itself (148).
Significantly, Butler (1999) is primarily concerned with subverting compulsory heterosexual- ity, but her
analysis can be applied to the identity of the master of the house created by hospitality. Subversively, the
feminist host can remain cognizant of not recreating acts that constitute identity through positions of power
over others, but instead attempt to foster the atmosphere for lateral exchanges .2 The implication is that acts
of feminist hospitality can contribute to an alternative identity, one that is less restrictive and more
empowering than is offered through traditional understandings of hospitality . Women who help other women,
not in the spirit of charity or to alleviate class guilt but with a generous disposition and for mutual benefit,
exemplify acts of feminist hospitality.
Economic Gift-Giving fails to change international stability rather the gift economy reifies
masculinity as the standards for cooperation. Standford in 2011
Richard A. Standford. Economy and Government in the Postmodern Era. 2011. Print.
While Vaughn and other postmodern thinkers have advocated replacing market and authoritarian forms of
economic organization with a gift economy at the macro level, it is questionable (and perhaps doubtful) that
such is possible. One reason is that while gift giving might serve as the distributional mechanism in a
macroeconomy, there is no obvious resource allocation mechanism in a gift economy other than that the gift
giver must be the sole user of all resources in producing and generating all value to be distributed by giftgiving. In this sense, the concept of a macro gift economy converges upon that of an authoritarian socialist
economy in which the state owns and allocates all resources as well as distributes all product. Also missing in a
hypothetical macro-level gift economy is a production incentive mechanism. Who other than the gift giver has
any incentive to produce goods, provide services to others, or improve the efficiency of production or
provision? In an authoritarian economy, these activities can be forced only with strong-arm methods of
direction and compliance. As has been demonstrated in the welfare states emerging in Europe and North
America, gift giving in the form of welfare distributions, both to those who cannot find work and those who
choose not to work, results in dependence upon the welfare provider (the gift giver). This welfare dependence
can develop into a culture of dependence that persists from generation to generation as children born into

welfare support perceive the world (or the welfare provider-giver) to owe them sustenance. The emerging
language of "entitlement" reinforces the culture of dependence. Should an entitlement culture become
pervasive in a society, its production incentive structure might become permanently and irreversibly impaired.
Another problem with a gift economy is the absence of price signals that would communicate changes of
demand and supply to producers and demanders of goods and services. In the absence of such marketimplemented price signals, it is up to the gift giver's perception and judgment to allocate resources and
distribute products. The larger and more complex a society, the more heroic would be the requisites of
perception and intelligence to accomplish these necessary functions. Yet another reason that a macro-level gift
economy is unlikely to be workable is that in a hypothetical gift economy the gift-giver exercises sole discretion
over the self-perceived needs and wants of the gift recipients. The preferences of the gift giver would have to
dominate and displace the preferences of the gift recipients. The paternalism (or maternalism) of such an
authoritarian gift giver would be completely incompatible with the Postmodern belief in the subjectivity of
values. Such a distributional mechanism might be workable if the gift giver asks and acquiesces in the
expressed preferences of the prospective gift recipients. Within the household, the parental gift givers may
indulge their offsprings' expressed wants. Within an organization, preferences are expressed as budget requests
that the budget authority may grant, deny, or modify. Alternately, the gift giver must be all-knowing of the
needs (irrespective of the wants) of the prospective gift recipients, or at least must be empowered to exercise
personal (and political) authority to override the personal needs and wants of the prospective gift recipients .
Parents often ignore or override the wants of their children in providing for their needs. Parents who regularly
acquiesce in their childrens pleadings may find that that they have raised spoiled brats who as adults have
every expectation that society will take care of them, whether or not they contribute to society. Budget
authorities, when constrained by limited resources within the organization, may have to deny or diminish
selected budget requests.

IMPACTS

Laundry List
Patriarchy lead to war, prolif, environmental destruction, and eventually extinction

Warren and Cady 94

Warren is the Chair of the Philosophy Department at Macalester College and Cady is Professor of Philosophy at Hamline University (Karen and Duane,
Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections, p. 16, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3810167.pdf)
Operationalized, the evidence of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it gives rise, (c), and the unmanageability, (d),
which results. For example, in the United States, current estimates are that one out of every three or four women will be raped

by someone she knows; globally, rape, sexual harassment, spouse-beating, and sado-masochistic pornography
are examples of behaviors practiced, sanctioned, or tolerated within patriarchy . In the realm of environmentally destructive
behaviors, strip-mining, factory farming, and pollution of the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors
maintained and sanctioned within patriarchy. They, too, rest on the faulty beliefs that it is okay to "rape the
earth," that it is "man's God-given right" to have dominion (that is, domination) over the earth , that nature has only
instrumental value, that environmental destruction is the acceptable price we pay for "progress."And the presumption of warism, that war is a natural,
righteous, and ordinary way to impose dominion on a people or nation, goes hand in hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of
nations and ultimately to international unmanageability. Much of the current" unmanageability" of contemporary life in

patriarchal societies, (d), is then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal preoccupation with activities, events,
and experiences that reflect historically male-gender identified beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions.
Included among these real-life consequences are precisely those concerns with nuclear proliferation, war,
environmental destruction, and violence toward women , which many feminists see as the logical
outgrowth of patriarchal thinking. In fact, it is often only through observing these dysfunctional behaviors-the symptoms of dysfunctionality
that one can truly see that and how patriarchy serves to maintain and perpetuate them. When patriarchy is understood as a dysfunctional system, this
"unmanageability" can be seen for what it is-as a predictable and thus logical consequence of patriarchy.'1 The theme that global environmental crises,
war, and violence generally are predictable and logical consequences of sexism and patriarchal culture is pervasive in ecofeminist literature (see Russell
1989, 2). Ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak, for instance, argues that " militarism and warfare are continual features of a patriarchal

society because they reflect and instill patriarchal values and fulfill needs of such a system . Acknowledging the context
of patriarchal conceptualizations that feed militarism is a first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on Earth" (Spretnak 1989, 54).
Stated in terms of the foregoing model of patriarchy as a dysfunctional social system, the claims by Spretnak and other feminists take on a clearer
meaning: Patriarchal conceptual frameworks legitimate impaired thinking (about women, national and regional

conflict, the environment) which is manifested in behaviors which, if continued, will make life on earth
difficult, if not impossible. It is a stark message, but it is plausible. Its plausibility lies in understanding the conceptual roots of various
woman-nature-peace connections in regional, national, and global contexts.

Violence

ALT addresses inevitable violence - we solve for the gender duality rooted in white rationality
Anzaldua in 87
Gloria Anzaldua, former Professor a San Francisco State University and leading scholar in
Chicano cultural theory and Queer theory. (1987) Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza
DJL Pg 58
Four years ago a red snake crossed my path as I walked through the woods. The direction of its movement, its pace, its
colors, the mood of the trees and the wind and the snake--they all spoke to me, told me things. I look for omens everywhere, everywhere catch
glimpses of the patterns and cycles of my life. Stones speak to Luisah Teish, a Santera; trees whisper their secrets to Chrystos, a Native American. I
remember listening to the voices of the wind as a child and understanding its messages, Los espiritus that ride the back of the south wind. I remember
their exhalation blowing in through the slits in the door during those hot Texas afternoons. A gust of wind raising the linoleum under my feet, buffeting
the house. Everything trembling. Were not supposed to remember such otherworldly events. were supposed to ignore, forget, kill those fleeting images
of the souls presence and of the spirits presence. weve been taught then that the spirit is outside our bodies or above our heads somewhere up in the sky
with god. We're supposed to forget every cell in our bodies, every bone and bird and worm has spirit in it. Like many Indians and Mexicans, I did not
deem my psychic experiences real. I denied their occurrences and let my inner senses atrophy. I allowed White rationality to tell me that the

existence of the other world was mere pagan superstition I accepted their reality, the official" reality of the
rational, reasoning mode which is connected with external reality the upper World, and is considered the most
developed consciousness-the consciousness of duality . The other mode of consciousness facilitates images from
the soul and the unconscious through dreams and the imagination . Its work is labeled fiction, make-believe,
wish-fulfillment. White anthropologists claim that Indians have primitive and therefore deficient minds that
we cannot think in the higher mode of consciousness-rationality. They are fascinated by what they call the magical mind, the
savage mind, the participation mystique of the mind that says the World of the imagination-the world of the soul-and of the spirit is just as real as
physical reality. In trying to become objective, Western culture made objects, of things and

people when it distanced itself from them thereby losing touch with them. This dichotomy is
the root of all violence.

Extinction

Gender Hierarchies are not inevitablefailure to solve guarantees extinction

Clark 4
Mary E., PhD and professor of biological studies @ Berkeley, "RHETORIC, PATRIARCHY & WAR:
EXPLAINING THE DANGERS OF "LEADERSHIP" IN MASS CULTURE",
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4005307/Rhetoric-patriarchy-war-explaining-the.html
I begin by questioning the notion that patriarchy is a "natural" or "inevitable" form of human society. By
"patriarchy" I do not mean a community or society where males hold political positions as spokespersons for the whole and often are adjudicators of
local disputes. This "male function" is common in tribal and indigenous societies. But men's power over others is severely limited and generally held only
at the pleasure of the entire group, especially the elder women. (4) Patriarchies, rather, are those much larger societies where not

only is there gender dominance; they also are highly class-structured, with a small, powerful elite controlling
the rest of society, A short history of these entities is necessary to understand today's dilemma. Rigidly controlled patriarchies have
evolved and disintegrated at many times and in many places in the past few millennia of human existence which, being the era of written history, is the condition of humankind most familiar to us. But, as I have argued elsewhere (5) this
was an unknown political condition throughout earlier human existence, when small, egalitarian, highly
dialogic communities prevailed. Even today, small remnants of such societies still exist in comers of the planet
that escaped the socially destructive impact of Western colonization. Modern Western "democracies" are, in
fact, patriarchal in structure, evolving out of the old, male-dominated aristocracies of late-Medieval Europe. Those historic class/caste
hierarchies were legitimized by embedded religious dogma and inherited royal authority. Together, church and monarch held a monopoly of physical
and economic power, creating politically stable, albeit unjust, societies. During the gradual development of the religious Reformation, coupled with the
Enlightenment's concept of the "individual citizen," emerging egalitarian ideas threatened to destabilize the social coherence of patriarchal regimes. At
the same time, principalities and dukedoms were fusing into kingdoms; kingdoms, in turn, were joining together as giant nation states. The United
Kingdom was formed of England, Wales and Scotland-each a fusion of local earlier dukedoms. City States of Italy fused rather later. Bismarck created the
"Second Reich" out of diverse German-speaking princedoms in the 1870s. And, adding to this growth in the sheer size of patriarchies there was a
doubling of populations every couple of generations. Nation-states emerged as "mass cultures," with literally millions of

persons under the control of a single, powerful government . The centralized physical power possessed by most of these several
industrializing European nations matched or exceeded that of ancient Rome. To achieve coherence of such societies demanded a
new legitimating force to create a broad base of support among giant, diverse populations. The erosion of the belief
that classes were a god-given, "natural" state of affairs was hastened by the introduction of low-cost printing and rapidly growing levels of literacy (both
necessary to underpin the new Industrial Age). These politically equalizing forces unleashed a host of social discontents that had to be controlled. The old
religious threats of damnation or excommunication were fast losing their force, and new legal systems circumscribed the absolute powers of monarchs to
control social behavior. This very cacaphony of voices threatened the stability of the new giant states. The "solution," of

course, was to take control of the public dialogue, to define the legitimate "topics of conversation."

This is the
primary role of political "leadership" in today's mass societies, and that leadership uses two major tools to wield its influence: rhetoric and the mass
media. I suggest, then, that the high potential for internal instability in giant patriarchal states is a primary factor in

setting the stage for today's global insecurity and the extreme militaristic rhetoric that exists both within and
between nations. Before continuing this discussion of patriarchy's dangers, I would note that, although in modern Western patriarchies the
domination of women by men is less evident as women have gained increasing political and economic status, women with such status tend to assume the
"shoulder pads" and "language" of men when it comes to political and economic institutions. Women like Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, Golda
Melt, Israeli Prime Minister; Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Reagan's Ambassador to the United Nations; Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State;
Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Prime Minister; and Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Security Advisor, come readily to mind. (Thatcher cites the
following terms the media applied to her: Iron Lady, Battling Maggie, and Attila the Hen. (6)) The glass ceiling in the corporate world has proved harder
to crack, however, so fewer well-known examples exist there of powerful females. (Katherine Graham, who became publisher of the Washington Post
after the death of her husband, was one of the few powerful women who to her credit, did not adopt the patriarchal mode.) Hence, I regard the

Western nations' politico-economic world view as very much in accordance with that of historical patriarchies, with perhaps one or two
Scandinavian exceptions. 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 .

Colonialism/Whiteness
Masculine politics in Latin America is part of a system of colonialization that privileges white
supremacy.
Anuhauc in 2009
Citlalli Citlamina Anuhauc. Women of Anahuac: Challenging White Supremacy in Chicana Feminism. MexicaMovement. July 2009.
When speaking of issues regarding our equality as Nican Tlaca women and men, it is safe to declare that our equality as
human beings has been denied for the past 500 years . Our culture has been and continues to be systematically belittled
and ignored. Our heritage is constantly questioned as to if it contains any validity as to exist in independence.
Culturally, we are seen as eternal children in state of ineffective rebellion. Our biggest problem is the ongoing
colonization of our people that exists within the white supremacist world view . The colonization of our people is what
indoctrinates our people into a vortex of self-hate and lies. White Supremacy is the script of colonialism that continues to
reign over our political, social, and economic relationships while we live in this colonial state of perpetual occupation and
genocide. What is white supremacy? In a workshop offered to help end white supremacy, it is defined as follows:
White supremacy is an historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents,
nations and peoples of color by white peoples and nations of the European continent; for the purpose of establishing,
maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power and privilege. Colonialism is the system used by white
supremacy to govern and control our peoples social, historical, cultural, and financial well-being. Colonialism
governs the way we interact with each other as a people and with others . It is not a single relationship. It is multifaceted and multi layered. It is the consequence of 500-plus years of planned cultural and educational annihilation
and genocide. Colonialism and genocide set our economic and social standards. They dictate cultural values and the
definitions of our identity. All of this perpetuates white values as the norm. We are participating in a colonial
monstrous machine that has been manufactured for our consent. The problems that we face as a people today are the result
of being under European terrorism and cultural assault, not just white male sexism. The colonial experience has

transformed us from being proud Nican Tlaca people, a people of this continent, where we feel as if we are
trespassers on our own lands. We feel have no rights to our full culture and heritage and that we have no right to
be free from Europeans. We have gone from one of the most educated people in the world to one of the most
ignorant and least educated colonized people. Within this experience of being a colonized people we are offered false
solutions to our colonial condition. We attempt to solve our problems like Europeans because we equate their experience
and oppression with ours, without knowing that their historical place is a colonizing one. They fight for justice as a free
people. Speaking their language, loving their culture, loving themselves, as a free people. Not us. We are ignorant of the
very fact that we are suffering from more than 500 years of a disease called Colonialism. Europeans address problems
as colonizers not colonized. In a realistic and courageous conversation for the total decolonization of the mind and
land of the Nican Tlaca people, we must address all factors and search for all possible ways of making sure that our
liberation is a profound, complete, and permanent reality . We have to be aware of all the colonial reactionary mentalities
that cripple our vision for a complete liberation. On this path towards liberation there will be many distractions that tempt
us to fight for quick and meager results, instead of solid and permanent liberation.

T/ War
War is the product of gendered understandings of life in which the masculine dominates the feminine it can
be removed only when these understandings change
Workman 96 (Thom, Poli Sci @ U of New Brunswick, YCISS Paper no. 31, p. 5, January 1996,
http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31-Workman.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
genetically. 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 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

T/ Relations & Stability

PLANs masculine Economic Engagement turns their relations and stability claims no chance
in an gift-giving economy because the system is still based on unfair power dynamics
Vaughan in 2002
Genevieve Vaughan. The Gift Economy. Paper given at the Womens Worlds Conference at Univ of Makerere
in Uganda. Summer 2002.
Gift giving involves giving directly to satisfy needs, it is other oriented, paying attention to the other and
creating or procuring goods which satisfy the other's specific needs. Gift giving transfers value from the giver to
the receiver by implication, indeed if the receiver were not important to the giver, she would probably not be
satisfying the need. Gift giving creates the bonds of community - in fact the word 'muni' in Latin meant 'gifts'
and is the root word of both 'community' and 'communication'. By nurturing the bodies and minds of the
people in their care women actually create the community whose members would not exist in exactly that way
without that sustenance. (I am not saying that this is all that women do, or that they do it all the time, but that
gift giving is required and elicited by children and is necessary for the development of the human community).
The opposite logic, exchange gives only in order to receive an equivalent of what has been given. It requires
quantification and measurement, and is ego oriented rather than other oriented , since the purpose of the
exchange is the satisfaction of one's own need not the need of the other. Exchange creates adversarial relations
since each of the exchangers is trying to get the most possible out of the transaction. It does not create the
bonds of community but rather separation and independence. Competition to achieve domination of more
wealth and more power over others replaces the bonds of community created by gift giving with the bonds of
domination in hierarchically structured social groups. The two paradigms are actually in conflict and
competition with each other because the gift way threatens the exchange way. In fact if every one were giving to
satisfy needs, there would be no need to exchange. The market society based on exchange therefore creates
scarcity on purpose so as to not allow gift giving to achieve the status of the mode of production and
distribution of the society. The Patriarchal values of Capitalism serve in this creation of scarcity for the many.
By possessing and dominating large amounts of wealth Capitalists - along with other powerful men in political
and religious institutions, can not only keep the wealth in their own hands and but they can also keep it away
from the needs of the many. The poverty of the many is caused by Capitalism and is necessary for the
functioning of the market system, not just one of its unintended by-products. Concentrating wealth in the
hands of the few is not a safe business however, so hierarchical institutions of armies and police are enlisted to
defend it. Enormous amounts of money are spent on armaments. World wide, $18 billion are spent every week
on armaments while that would be enough to feed everyone on earth for a year. This non nurturing expense
creates a drain on the nurturing economy, taking away those billions from what I call the Gross Nurturing
Product - GNP. The impoverishment of the people by this means also distorts their view making them believe
that patriarchy is the only possible reality and the market system is their only possible way to survive. The
nurturing mother often gives more to the male child who is trying to create a masculine identity in opposition
to her gift giving identity. This creates a basic paradox whereby the mother values more and gives more to the
one who is unlike herself. Not only do patriarchal men and their institutions devalue women and the gift
economy. Women do it also, stepping down from the position of the main model for behavior in a culture,
putting men before them, and creating a sort of social veil behind which the gift paradigm is hidden .

T/ Economy
Their hegemonic imposition of an American global system culminates in threat construction,
generating enemies and ensuring endless conflicts
Lipschutz 95
(Ronnie, Professor of Politics at UC Santa Cruz, On Security, 15-16)
Consider, then, the consequences of the intersection of security policy and economics during and after the Cold War. In

order to
establish a secure global system, the United States advocated, and put into place, a global system of
economic liberalism. It then underwrote, with dollars and other aid, the growth of this system.43 One consequence, of this project was
the globalizations of a particular mode of production and accumulation, which relied on the re-creation, throughout the world, of the domestic
political and economic environment and preferences of the United States. That such a project cannot be accomplished under conditions of reallyexisting capitalism is not important: the idea was that economic and political liberalism would reproduce the

American self around the world.44 This would make the world safe and secure for the Untited States inasmuch as it would all be
the self, so to speak. The joker in this particular deck was that efforts to reproduce some version of
American society abroad, in order to make the world more secure for Americans, came to
threaten the cultures and societies of the countries being transformed, making their citizens
less secure. The process thereby transformed them into the very enemies we feared so
greatly. In Iran, for example, the Shahs efforts to create a Westernized society engendered so much domestic resistance that not only did it
bring down his empire but so, for a time, seemed to pose a mortal threat to the American Empire based on Persian Gulf oil. Islamic
fundamentalism, now characterized by some as the enemy that will replace Communism, seems to be U.S. policymakers worst nightmares made
real,45 although without the United States to interfere in the Middle East and elsewhere, the Islamic movements might never have acquired the
domestic power they now have in those countries and regions that seem so essential to American security. The ways in which the

framing of threats is influenced by a changing global economy is seen nowhere more clearly
than in recent debates over competitiveness and economic security. What does it mean to be
competitive? Is a national industrial policy consistent with global economic liberalization? How is the security compenent of this issue socially
constructed? Beverly Crawford (Chapter 6: Hawks, Doves, but no Owls: The New Security Dilemma Under International Economic
Interdependence) shows how strategic economic interdependence a consequence of the growing liberalization of the global economic sytem, the
increasing availability of advanced technologies through commercial markets, and the ever-increasing velocity of the product cycle undermines the
ability.

ALTERNATIVE

Gendered Policy Making

Injecting gender consciousness into policymaking solves failed frames legislative means.
Students of gender relations can change the frames of discussions by challenging dominant
masculine ideologies
Beland 2009
Daniel Beland. Gender, Ideational Analysis, and Social Policy Social Politics: International Studies in Gender,
State and Society. Vol 16 Num 4. Pp 558-581. Winter 2009
To further illustrate the role of frames in politics and policy change, let me discuss three ways in which political
actors can mobilize them. First, frames can take the form of a public discourse used by specic
political actors to convince others that policy change is necessary. This is what political scientist
Robert H. Cox (2001) calls the social construction of the need to reform and what politi- cal philosopher
Nancy Fraser (1989) has called the politics of needs interpretation. From this perspective, discursive
frames can help convince political actors and the general public that existing policy legacies
are awed, and that reforms should be enacted to solve perceived social and economic
problems. Thus, policy learning can feed framing processes in the sense that experts, ofcials,
and interest groups can publicly voice their negative assessments of exist- ing policies to
convince other actors that the time has come to improve or even replace them. But social
learning remains analyti- cally distinct from framing activities in part because learning can occur without the
emergence of a public discourse about the need to reform. An autonomous set of evaluative activities, social
learning generally predates and, in only some cases, informs framing pro- cesses (Be land 2006, 562).
Overall, discursive frames help actors make a case for policy change, and this activity generally
involves a public discussion of the meaning and performance of existing policy legacies .
Second, these frames help political actors convince other groups and individuals to form a
coalition around a concrete proposal or vision for change . As discussed above, ideational processes
partici- pate in the construction of interests and the ranking of policy goals. In this context, particular
political actors can use frames and politi- cal discourse to inuence the way other actors see
their interests and identify with shared policy goals. From this perspective, policy debates are
largely about the construction of interests, policy goals, and identities, without which political
coalitions can hardly survive. Although concrete quid pro quos between key political actors are a major
aspect of coalition building (Bonoli 2000), frames can help sell concrete policy alternatives to the
public and build a stronger coalition around them. On one hand, politicians can speak to their base
and argue that the measures they support are consistent with the broad ideological principles that cement
their existing coalition. On the other hand, ambiguous policy ideas and proposals can make many different
actors believe that they have an interest in supporting a complex policy alternative, which can lead to
seemingly paradoxi- cal coalitions (Palier 2005). Third, political actors can mobilize framing processes to
counter criticism targeting the policy alternatives they support. Thus, one might expand Weavers notion of
blame avoidance strategies (Weaver 1986) to take on a discursive form. For instance, ofcials may blame
economic cycles for higher unemployment rates to con- vince the public that their decisions are not at the
origin of this negative situation. Policymakers can also frame policy alternatives in a way that
diverts attention away from their actual departure from well-accepted political symbols or
policy paradigms. For example, since the 1980s, Swedish politicians have referred to enduringly popular
idea of social democracy to legitimize forms of policy change that are arguably closer to neoliberalism than to
traditional social democratic ideals (Cox 2004). Blame avoidance frames such as these have a preventive
component because political actors use them to shield the policy alternatives they support from criticism (Be
land 2005, 11). Scholars interested in the gender social policy nexus have long analyzed
discursive and framing processes (Tannen 1994), and their potential impact on policy change (Lewis
2002). A good example of this type of scholarship is the research of Hobson and Lindholm (1997) on the
mobilization of Swedish women during the 1930s. In order to understand this mobilization, the authors bridge
the power resource approach and the sociological scholarship on social movements. Their analysis of
womens mobilization emphasizes the role of what they call discursive resources, a concept
that acknowledges that social groups engage in struggles over the mean- ings and the
boundaries of political and social citizenship. This includes the cultural narratives and
metaphors that social actors exploit in their public representations as well as the contesting
ideo- logical stances that they take on dominant themes and issues on the political agenda.
(Hobson and Lindholm 1997, 479) For these two scholars, ideational processes clearly serve as
powerful framing tools in struggles over gender and social policy change. Once again, this

discussion of the gender scholarship points to the relationship between ideational processes
and categorical inequalities, a major issue that is frequently overlooked in the general
ideational literature on policy and politics. By pointing to this key relationship, students of
gender and social policy make a strong and original contribution to this ideational literature .

Individual Spillover
Each act of rejection is critical within a Latina feminist consciousness dismantling the tools
of illusion one act at a time
Ramlow 6
(Todd R., Bodies in the Borderlands: Gloria Anzaluda's and David Wojnarowicz's Mobility
Machines, MELUS, Volume: 31(3), Fall, p. 172-173. DAP)
Both Anzaldua and Wojnarowicz see observation

and witnessing as a key to challenging and transforming

the experience of oppression within the borderlands, and the tyranny of binaries and
dualism. Images, imagery, and vision play a central part in their textual worlds . They bear
witness to the social, psychological, and physical effects of exclusion, binarism, and violence .
Anzaldia and Wojnarowicz are engaged in what Norma Alarcon has called a "re-vision[ing]" that might "topple the
traditional patriarchal mythology" and structures of power (182). Of course, Anzaldua and Wojnarowicz topple
not only patriarchy, but also heteronormativity, compulsory able-bodiedness, and institutional
racism (mutually constitutive discourses and institutions). Both are aware of the double bind of the gaze and the
dangers of looking, the danger that the looking back might be turned into the objectifying gaze of dominant power. Anzaldfa remarks that there
is "[s]eeing and being seen. Subject and object, I and she. The glance can freeze us in place; it can 'possess' us. It can erect
a barrier against the world. But in a glance also lies awareness, knowledge" (Borderlands 42). These "contradictory aspects" of
seeing are settled for Anzaldua in the difference she asserts between viewing and witnessing: " The 'witness' is a participant in
the enactment of the work in a ritual, and not a member of the privileged classes " (Borderlands 68).
The witness is acted upon by power and sees that power acting in similar ways upon others ,
which is the basis for strategic alliance or bridging in/of the borderlands .Similarly, for
Wojnarowicz witnessing and disclosure are the tools that will dismantle binarism and its
ordering of society. Close to the Knives is Wojnarowicz's account of his life and of the effects of AIDS on him, his friends, his
subculture(s), and the nation at large. It also serves as rumination on Self/Other politics and government in an
age of AIDS. On the politics of his art and writing Wojnarowicz remarks, "I'm not so much interested in creating literature as I am in trying to convey
the pressure of what I've witnessed or experienced" (In the Shadow of the American Dream 235). He further states: " Each public

disclosure of a private reality becomes something of a magnet that can attract others with a
similar frame of reference; thus each public disclosure of a fragment of private reality serves
as a dismantling tool against the illusion of ONE-TRIBE NATION; i t lifts the curtains for a
brief peek and reveals the probable existence of literally millions of tribes" (Close 121). Wojnarowicz's
eye/I witnessing describes the limits and violence of binarism, the structure upon which the authority and
consciousness of the dominant is imagined and maintained. What he uncovers is
multiplicity, both individual and collective, and the possibility of connection and alliance .

Latin America Specific

Any discussion of economic engagement with Latin America must account for gender only the
ALT bridges historical, cultural, and socio-economic factors in context to international politics
Acosta-Belen & Bose in 2000
Edna Acosta-Belen and Christine E. Bose. US Latina and Latin American Feminisms: Hemisphere
Encounters. Signs 25:4. Summer 2000.
The growing globalization of the world capitalist economy, which will continue its expansionist trend into the
new millennium, represents a decisive turning point in any reappraisal of the evolution of women's movements
and conditions in the developed and developing countries of the Americas. This essay tries to capture some of
the major theoretical developments and realities shaping the experiences of U.S. Latinas and Latin American
women in the era of globalization.Any analysis of this nature must begin with the recognition of the
fundamental differences in the historical, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that have shaped U.S. Latinas'
and Latin American women's experiences. Moreover, it also requires consideration of the interplay between the
structural conditions that Latinas face in U.S. society and the transnational interconnections that different
Latino/a groups maintain with their respective Latin American and Caribbean countries of origin .
Contemporary transnational interconnections and bidirectional contacts between the United States and the
countries of the Americas are increasingly creating overlap among U.S. Latino-focused ethnic studies,
women's/feminist studies, and Latin American and Caribbean area studies. While area studies programs in the
United States primarily emerged from cold war foreign policy concerns, programs that focus either on the
collective U.S. Latino/a experience or on individual nationalities, such as Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or
Dominican studies, are rooted in a long history of socio- economic and civil rights struggles. Indeed, the
liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s influenced the advent of both ethnic and women's studies
academic programs. The original impetus of Latino/a and women's studies was to critique prevailing
paradigms and produce new knowledge about traditionally marginalized groups. Although the field of women's
studies challenged patriarchal structures and the androcentric constructs, behaviors, and exclusionary
canonical practices of the Western tradition, it was initially dominated by the experiences of white middle-class
women. At the same time, ethnic studies was focusing on issues of racial and ethnic oppression and cultural
nationalism, without paying enough attention to the sexism, heterosexism, and racism found within these
groups. Out of the subordination of Latinas and their initial exclusion from both a male- dominated ethnic
studies movement and a white-dominated women's movement, Chicanas, puertorriquenas, and women from
other disenfranchised U.S. ethno-racial minorities began to forge and articulate a feminist consciousness and a
collective sense of struggle based on their experiences as members of diverse individual nationalities, as well as
on their collective panethnic and cross-border identities as Latinas and women of color . These perspectives
were fostered in the pioneering anthologies All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, but Some of Us
Are Brave (Hull, Scott, and Smith 1982) and This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color
(Moraga and Anzalduia 1981), which made it clear that the process of constructing new, more inclusive
emancipatory knowledge required full consideration of other sources of marginality and oppression. They also
underscored the power differentials between women and men, and within and among groups, and denounced
the culture of intolerance and the exclusionary or marginalizing practices of mainstream U.S. society and
Western intellectual traditions. Furthermore, these writings established the need for women of color to engage
in the processes of defining them- selves, asserting their agency, and building their own intellectual traditions.

Solves Security
Only the ALT solves security gender perspectives on security tell us more than traditional
policy making
Moylan in 2013
Tom Moylan. Gender, Security, and Making it as a Category of Analysis in International Politics. eInternational Relations. March 12 2003.
We have now seen that through looking at the world from a gendered perspective, we can gain insights into the
outcomes of international politics, such as the true effects of sanctions. We can also dispell misconceptions
about our world, such as the myth of protection and civilian immunity from war. The depths of language can
be delved into, and hidden meanings and implications retrieved. One of the major problems that mainstream
IR theory has with using a gendered approach to international politics is the apparent lack of a convincing
scientific methodology, but what is so unique about the gendered approach is that it uncovers hidden secrets
through sources such as personal experience that can tell us more about a conflict or a national sentiment than
regular statistics and game theory could uncover. This methodological conflict that feminism has with IR is one
of the reasons it has a hard time being taken seriously in IR scholarship, but it is also this methodological
conflict that makes a gendered approach to IR so insightful.

Solves Structural Violence

Feminist analysis is key to understanding and including previously ignored instances of
everyday violence into international relations theory.
Shepherd 2008
[Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham,
Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies,
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122302252/HTMLSTART

feminist security studies scholarship

also asks which violences are considered worthy of study and when these violences occur. Expanding the
concept of violence that underpins feminist analysis, as outlined above, allows us to take seriously what Arthur
Kleinman (2000) refers to as 'the violences of everyday life'. Beyond a narrow focus on war and state-based violence
lies a plethora of everyday violences that feminist security studies seeks to address. In the field of security
studies the broadening and deepening of the concept of security, such that it is no longer assumed to apply only
to the sovereign state, has demonstrated the multiple insecurities experienced by individuals and social
collectives (Booth, 2005, pp. 145). The development of the concept of 'human security' largely took place within the parameters of
In addition to questioning what violence is, how it is represented and with what effects,

a wider disciplinary debate over the appropriate referent object for security studies (the individual, society, the state) and the types of
threat to the referent object that would be recognised. In a move similar to Ken Booth's (1991) reformulation of security as
emancipation, Roberts' quest for individual empowerment seeks to overcome the 'lite-legitimized disequilibrium' that results in the
manifest insecurity of the majority of the world's population (Roberts, 2008, p. 185). As might be expected, the violences Roberts
identifies are innumerable. In addition to the physical violences of 'infanticide, maternal mortality, intimate
("domestic", "honour" and "dowry") killings and lethal female genital mutilation; and avoidable deaths in children
under five' (Roberts, 2008, p. 31), his analysis attacks the institutional structures of the dominant international
financial institutions (pp. 11735) and the andrarchal and neoliberal discourses that sustain them (pp. 13658). In
short, Roberts' [the] answer to the question of which violences matter in global politics is quite simple: all of them.
However, while studies of human security, he argues, seek to provide the human with security , his reformulated

analytic takes as its starting point human insecurity; that is, he starts with the threat(s) to the sovereign subject
rather than the subject's ontological condition. Roberts suggests that this circumvents the disciplinary definitional problem
with human security identified by Roland Paris (2001), Edward Newman (2001; 2004) and others but I cannot see how this is the
case, given that the answer to the question 'what is it that humans do to make the world a more dangerous and dysfunctional place?'
(Roberts, 2008, p. 28) is also quite simple: we live in it. Thus Roberts' analytic seems to suffer the same lack of definitional clarity
and therefore policy relevance that he ascribes to more conventional approaches; it is no easier to identify, quantify and ultimately
reduce the threats experienced by coexisting human subjects than it is to provide those human subjects with security, if security can
first be defined as freedom from fear or want. I do not espouse some construction of human nature (if such a thing were to exist) that
assumes essential selfishness and a propensity for violence, nor do I assume that security is a zero-sum game, in that one person's
security must always be at the expense of another's, but I recognise that even the most well-intentioned security policy can
have unforeseen and sometimes disastrous effects. Sometimes , moreover, as Sjoberg and Gentry demonstrate, the

decision to perform acts of political violence that are a source of insecurity for the intended victims can be
understood if not condoned.

Solves Decolonization
ALT decolonizes masculinity from our politics decolonization challenge the white colonial
heteronormative gaze
Prez 3
(Emma, Assoc. Prof. of history at the University of Texas, El Paso, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies
24.2&3 - 122-131)
The
borderlands have been [End Page 122] imprinted by bodies that traverse the region, just as bodies
have been transformed by the laws and customs in the regions we call borderlands. In the History
of Sexuality, Michel Foucault challenges us to look closely at bodies and how they are engraved and
transformed through laws, customs, and moralities imposed upon them through centuries . 2
I began with this passage in order to inscribe a gaze on the borderlands that is geographic and spatial, mobile and impermanent.

He is not as direct about coloniality, but we can still borrow from a critique that exemplifies how land is imprinted and policed by those traversing
and claiming it as they would claim a bodyboth becoming property for the colonizers . Native Americans became as much the property of the
Spanish as did the land that came to be known as the Spanish borderlands. To

unravel colonialist ideology, I put forth my

notion of decolonizing history embedded in a theoretical construct that I name the
decolonial imaginary. This new category can help us rethink history in a way that makes
agency for those on the margins transformative. Colonial, for my purposes here, can be defined
simply as the rulers versus the ruled, without forgetting that those colonized may also
become like the rulers and assimilate into a colonial mind-set. This colonial mind-set
believes in a normative language, race, culture, gender, class, and sexuality. The colonial
imaginary is a way of thinking about national histories and identities that must be disputed if
contradictions are ever to be understood, much less resolved. When conceptualized in
certain ways, the naming of things already leaves something out, leaves something unsaid, leaves silences and
gaps that must be uncovered. The history of the United States has been circumscribed by an imagination steeped in unchallenged
notions. This means that even the most radical of histories are influenced by the very colonial
imaginary against which they rebel. 3 I argue that the colonial imaginary still determines many of
our efforts to revise the past, to reinscribe the nation with fresh stories in which so many
new voices unite to carve new disidentities, to quote Deena Gonzlez and Jos Esteban Munoz. 4 If we are dividing the
stories from our past into categories such as colonial relations, postcolonial relations, and so on, then I propose a decolonial
imaginary as a rupturing space, the alternative to that which is written in history. 5 How do we
contest the past to revise it in a manner that tells more of our stories? In other words, how do we decolonize our history? To decolonize
our history and our historical imaginations, we must uncover the voices from the past that
honor multiple experiences, instead of falling prey to that which is easyallowing the white
colonial heteronormative gaze to reconstruct and interpret our past. In my own work, I have attempted to
address colonial relations, of land and bodies, particularly of women, particularly of Chicanas in the Southwest. I argue that a colonial imaginary
hovers above us always as we interpret our past and present. I argue that we must move into the decolonial imaginary to

decolonize [End Page 123] all relations of power, whether gendered or sexual or racial or classed.

THE BLOCK

A2 Framework
We Meet: Gendered Policy Making is a competitive policy option. It offers an alternative way
for policy makers to determine which policies should be advocated.
Sandoval in 2000

(Chela,AssistantProfessorofCriticalandCulturalTheoryfortheDepartmentofChicanoStudiesatUniversityofCalifornia,Santa
Barbara, ...p.18.)

it is the violence of colonial invasion and subjugation by race that opens this border
between skin and mask, where faces shatter into the wretchedness of insanity, capitulation, or
death. But this location, which is neither inside nor outside, neither good nor evil, is an
interstitial site out of which new, undecidable forms of being and original theories and
practices for emancipation, are produced. For example, the concept of split consciousness
articulated by third world thinkers including W. E. B. Du Bois, James Weldon Johnson, Fanon, Audre Lorde, Gloria Anzalda, Paula
Gunn Allen, and Trinh T. Minh-ha arises out of this location. These theorists see what they do as they do it
from the dominant viewpoint as well as from their own, shuttling between realities, their
identities reformatting out of another, third site. In this formulation, both the limits of insanity and the possibilities of
emancipation are born out of the same horrors of subjugation. In both cases, movement differential movementis recognized
as fundamental to advancing survival (or, as Bob Marley puts it, exodus,the way out, liberationis movement of the people).
It is on such movement that the technologies that comprise the methodology of the oppressed
depend: Fanons 1951 imposition of the image black skin/white masks on a white colonizing culture provided one means by which to interfere with
and move the colonial relations between the races; his aim was to de- construct the kinds of citizen-subjects that
colonialism produced. Indeed, the title Black Skin, White Masks suggests a meta-ideological operation: a political activity
that builds on old categories of meaning in order to transform those same racialized divisions
by suggesting something else, something beyond them . Fanons metaphor also enacts and is driven by a moral code that
True,

demands equality where none exists (black white, skins masks). And all these operations of meaningwhich are identified in this chapter as the
technologies of (1) deconstruction, (2) meta-ideologizing, and (3) democraticsthese combined efforts to press upon consciousness, are accomplished by
depending on the profound capacities of consciousness to enact another technology of the method, (4) differential movement through perceptual
domains...which is required in order to both understand and to enact these meanings.

Counter -Interpretation: The AFF must defend the political implications of the plan as well as
the epistemological and methodological groundings of the 1AC. The affirmative team must
defend the entirety of the 1AC, not just select parts. Negatives job is only to prove that the
affirmative is undesirable.
Their Framework values the current masculine system over alternative feminine approaches.
Their use of security co-opts knowledge for self-serving means and justifies violence
Tickner in 2001
Tickner, Professor of International Relations, 01 (Ann, Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in
the Post-Cold War Era, pg 33,
Like critical theory, postmodernism claims that knowledge is produced in certain people's interests.
Postmodernism believes that the positivist separation between knowledge and values, knowledge
and reality, and knowledge and power must be questioned. 98 In international relations, this
requires an investigation of the way some issues are framed as serious or real, such as
national security, while others are seen as unimportant or subjects for another disciplinean issue
of great importance for IR feminists, as discussed above. Postmodernists, like critical theorists and
feminists, aver that knowledge is shaped by and constructed in the service of existing power
relations. Thus they are skeptical of positivist claims about the neutrality of facts and objectivity.Many
feminists would agree. In her critique of the natural sciences, Evelyn Fox Keller asserts that modern
Enlightenment science has incorporated a belief system that equates objectivity with
masculinity and a set of cultural values that simultaneously elevates what is defined as scientific and what
is defined as masculine. 99 Throughout most of the history of the modern West, men have been seen as
the knowers; what has counted as legitimate knowledge, in both the natural and social
sciences, has generally been knowledge based on the lives of men in the public sphere. The
separation of the public and private spheres, reinforced by the scientific revolution of the

seventeenth century, has resulted in the legitimization of what are perceived as the rational
activities in the former, while devaluing the natural activities of the latter.

A2 Perm
Perm is impossible ALT is to vote negative in rejection of the AFF.
A. Security - The perm risk co-option by masculine power politics through security discourse.
Their high politics become a slick public relations tool to justify U.S. interaction with Latin
America.
B. Foot Noting DA - Perm footnotes gender as a facet of policy making rather than a
fundamental shift in our consciousness to account for patriarchy. Beland evidence says
rejection of current strategies must happen in order to make way for Gendered policy making.
And, AFF does not get perms because this debate is about methodology questioning the
frames of policy making are a prior question.
Peterson in 99
Peterson Professor in the School of Government and Public Policy University of Arizona & Runyan Professor
and former Head, Department of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University of Cincinnati 1999 V.
Spike & Anne Sisson Global Gender Issues Page 1-2
Whenever we study a topic, we do so through a lens that necessarily focuses our attention in
particular ways. By filtering or "ordering" what we look at, each lens enables us to see some things in greater
detail or more accurately or in better relation to certain other things. But this is unavoidably at the
expense of seeing other things that are rendered out of focus-filtered out--by each particular
lens.According to Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, various theoretical perspectives, or "images," of
international politics contain certain assumptions and lead us "to ask certain questions, seek
certain types of answers, and use certain methodological tools. " 1 For example, different images
act as lenses and shape our assumptions about who the significant actors are (individuals? states?
multinational corporations?), what their attributes are (rationality? self-interest? power?), how social
processes are categorized (politics? cooperation? dependence?), and what outcomes are desirable
(peace? national security? global equity?).The images or lenses we use have important consequences
because they structure what we look for and are able to "see." In Patrick Morgan's words, "Our
conception of [IR acts as a] map for directing our attention and distributing our efforts, and
using the wrong map can lead us into a swamp instead of taking us to higher ground." 2What
we look for depends a great deal on how we make sense of, or "order," our experience. We learn
our ordering systems in a variety of contexts. From infancy on, we are taught to make distinctions enabling us
to perform appropriately within a particular culture. As college students, we are taught the distinctions
appropriate to particular disciplines (psychology, anthropology, political science) and particular schools of
thought within them (realism, behavioralism, liberalism, structuralism). No matter in which context we
learned them, the categories and ordering frameworks shape the lenses through which we look at,
think about, and make sense of the world around us. At the same time, the lenses we adopt shape
our experience of the world itself because they shape what we do and how and why we do it . For
example, a political science lens focuses our attention on particular categories and events (the
meaning of power, democracy, or elections) in ways that variously influence our behavior (questioning
authority, protesting abuse of power, or participating in electoral campaigns).By filtering our ways of
thinking about and ordering experience, the categories and images we rely on shape how we
behave and thus the world we live in: They have concrete consequences. We observe this readily in
the case of self-fulfilling prophecies : If we expect hostility, our own behavior (acting superior,
displaying power) may elicit responses (defensive posturing, aggression) that we then interpret as
"confirming" our expectations. It is in this sense that we refer to lenses and "realities" as interactive,
interdependent, or mutually constituted. Lenses shape who we are, what we think, and what actions
we take, thus shaping the world we live in. At the same time, the world we live in ("reality") shapes
which lenses are available to us, what we see through them, and the likelihood of our using them in particular
contexts.

A2 Case Outweighs
Extend Shepard Masculine international politics deploy securitized politics to manipulate
other countries. Feminizing the other is the root of all violence and results in inevitable
exaction. Now chance for PLAN to stop violence - The AFFs gendered security comes into being
by their language their traditional approach to IR fails to control violence
Moylan in 2013
Tom Moylan. Gender, Security, and Making it as a Category of Analysis in International Politics. eInternational Relations. March 12 2003.
According to feminist literature, the world is made up of dichotomies, and these dichotomies are gendered.
Those associated with the masculine are positive characteristics in international politics , such as rational,
strong, dominant, militarized, and public. The feminine characteristics have negative connotations. These are
emotional, weak, subordinate, peaceful, and private. The masculine characteristics considered good lead to a
natural disposition towards war and conflict. Caprioli illustrates this in her study that showed that as gender
equality rises, the likelyhood of internal conflict falls. Gender equality might have a dual impact in hindering
the ability of groups to mobilize the masses in support of insurrection through the use of gendered language
and stereotypes and in reducing societal tolerance for violence (Caprioli 2005, p. 162). In other words, if one
considers devalued feminine principles such as peace, empathy, sensitivity to be necessary to building a better
world, then the first step towards this is gender equality. This is not necessarily saying that women are
naturally predisposed toward peace, but rather language that is considered feminine is, and how negatively a
society feels about the feminine determines how they value these traits. An example in security of how
changing these dichotomies could lead to a more peaceful world is that of the domination/subordination
concept of power that we have. Feminist theorists have called for a reconceptualization of power from what
has been labelled the traditional sense of power over or power as dominance (Salla 2001, p.71-72). This
traditional sense of power is what leads to situations such as the security dilemma . Several alternative
definitions of power have been proposed. Kolb and Coolidge distinguish between power over and power with,
which encourages understanding and joint action. Brock-Utne refers to power as power to enjoy or perform.
Weber defines power as the capacity to get something done (Salla 2001, p.72). None of these conceptions of
power depart significantly from the traditionally accepted constructs within which power is defined in IR, and
Salla suggests considering Foucaults idea that power is embedded in societal processes. This idea illustrates
power as more structural in its roots, as opposed to traditional concepts that consider human agency and will
as the roots of power (Salla 2001, p.72-74). It is difficult to concieve how a reconceptualization of language
would effect international politics, and this is one of the major criticisms of this line of argument in using
gender analysis on language. Mainstream IR scholars in general reject this as pointless, without scientific basis,
and of little interest to the analysis of international politics. However, it must be considered that language is
the medium through which we make sense of our world, and its analysis is integral to our understanding of it.

A2 Epistemology Fails
Gendered Policy Making considers the bodies affected by conflict and violence. This
epistemology is a method that takes into account identity, social location and positionality
when making legislative reform. Epistemology comes first It is critical in understanding the
world prior to policy making
Jensen 2004
(Casper Bruun, Postdoctoral Fellow at the School of Communication and ACTION for Health Research Project,
Simon Fraser University, A Nonhumanist Disposition: On Performativity, Practical Ontology, and
Intervention, Configurations, Volume 12, Issue 2, Project Muse)
Epistemology is generally seen to concern itself with investigating the foundations of certain
knowledge. This inquiry has been almost universally premised on the idea of a split between the ideal and the concrete, and has prioritized the
abstract capabilities of the mind over the inadequacies of the body. Scientific ideas are generated in the interaction
with obdurate materials with unknown qualities, and a prominent concern of epistemology
has been with purifying science from the many biases that could potentially invalidate its knowledge in this
interaction. Epistemology thereby tries to establish an ideal relationship between the level of scientific ideas and the level of their practical validation
and application, and in this project it has consistently prioritized theory over practice.13 In contemporary epistemology this

purification has been typically managed by invocation of the scientific method , which, if properly
applied, has been seen as the guarantee of knowledge-claims . In recent years claims pertaining to the absoluteness or
universality of such knowledge have been toned down somewhat, and often the emphasis is now on securing the least-fallible knowledge but,
then, the claim to be able to (unequivocally) determine what is least fallible in itself continues
to rely on the idea of an external standard.14 [End Page 235] The classical epistemological ambition
is regularly presented as a defense against the contamination of knowledge-claims , for instance by
the partisanship or local provincialism of their producers. The analytic philosopher Paul Boghossian, in a recent polemic against constructivism in
general and Barbara Herrnstein Smith in particular (one, that, incidentally, vividly illustrates Smith's analysis of the microdynamics of
incommensurability), offers the following description: What matters to epistemology are three things: first, the claim that only some considerations
can genuinely justify a belief, namely, those that bear on its truth; second, a substantive conception of the sorts of considerations that quality for this
normative statusobservational evidence and logic, for example, but not a person's political commitments; and finally, the claim that we do
sometimes believe something because there are considerations that justify it and not as a result of some other cause, such as because it would serve
our interests to do so.15 Another recent example is afforded by John Searle's Construction of Social Reality, which has less interest in defending
epistemology per se,16 yet leaves no doubt about the undiminished importance of such classical notions as evidence, objectivity, reality, and truth:
Having knowledge consists in having true representations for which we can give certain sorts of justification or evidence. Knowledge is thus by
definition objective in the epistemic sense, because the criteria for knowledge are not arbitrary, and they are impersonal.17 Undoubtedly

the understanding of what exactly counts as proper evidence, objectivity, and truth varies
between analytic philosophers, including Boghossian and Searle, as do, therefore, interpretations of what
the scientific method would consist in, and what it would mean for it to be properly applied .18
Certainly, analytic philosophers would also contend that these divergences are substantial. However, what remains in the background of these
debates is the assumption that (unreconstructed) notions of evidence, objectivity, [End Page 236] reality, and truth cannot be done withoutnot, at
least, without inviting epistemological and quite possibly moral catastrophe. The challenge posed to classical

epistemologists by STS-research has therefore been much more severe than internal
epistemological quarrels.19 For in insisting on the participation of practical and material effects
in the production of knowledge, these studies have problematized virtually all the key
distinctions and relations in epistemologynotably, between knowledge and power and between (scientific)
ideas and their (technical) concretizations . By doing so they have ineluctably challenged the central
epistemological ambition to guarantee the possibility of formulating true (in the sense of
reliably decontextualized) statements about the world . This challenge of constructivism is of wide-ranging
ramifications for the conceptualization of science, technology, society, and their interrelationships.

A2 Cede the political

ALT doesnt cede the political it seizes the political. Gendered Policy Making is critical to the
evaluation and development of the polis making hegemonic masculinity visible solves
violence
Walby in 2005
Sylvia Walby. Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice Social Politics:
International Studies in Gender, State and Society. Vol 12, Num 3. Pp 321-343. Fall 2005.
The most frequently cited definition of gender mainstreaming in the European literature is that devised by
Mieke Verloo as chair of the Council of Europe Group of Experts on Gender Mainstreaming: Gender
mainstreaming is the (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a
gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels at all stages, by the actors normally
involved in policy making (Council of Europe 1998: 15). In contrast to Rees (1998), the Council of Europe
definition of gender equality implies that differences between women and men are not an essential obstacle to
equality: Gender equality means an equal visibility, empowerment and participation of both sexes in all
spheres of public and private life. . . . Gender equality is not synonymous with sameness, with establishing
men, their life style and conditions as the norm. . . . Gender equality means accepting and valuing equally the
differ- ences between women and men and the diverse roles they play in society/ (Council of Europe, 1998: 7
8) The Council of Europe (1998) specifies the need for the equal participation of women and men in political
and public life and the need for the individuals economic independence, and that education is a key target
for gender equality. This defines equal participation in political and public life, education, and the
achievement of economic independence as universal goals, whereas other spheres (notably the family and
care-work) remain sites of difference. An underlying question here is that of the assumed degree of connection
among the gender practices in different domains. The Council of Europe (1998) text suggests that it is possible
for there to be a model of gender equality based on sameness in some domains, at the same time as the equal
valuation of different activities in other domains. However, if domains are coupled tightly, it may not be
possible to have equality through sameness in one domain and equality with difference in another. It is only if
the links are looser that this may be theoretically and practically possible. This debate depends on an implied
theory of gender relations that needs to be made explicit to understand the nature and degree of the postulated
connections between different gendered domains and the implications of changes in one of them for the
others (Walby 1997, 2004, forthcoming). Mieke Verloo, who chaired the Council of Europe expert group that
produced the early and influential guidelines, reflects on the development of the concept and practice of gender
mainstreaming in her article in this volume in the light of current theoretical and policy developments.

A2 Gender not Root

Gender is a social construction that shapes international relations. Your evidence does not
assume the AFFs use of security discourse to justify policy action. Partiarchy does not have to
be root cause it just controls the direction of all terminal impacts.
Nhanenge 2007
(Jytte, Masters @ U South Africa, Accepted Thesis Paper for Development Studies, ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING
THE
CONCERNS
OF
WOMEN,
POOR
PEOPLE
AND
NATURE
INTO
DEVELOPMENT,
uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/570/1/dissertation.pdf)

The androcentric premises also have political consequences. They protect the ideological basis of exploitative
relationships. Militarism, colonialism, racism, sexism, capitalism and other pathological 'isms' of modernity get
legitimacy from the assumption that power relations and hierarchy are inevitably a part of human society, due to
man's inherent nature. Because when mankind by nature is autonomous, competitive and violent (i.e. masculine) then coercion
and hierarchical structures are necessary to manage conflicts and maintain social order. In this way, the cooperative relationships such
as those found among some women and tribal cultures, are by a dualised definition unrealistic and utopian. (Birkeland 1995: 59). This
means that power relations are generated by universal scientific truths about human nature, rather than by political and social debate.
The consequence is that people cannot challenge the basis of the power structure because they believe it is the scientific truth, so it
cannot be otherwise. In this way, militarism is justified as being unavoidable, regardless of its patent irrationality.
Likewise, if the scientific "truth" were that humans would always compete for a greater share of resources, then the rational response
to the environmental crisis would seem to be "dog-eat-dog" survivalism. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which
nature and community simply cannot survive. (Birkeland 1995: 59). This type of social and political power structure is kept
in place by social policies. It is based on the assumption that if the scientific method is applied to public policy then social planning
can be done free from normative values. However, according to Habermas (Reitzes 1993: 40) the scientific method only conceal preexisting, unreflected social interests and pre-scientific decisions. Consequently, also social scientists apply the scientific characteristics
of objectivity, value-freedom, rationality and quantifiability to social life. In this way, they assume they can unveil universal laws
about social relations, which will lead to true knowledge. Based on this, correct social policies can be formulated. Thus, social
processes are excluded, while scientific objective facts are included. Society is assumed a static entity, where no changes are possible.

By promoting a permanent character, social science legitimizes the existing social order, while obscuring the
relations of domination and subordination, which is keeping the existing power relations inaccessible to
analysis. The frozen order also makes it impossible to develop alternative explanations about social reality. It prevents a historical
and political understanding of reality and denies the possibility for social transformation by human agency. The prevailing condition is
seen as an unavoidable fact. This implies that human beings are passive and that domination is a natural force, for which no one is
responsible. This permits the state freely to implement laws and policies, which are controlling and coercive. These are seen as being
correct, because they are based on scientific facts made by scientific experts. One result is that the state, without consulting the
public, engages in a pathological pursuit of economic growth. 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 power. The ultimate result of unchecked patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe and nuclear
holocaust.

A2 Realism
Realism is built on hegemonic masculinity the use of security to justify politics causes IR to
fail and result in inevitably instability
Steans in 2006
( jill steans, university of Birmingham, Gender and international relations, pp 35)

Realists have not reflected on how this (inherited) conceptual baggage, specifically how the conceptions of
power, autonomy, sovereignty and world order, are gendered. Most have been content to take the
masculinized nature of world politics as yet another natural and immutable 'fact' . In contrast,
feminists have called for reflexivity on just such matters, pointing out that the use of gendered imagery in
realist texts is highly significant. Thus, feminists have focused not on the 'objective facts' of
an anarchic, dangerous world, but rather on how dominant discourses in IR have worked
systematically to create a conception of international politics as a realm characterized by
ever-present 'threats' and 'dangers' and, in this way, present the world as disorderly and
hostile." In realist texts, the political community (nation-state) has been constructed as a
community of men whose power and autonomy is predicated upon the ability to control
and/or dominate those 'outside'. The realist conception of the autonomous state has been
juxtapositioned against images of anarchy or a disorderly international 'state of nature'. The
use of such imagery has to be seen in terms of a deep ly rooted fear of the 'feminine'. Thus,
Ann Runyan has argued that:Whether the state has been viewed as continuous with nature,
or juxtaposed to nature, its metaphysics has read order, unity, and a n intolerance of
difference, into both nature and the body politic. This has lead to a suppression and
exploitation of all those things defined as 'natural' (including women) and that do not fit into
the designs of the white, Western man and his state.While Machiavelli did not explicitly personify nature,

the masculine world of human agency in history and autonomy was juxtapositioned against the world of women and relations
of dominance and dependence. The 'feminine' in Machiavelli represented the 'Other', that force
opposed to the masculinized world of order and discipline . The founder of the republic personified most
completely the autonomous self-governing rnan.? Pitkin has argued that the masculine world of order and virtu was
haunted from behind the scenes by female forces of great power. Fortuna was a woman, a force that threatened the
overextended state or overambitious ruler and the male world of order, law and liberty.

Realism cant solve for low politics that inevitably lead to extinction. Only the ALT reconceptualizes security to include structural violence.
Pandey in 2006
(Anupam, thesis submitted to faculty of graduate studies and research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of doctorate of philosophy department of political science Carleton university, Forging bonds with women, nature
and the third world: an ecofeminist critique of international relations, pg. 17-18)

Despite the fact that many significant critiques have made their presence felt, the discipline of IR
continues to be dominated by the sub-field of military security. The chief reason for the same is
the preponderance of the Realist paradigm which needs to be situated within the circumstances
of the historical legacy and birth of IR, the Cold War, the emergence of a single hegemon postCold War, the renewed threat of terrorism, etc. Thus, concepts of balance of power,
deterrence, sovereignty, etc. have come to occupy the central and vast majority of space in
the subject matter of the discipline. Both theory and practice have served to reinforce each other and
this partnership has served to marginalize all other issues which are regarded as normative concerns to
the margins of the IR. Thus, issues such as Third World debt and poverty are relegated to the
realm of low politics and hence put on the backburner, while matters pertaining to state
security, wars, weaponisation and sovereignty are studied as an integral part of the high
politics which deserve salience. However, the more recent innovation of human security
studies is relevant to the Third World by sheer dint of its subject matter which explores
human vulnerability across the globe that could be the result of natural or man-made
disasters. Simon Dalby states that traditionally there have been two elements to human security
freedom from fear and freedom from want but over the years, the former element has overshadowed the
latter (2002: 7). Further, he quotes the UNDP Human Development Report (1994) to define human
security. Thus, issues of poverty, disease, hunger, famines, financial crises feature prominently
here under the overarching topics of freedom from want and hunger (Thomas and Wilkins

2004). In the coming century, the six great threats to human security are unchecked rise in
population, disparities in economic opportunities, excessive international migration,
environmental degradation, drug trafficking and international terrorism (Dalby 2002: 8). It
becomes clear that these threats are the result of actions of millions of people rather than
deliberate actions of specific states. Therefore, the concept of security must change from the
realist, statist and militarist preoccupations to include human welfare. Despite the fact that the
approach is holistic in its understanding of world affairs and emancipatory in terms of its agenda, its
drawback lies in that it largely espouses a liberal humanitarian framework rather than a radical departure
from existing structural constraints.

A2 Essentialism
Our evidence does discuss women but does not assignment specific values to their biological
identity. Machismo operates to define what constitutes as feminine and masculine in efforts to
control and dominate others. Their essentialism argument misreads our criticism gender is a
social construction which is enforced contingently
Sjoberg in 2009
Sjoberg Asst Prof of Poli Sci at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 2009 Laura Security Studies
18.2 informaworld
In order to understand feminist work in ir, it is important to note that gender is not the equivalent of
membership in biological sex classes. Instead, gender is a system of symbolic meaning that
creates social hierarchies based on perceived associations with masculine and feminine
characteristics. As Lauren Wilcox explains, gender symbolism describes the way in which
masculine/feminine are assigned to various dichotomies that organize Western thought where
both men and women tend to place a higher value on the term which is associated with
masculinity.23 Gendered social hierarchy, then, is at once a social construction and a
structural feature of social and political life that profoundly shapes our place in, and view of,
the world.24This is not to say that all people, or even all women, experience gender in the
same ways. While genders are lived by people throughout the world, it would be unrepresentative to
characterize a 'gendered experience' as if there were something measurable that all men or all
women shared in life experience.25 Each person lives gender in a different culture, body, language, and
identity. Therefore, there is not one gendered experience of global politics, but many. By extension,
there is not one gender-based perspective on ir or international security, but many. Still, as a structural
feature of social and political life, gender is a set of discourses that represent, construct,
change, and enforce social meaning.26 Feminism, then, is neither just about women, nor the
addition of women to male-stream constructions; it is about transforming ways of being and
knowing as gendered discourses are understood and transformed.27

A2 Intersectionality
Gendered Policy Making transforms other oppressive hierarchies Only the ALT even attempts
to acknowledge identity categories in the first place. The AFFs paternal presence in Latin
America is net worse
Peterson and Runyan 99
Peterson is a Professor in the School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona with courtesy appointments in the Department of
Gender and Womens Studies and Runyan is a Professor and former Head, Department of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University of
Cincinnati (V. Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan, Global Gender Issues)
Finally, gender-sensitive

studies improve our understanding of global crises, their interactions, and the
possibilities of moving beyond thein. These include crises of political legitimacy and security as states are
increasingly unable to protect their citizens against economic, epidemic, nuclear, or ecological threats ; crises of
maldevelopment as the dynamics of our global economic system enrich a few and impoverish most; and crises of
environmental degradation as the exploitation of natural resources continues in unsustainable fashion. These global crises cannot
be understood or addressed without acknowledging the structural inequalities of the current world system ,
inequalities that extend well beyond gender issues: They are embodied in interacting hierarchies of race, ethnicity,
nationality, sexual orientation, physical ability, age, and religious identification . In this text, we focus on
how the structural inequalities of gender work in the world: how the hierarchical dichotomy of masculinity-femininity is institutionalized, legitimated,
and re produced, and how these processes differentially affect men's and women's lives. We also begin to see how gender hierarchy

interacts with other structural inequalities. The dichotomy of masculinity and femininity is not
separate from racism, classism, ageism, nationalism; and so on. Rather, gender both structures
arid is structured by these hierarchies to render complex so cial identities, locations, responsibilities, and
social practices. Gender shapes, and is shaped by, all of us. We daily reproduce its dynamics-and suffer its costs-in
multiple ways. By learning how gender works, we learn a great deal about intersecting structures of inequality
and how they are intentionally and unintentionally reproduced. We can then use this knowledge in our struggles
to transform global gender inequality by also transforming other oppressive hierarchies at work in
the world.
Gender difference is the foundational difference of human society and serves as a model for all
other differences.
Hudson 2008 (Hudson, Valerie M., Mary Caprioli, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Rose McDermott, and Chad F.
Emmett.: The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States, Quarterly
Journal: International Security, Vol 33, Issue 3, 7-45 6/21/10)
Theoretically, there are strong reasons for believing that there is a relationship between the security of women
and the security of states. Gender serves as a critical model for the societal treatment of difference between and
among individuals and collectives. A long tradition in social psychology has found three basic differences that
individuals notice immediately when they encounter a new person almost from infancy: age, gender, and race.5
Although there is some preliminary evidence that recognition of racial differences can be erased when such
differences are crossed with coalitional status, no one has shown a similar disabling of gender recognition.6
Indeed, the psychologist Alice Eagley asserts, Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social
science test.7 In this way, gender, like age, becomes a basic category of identication and a profound marker of
difference. Gender and age categorizations play variant roles in society . Everyone will someday move into
another age group; in general, however, this cannot be of gender groupings. Gender difference is arguably the
primary formative xed difference experienced in human society, 9 and sexual reproduction is the strongest
evolutionary driver of human social arrangements.10 Concurring with these insights from psychological and
evolutionary research, French philosopher Sylviane Agacinski reects, It is always the difference of the sexes
that serves as a model for all other differences, and the male/female hierarchy that is taken as a metaphor for
all inter-ethnic hierarchies.11 Societal-based differences in gender status beliefs, reected in practices,
customs, and law, have important political consequences, including consequences for nation-state security
policy and conict and cooperation within and between nation-states. After outlining our theoretical
framework, we survey the existing empirical literature linking the situation of women to the situation of states.
We then present an initial empirical investigation of the frameworks propositions.

AFF ANSWERS

2AC
1. Framework Our interpretation is that the negative must defend a competitive policy
options or the status quo. Fairness is checked by predictability of the resolution as a starting
point. This is key to any productive debate.
2. Their sole focus on feminist epistemology fails only our interpretation allows education
about the system. One speech act doesnt cause securitization its an ongoing process
Ghughunishvili 10
Securitization of Migration in the United States after 9/11: Constructing Muslims and Arabs as Enemies
Submitted to Central European University Department of International Relations European Studies In partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Professor Paul Roe
http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2010/ghughunishvili_irina.pdf
As provided by the Copenhagen School securitization theory is comprised by speech act , acceptance of the audience and
facilitating conditions or other non-securitizing actors contribute to a successful securitization. The causality or a one-way relationship
between the speech act, the audience and securitizing actor, where politicians use the speech act first to justify
exceptional measures, has been criticized by scholars, such as Balzacq. According to him, the one-directional relationship between the
three factors, or some of them, is not the best approach. To fully grasp the dynamics, it will be more beneficial to rather than
looking for a one-directional relationship between some or all of the three factors highlighted, it could be
profitable to focus on the degree of congruence between them. 26 Among other aspects of the Copenhagen Schools theoretical
framework, which he criticizes, the thesis will rely on the criticism of the lack of context and the rejection of a one-way causal relationship between the
audience and the actor. The process of threat construction, according to him, can be clearer if external context, which

stands independently from use of language, can be considered . 27 Balzacq opts for more context-oriented approach when it
comes down to securitization through the speech act, where a single speech does not create the discourse, but it is created
through a long process, where context is vital. 28 He indicates: In reality, the speech act itself, i.e. literally a single
security articulation at a particular point in time, will at best only very rarely explain the entire social process
that follows from it. In most cases a security scholar will rather be confronted with a process of articulations
creating sequentially a threat text which turns sequentially into a securitization . 29 This type of approach seems more
plausible in an empirical study, as it is more likely that a single speech will not be able to securitize an issue, but it is a
lengthy process, where a the audience speaks the same language as the securitizing actors and can relate to
their speeches
3. Case Outweighs [make specific to your AFF]
a. Advantage 1 b. Advantage 2 4. No Root Cause to gender in IR war controls the impacts
Goldstein 1Professor of International Relations at American University, 2001 (Joshua S., War and Gender: How
Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa, pp.411-412)
First, peace activists face a dilemma in thinking about causes of war and working for peace . Many peace scholars
and activists support the approach, if you want peace, work for justice. Then if one believes that sexism contributes to
war, one can work for gender justice specifically (perhaps among others) in order to pursue peace. This approach brings

strategic allies to the peace movement (women, labor, minorities), but rests on the assumption that injustices
cause war. The evidence in this book suggests that causality runs at least as strongly the other way. War is not a
product of capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these influences
wars outbreaks and outcomes. Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other injustices. So, if you want
peace, work for peace. Indeed, if you want justice (gener and others), work for peace. Causality does not run just
upward through the levels of analysis from types of individuals, societies, and governments up to war. It runs
downward too. Enloe suggests that changes in attitudes toward war and the military may be the most important way to
reverse womens oppression/ The dilemma is that peace work focused on justice brings to the peace movement energy,
allies and moral grounding, yet, in light of this books evidence, the emphasis on injustice as the main cause of war seems
to be empirically inadequate.

5. Perm Do Both either links are inevitable or ALT is good enough to overcome the residual
links.

6. Alt Cant Solve

A. Feminist international relations create new hierarchies of oppressionthey place feminine
based identities as the oppressed class separated from any masculine action
Jones, 96. Ph d in poly sci and professor of international studies at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics
(CIDE) in Mexico City, 1996
[Adam, Does Gender Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations, Review of International
Studies 22:4, http://adamjones.freeservers.com/does.htm, 7/12/07]
I have suggested that the most important, and surely a lasting, contribution of feminist critiques has been to add a
gender dimension to analyses of international relations. Few scholars will be able, in future, to analyze international
divisions of labour, or peace movements, or (pace Enloe) the activities of international diplomats, without attending to
feminist perspectives on all these phenomena. But feminists' success in exploring the gender variable remains, at this
point, mixed. And until feminist frameworks are expanded and to some extent reworked, it is hard to see how a

persuasive theory or account of the gendering of international relations can be constructed. Feminist attempts
to incorporate a gender variable into IR analysis are constrained by the basic feminist methodology and all
feminists' normative commitments. A genuinely "feminist approach" by definition "must take women's lives as
the epistemological starting point."(53) And a defining element of feminist approaches, as noted earlier, is a social
project aimed at ameliorating women's structured lack of privilege and emancipating them as a gender-class. The result
is a de facto equating of gender primarily with females/femininity. It is , in its way, a new logocentrism, whereby
(elite) male actions and (hegemonic) masculinity are drawn into the narrative mainly as independent variables
explaining [421] "gender" oppression. Even those works that have adopted the most inclusive approach to gender, such
as Peterson and Runyan's Global Gender Issues, betray this leaning. Peterson and Runyan do acknowledge that "our
attention to gender ... tends to underplay the considerable differences among men and among women," and note that "it is
not only females but males as well who suffer from rigid gender roles."(54) For the most part in their analysis, though,
"gender issues" are presented as coequal with women's issues. The plight of embodied women is front and centre

throughout, while the attention paid to the male/masculine realm amounts to little more than lip-service .
B. Their alternative has little potential for radical changeit is easily coopted by the right in
order to keep women subordinate
Whitworth, Assistant Professor of Political Science York University, 1994 (Sandra, Feminism and International
Relations, Towards a Political Economy of Gender in Interstate and Non- Governmental Institutions, page 20)
Even when not concerned with mothering as such,

much of the politics that emerge from radical feminism within IR

depend upon a 're-thinking' from the perspective of women. What is left unexplained is how simply thinking
differently will alter the material realities of relations of domination between men and women.46 Structural
(patriarchal) relations are acknowledged, but not analysed in radical feminism's reliance on the experiences,
behaviours and perceptions of 'women'. As Sandra Harding notes, the essential and universal 'man', long the focus of
feminist critiques, has merely been replaced here with the essential and universal 'woman'.47 And indeed, that
notion of 'woman' not only ignores important differences amongst women, but it also reproduces exactly the
stereotypical vision of women and men, masculine and feminine, that has been produced under patriarchy.48
Those women who do not fit the mould - who, for example, take up arms in military struggle - are quickly dismissed as
expressing 'negative' or 'inauthentic' feminine values (the same accusation is more rarely made against men).49 In this
way, it comes as no surprise when mainstream IR theorists such as Robert Keohane happily embrace the tenets
of radical feminism.50 It requires little in the way of re-thinking or movement from accepted and
comfortable assumptions and stereotypes. Radical feminists find themselves defending the same account of

women as nurturing, pacifist, submissive mothers as do men under patriarchy, anti-feminists and the New Right.
As some writers suggest, this in itself should give feminists pause to reconsider this position.51

Perm
Permutation allows for the multiplicity inherent for resistance to power do not reject the
affirmative but incorporate its position into the alternative
Ramlow 6
(Todd R., Bodies in the Borderlands: Gloria Anzaluda's and David Wojnarowicz's Mobility Machines,
MELUS, Volume: 31(3), Fall, p. 173-174. DAP)
Both Anzaldua and Wojnarowicz craft images

of life in the borderlands and envision modes of being

outside of Self/Other dichotomies. These images have real resistant power, power that is
produced along with the exercise of dominant bio-power that would subjugate individuals and
groups. As Michel Foucault has shown us, "[w]here there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather
consequently, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power " (95).
Wojnarowicz asserts that public disclosure may function as a "dismantling tool" against hetero-,
ethno-, and bodily normativity. Anzaldua remarks similarly, "[a]n image is a bridge between evoked
emotion and conscious knowledge; words are the cables that hold up the bridge. Images are
more direct, more immediate than words, and closer to the unconscious " (Borderlands 69). Images for
both writers are the bridges and tools that can bring knowledge of the workings of power, the constitution
of current orders, and the possibility of resistance to the foreground . The images and
imagery of Anzaldia and Wojnarowicz embody, deploy, and multiply "mobile and transitory points of
resistance" (Foucault 96) that are produced out of their variable experiences within the borderlands, but also by their
mobility within dominant structures of power. This mobility is central to their resistance, as they
perpetually elude surveillance and show off for it, as they negotiate power and its induction on multiple levels, in multiple spaces, and as they
demonstrate the breadth of their multiple bridges/alliances. We find this mobility figured literally in Wojnarowicz's incessant traveling of the
"canyon" streets of New York, the alien landscapes of suburban New Jersey, and the arid expanses of the American southwest. More abstractly

this mobility is seen in Anzaldaia's traveling in and out of colonial histories, American
ideologies, Latino/a cultural traditions, and in her slipping in and out of multiple tongues
and multiple registers of intelligibility. For Anzaldfia and Wojnarowicz the images in their work and their mobility are
practices of freedom, of bridging and making connections in the creation of new social and political orders. Wojnarowicz's diaries make clear this
alliance of freedom and mobility: "I absolutely have never been able to put myself in a position where I deny chance and other ways of movement,
whether over distances and landscapes or in lovemaking. It's the settling down that is so difficult; choosing one form excludes all others, the only
answer is not choosing at all but merely moving under one's own will" (In the Shadow 104). This notion of movement as freedom from binarism, and
access to transformations and multiplicity, is echoed by Anzaldfa: Every increment of consciousness, every step

forward is a travesia, a crossing. I am again an alien in new territory. And again, and again. But if I
escape conscious awareness, escape 'knowing,' I won't be moving . Knowledge makes me more aware, it
makes me more conscious. 'Knowing' is painful because after 'it' happens I can't stay in the same place and be comfortable. I am no longer the same
person I was before. (Borderlands 48) This increase of consciousness and knowing is then also a process of

individual and collective becoming, and through Anzaldua, Wojnarowicz, Deleuze and Guattari, and the critical lens of disability
studies, we can understand how subjectivity becomes multiple .
Perm solves bestcurrent political system is key to disrupt gendered power structures.
Peterson in 1992
Editor V Spike (Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Arizona), Gendered States p 66.
In other words, the state as a dealer in power, a wielder of weapons, an inherently violent institution is the object of
suspicion and resistance by both antiliberal feminists and liberal internationalists. And, especially now, when the
international system is undergoing immense change, pressures for denationalizing changecertainly discourse arguing
for it- will be persistent. In the face of such pressures, I believe that feminist critics of the present state system should

beware. The very fact that the state creates, condenses, and focuses political power may make it the best friend,
not the enemy, of feministsbecause the availability of real political power is essential to real democratic
control. Not sufficient, I know, but essential. My basic premise is that political power can significantly disrupt
patriarchal and class (which is to say, economic) power. It holds the potential, at least, for disrupting the
patriarchal/economic oppression of those in the lower reaches of class, sex and race hierarchies . It is
indisputable that, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it has been the political power of states that has confronted
the massive economic power privately constructed out of the industrial processes and has imposed obligations on
employers for the welfare of workers as well as providing additional social support for the population at large. And the

political tempering of economic power has been the most responsive to broad public needs in liberal
democracies, where government must respond roughly to the interests of voters. Of course, this is not the
whole story. The nation-states of this period have also perpetrated horrors of torture and war, have aided the

development of elite-controlled industrial wealth, and have not sufficiently responded to the human needs of their less
powerful constituents. But I believe it is better to try to restrain the horrors and abuses than to give up on the

limits that state organized political power can bring to bear on the forms of class-based, race-based, sex-based
power that consistute the greatest sources of oppression we are likely to face.

Epist fails

Feminist IR does not explain international relations coherentlytheory fails. Realist theory
solves the impacts
LIND 2005
(Michael, Executive Editor of the National Interest, Of Arms and the Woman, Jan 20,
http://feminism.eserver.org/of-arms-and-the-woman.txt)
Though realist theory can survive, and perhaps even accommodate, many of the arguments of feminism with respect
to collective conflict and state sovereignty, realism must reject the third aspect of the feminist criticism: the
redefinition of security to mean social justice. From the Marxist left, feminists have picked up the argument that
interstate violence is just one genre of "structural violence," which includes the economic oppression of lower classes by upper
classes (Marxism) and the subordination of women to men by custom and by violence (feminism). But this notion merely disguises a change of subject as
a change of approach. To say that mass rape by soldiers in wartime and wife-beating in societies at peace (excuse me, at
"peace") are

parts of the same phenomenon is to abandon any pretense of engaging in serious thinking about
international relations. The result may be feminist theory, but it is not a theory of world politics. It is a theory of human society in general.
When, as in "ecofeminism," the mistreatment of women by men in all societies, in peace and at war, is fused, as a
subject of analysis, with the mistreatment of the ecosystem by humanity , one has a theory of everything, and a
theory of everything is usually not very much. If you don't know where you are going, as the old saw has it, any
road will get you there. Hence Enloe's decision to understand the Gulf war by beginning with the experiences of
Filipina maids in Kuwait. "I might get back to George Bush, Franois Mitterrand, King Fahd and Saddam Hussein eventually." Or maybe not.
The results of combining an abandonment of the idea of international politics as something that can be
understood by abstracting certain aspects of reality from the blooming, buzzing confusion of fact with an
abandonment of a "positivist" effort to establish chains of causation are amply on display in The Morning After,
as in the earlier Bananas, Beaches and Bases. These rambling exercises in free association have less in common with a monograph on a
diplomatic or military subject than with the associative and politicized writings of, say, Adrienne Rich; they amount to a compendium of
vignettes linked only by vague humanitarian sentiment and the writer's consciousness. Enloe is grandiose in her
employment of "I": "I've become aware now of the ways in which men have used nationalism to silence women...." "Those like myself who believe that
militarism is separable from masculinity are especially interested in conscription...." "For instance, I realize now that I know nothing--nothing--about
Kurdish women." (Such personal observations, one must admit, are refreshing compared to sentences like these: "Sexual practice is one of the sites of
masculinity's--and femininity's--daily construction. That construction is international. It has been so for generations." Or: "Thinking about militarism in
this way reminds us that we all can be militarized, as girlfriends, fathers, factory workers or candidates.") Resolutely ignoring the world of

high politics--dictators, presidents, chanceries, general staffs--Enloe devotes attention to various feminist political
groupuscles far out of proportion to their actual significance in shaping events . Thus she dwells on a Serbian women's party
that "called for respect for cultural diversity within Yugoslavia." She salutes Danish women for voting against Maastricht and Iranian women for working
to depose the Shah. "Women Against Fundamentalism is a group formed in Britain by women who included Jews, Arab and Asian Muslims, Hindus,
white and Afro-Caribbean Protestants and Irish Catholics. It was formed in 1989, in the turbulently gendered wake of the threats against Salman
Rushdie's life...." "The first National Conference of Nicaraguan Women was held in January 1992...." This recurrent focus on little

sisterhoods, mobilizing against "gendered" nation-states, multinational capitalism and racial and religious
prejudice, owes a lot to the Marxist dream of a transnational fraternity of workers (in a new form, as a transnational
sorority of feminists) and even more to the hope of early twentieth-century peace crusaders such as Jane Addams that the women of the world can unite
and put an end to war and exploitation. Enloe tries to justify the attention paid to quite different groups of women in

various countries with the claim that "no national movement can be militarized"--or demilitarized?--"without
changing the ways in which femininity and masculinity infuse daily life." Even if "militarization," however defined,
does result in certain kinds of gender relations, it does not follow that altering masculine and feminine roles
will, in itself, do much to reverse the process. Something may, after all, be an effect without being a cause.
Rejecting the feminist approach to international relations does not mean rejecting the subjects or the political values of feminist scholars. Differing
notions of masculinity and femininity in different societies, the treatment of women and homosexuals of both sexes in the armed forces, the exploitation
of prostitutes by American soldiers deployed abroad, the sexual division of labor both in advanced and developing countries: all of these are important
topics that deserve the attention that Enloe awards them. She shows journalistic flair as well as scholarly insight in detailing what abstractions like the
Caribbean Basin Initiative mean in the lives of women in particular Third World countries. Still, such case studies, however interesting, do not support
the claim of feminist international relations theorists that theirs is a new and superior approach. One thing should be clear: commitment to a

feminist political agenda need not entail commitment to a radical epistemological agenda. Ideas do not have
genders, just as they do not have races or classes. In a century in which physics has been denounced as "Jewish" and biology denounced as
"bourgeois," it should be embarrassing to denounce the study of international relations as "masculinist." Such a
denunciation, of course, will not have serious consequences in politics, but it does violence to the life of the mind.
The feminist enemies of empiricism would be well-advised to heed their own counsel and study war no more.
Feminist criticism is too insular and self-referentialits own methodology is suspect because it
excludes all perspectives not from the margins
Jarvis in 2000

lecturer in the Department of Government and International Relations, Faculty at University of Sydney, 2000 (D.S.L,

International relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism, pg. 160-162)

Critical research agendas of this type, however, are not found easily in International Relations. Critics of feminist
perspectives run the risk of denouncement as either a misogynist malcontent or an androcentric keeper of the

gate.
At work in much of this discourse is an unstated political correctness, where the historical marginalization of
women bestows intellectual autonomy, excluding those outside the identity group from legitimate participation
in its discourse. Only feminist women can do real, legitimate, feminist theory since, in the mantra of identity politics,
discourse must emanate from a positional (personal) ontology. Those sensitive or sympathetic to the identity politics of
particular groups are, of course, welcome to lend support and encourage- ment, but only on terms delineated by the
groups themselves. In this way, they enjoy an uncontested sovereign hegemony over their own self, identification,

insuring the group discourse is self constituted and that its parameters, operative methodology, and standards of
argument, appraisal, and evidentiary provisions are self defined. Thus, for example, when Sylvester calls for a
"homesteading" of International Relations she does so "by [a] repetitive feminist insistence that we be included on our
terms" (my emphasis). Rather than an invitation to engage in dialogue, this is an ultimatum that a sovereign

intellectual space be provided and insulated from critics who question the merits of identity-based political
discourse. Instead, Sylvester calls upon International Relations to "share space, respect, and trust in a re-formed
endeavor," but one otherwise proscribed as committed to demonstrating not only "that the secure homes constructed by
IR's many debaters are chimerical," but, as a consequence, to ending International Relations and remaking it along lines
grounded in feminist postmodernism. 93 Such stipulative provisions might be likened to a form of negotiated sovereign
territoriality where, as part of the settlement for the historically aggrieved, border incursions are to be allowed but may not
be met with resistance or reciprocity. Demands for entry to the discipline are thus predicated on conditions that insure
two sets of rules, cocooning postmodern feminist spaces from systematic analyses while "respecting" this discourse as it
hastens about the project of deconstructing International Relations as a "male space." Sylvester's impassioned plea for
tolerance and "emphatic cooperation" is thus confined to like-minded individuals, those who do not challenge feminist
epistemologies but accept them as a necessary means of rein- venting the discipline as a discourse between postmodern
identities-the most important of which is gender. 94 Intolerance or misogyny thus become the ironic epithets attached to
those who question the wisdom of this reinvention or the merits of the return of identity in international theory." Most
strategic of all, however, demands for entry to the disci- pline and calls for intellectual spaces betray a self-imposed,
politically motivated marginality. After all, where are such calls issued from other than the discipline and the intellectualand well established-spaces of feminist International Relations? Much like the strategies employed by male dissidents,
then, feminist postmodernists too deflect as illegitimate any criticism that derives from skeptics whose vantage points are
labeled privileged. And privilege is variously interpreted historically, especially along lines of race, color, and sex where
the denotations white and male, to name but two, serve as inter- generational mediums to assess the injustices of past
histories. White males, for example, become generic signifiers for historical oppression, indicating an ontologically
privileged group by which the historical expe- riences of the "other" can then be reclaimed in the context of their related
oppression, exploitation, and exclusion. Legitimacy, in this context, can then be claimed in terms of one's group identity
and the extent to which the history of that particular group has been "silenced." In this same way, self identification or
"self-situation" establishes one's credentials, allowing admittance to the group and legitimating the "authoritative" vantage
point from which one speaks and writes. Thus, for example, Jan Jindy Pettman includes among the introductory pages to
her most recent book, Worlding Women, a section titled "A (personal) politics of location," in which her identity as a
woman, a feminist, and an academic, makes appar- ent her particular (marginal) identities and group loyalties. 96
Similarly, Christine Sylvester, in the introduction to her book, insists, "It is impor- tant to provide a context for one's work
in the often-denied politics of the personal." Accordingly, self declaration reveals to the reader that she is a feminist, went
to a Catholic girls school where she was schooled to "develop your brains and confess something called 'sins' to always
male forever priests," and that these provide some pieces to her dynamic objec- tivity. Like territorial markers, self

identification permits entry to intel- lectual spaces whose sovereign authority is "policed" as much by marginal
subjectivities as they allege of the oppressors who "police" the discourse of realism, or who are said to walk the
corridors of the discipline insuring the replication of patriarchy, hierarchical agendas, and "malestream" theory. If
Sylvester's version of feminist postmodernism is projected as tolerant, per- spectivist, and encompassing of a multiplicity
of approaches, in reality it is as selective, exclusionary, and dismissive of alternative perspectives as mainstream
approaches are accused of being.

Root cause

Root cause is a lie patriarchy cannot explain all violence in IR

Martin in 1990
Martin, professor of science, technology, and society University of Wollongong, 90
(Brian, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90uw/uw13.html)
In this chapter and in the six preceding chapters 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 focussed on one single factor to the exclusion of others. This is often done for example by some
Marxists who look only at capitalism as a root of war and other social problems, and by some feminists who
attribute most problems to patriarchy. The danger of 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 interconnected. They
often support each other, and sometimes conflict. This means that the struggle against war can and must be
undertaken at many different levels. It ranges from struggles to undermine state power to struggles to
undermine racism, sexism and other forms of domination at the level of the individual and the local
community. Furthermore, the different struggles need to be linked together. That is the motivation for
analysing the roots of war and developing strategies for grassroots movements to uproot them.
Not root cause to gender in IR war causes their impacts
Goldstein in 2001
Professor of International Relations at American University, 2001 (Joshua S., War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the
War System and Vice Versa, pp.411-412)
First, peace activists face a dilemma in thinking about causes of war and working for peace . Many peace scholars
and activists support the approach, if you want peace, work for justice. Then if one believes that sexism contributes to
war, one can work for gender justice specifically (perhaps among others) in order to pursue peace. This approach brings

strategic allies to the peace movement (women, labor, minorities), but rests on the assumption that injustices
cause war. The evidence in this book suggests that causality runs at least as strongly the other way. War is not a
product of capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these influences
wars outbreaks and outcomes. Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other injustices. So, if you want
peace, work for peace. Indeed, if you want justice (gener and others), work for peace. Causality does not run just
upward through the levels of analysis from types of individuals, societies, and governments up to war. It runs
downward too. Enloe suggests that changes in attitudes toward war and the military may be the most important way to
reverse womens oppression/ The dilemma is that peace work focused on justice brings to the peace movement energy,
allies and moral grounding, yet, in light of this books evidence, the emphasis on injustice as the main cause of war seems
to be empirically inadequate.

Structural violence
War causes dehumanization and legitimizes social exclusion
Maiese, 03 [Michelle, research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium, July, The Beyond Intractability Project: Guy Burgess and Heidi
Burgess http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/]

Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than
human and thus not deserving of moral consideration . Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in
the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it difficult
for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community . Such conditions
often lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the
conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically
viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.[1] We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people
should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect.
They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to
protect the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and should not be subject
to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment. However, for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and

justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant."[2] Any harm that befalls
such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of
morality are typically perceived as psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those included in
one's moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we
perceive as a threat to our well-being or values.[3] Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as

sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human
rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of
people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of
behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.

Realism

Realism is true and inevitable a shift away collapses into chaos.

MEARSHEIMER 1
professor of political science at University of Chicago (John, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pg. 361)
The optimists' claim that security competition and war among the great powers has been burned out of the
system is wrong. In fact, all of the major states around the globe still care deeply about the balance of power
and are destined to compete for power among themselves for the foreseeable future. Consequently, realism will
offer the most powerful explanations of international politics over the next century , and this will be true even if the debates among
academic and policy elites are dominated by non-realist theories. In short, the real world remains a realist world . States still fear each
other and seek to gain power at each other's expense, because international anarchy-the driving force behind
greatpower behavior-did not change with the end of the Cold War, and there are few signs that such change is
likely any time soon. States remain the principal actors in world politics and there is still no night watchman standing above them. For sure, the collapse of the Soviet Union caused a
major shift in the global distribution of power. But it did not give rise to a change in the anarchic structure of the system, and without that kind of profound change, there is no reason to expect the great

considerable evidence from the 1990s indicates

that power politics has not disappeared from Europe and Northeast Asia, the regions in which there are two or more great powers, as well as possible great
powers such as Germany and Japan. There is no question, however, that the competition for power over the past decade has been low-key. Still, there is potential for intense
security competition among the great powers that might lead to a major war. Probably the best
evidence of that possibility is the fact that the United States maintains about one hundred thousand
troops each in Europe and in Northeast Asia for the explicit purpose of keeping the major states in each
region at peace.
powers to behave much differently in the new century than they did in previous centuries. Indeed,

Even if they win that realism sucks, WE STILL WIN ---- critiquing the realist system of
international realism can achieve no change and will only produce hostility. Rejecting realism
doesnt mean other observers and practitioners will too

GUZZINI 98

assistant prof. of polisci and IR at the Central European University (Stefano, "Conclusion: the fragmentation of
realism," Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a
Death Foretold, Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415144027, p. 235)
although the evolution of realism has been mainly a disappointment as a general causal
theory, we have to deal with it. On the one hand, realist assumptions and insights are used and merged in nearly all frameworks of analysis offered in International Relations or
Third, this last chapter has argued that

International Political Economy. One of the book's purposes was to show realism as a varied and variably rich theory, so heterogeneous that it would be better to refer to it only in plural terms. On the

to dispose of realism because some of its versions have been proven empirically wrong, ahistorical, or
logically incoherent, does not necessarily touch its role in the shared understandings of observers
and practitioners of international affairs. Realist theories have a persisting power for constructing our understanding of the present. Their assumptions,
both as theoretical constructs, and as particular lessons of the past translated from one generation of decision-makers to another , help
mobilizing certain understandings and dispositions to action . They also provide them with legitimacy. Despite realism's several deaths as a
general causal theory, it can still powerfully enframe action . It exists in the minds, and is hence reflected in the
actions, of many practitioners. Whether or not the world realism depicts is out there, realism is. Realism is not a causal theory that explains International Relations, but, as
long as realism continues to be a powerful mind-set, we need to understand realism to make sense of International Relations. In other words, realism is a still necessary
hermeneutical bridge to the understanding of world politics. Getting rid of realism without having a deep
understanding of it, not only risks unwarranted dismissal of some valuable theoretical insights that I have tried to gather in
this book; it would also be futile. Indeed, it might be the best way to tacitly and uncritically reproduce it .
other hand,

Security good
One speech act doesnt cause securitization its an ongoing process
Ghughunishvili 10
Securitization of Migration in the United States after 9/11: Constructing Muslims and Arabs as Enemies
Submitted to Central European University Department of International Relations European Studies In partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Professor Paul Roe
http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2010/ghughunishvili_irina.pdf
As provided by the Copenhagen School securitization theory is comprised by speech act , acceptance of the audience and
facilitating conditions or other non-securitizing actors contribute to a successful securitization. The causality or a one-way relationship
between the speech act, the audience and securitizing actor, where politicians use the speech act first to justify
exceptional measures, has been criticized by scholars, such as Balzacq. According to him, the one-directional relationship between the
three factors, or some of them, is not the best approach. To fully grasp the dynamics, it will be more beneficial to rather than
looking for a one-directional relationship between some or all of the three factors highlighted, it could be
profitable to focus on the degree of congruence between them. 26 Among other aspects of the Copenhagen Schools theoretical
framework, which he criticizes, the thesis will rely on the criticism of the lack of context and the rejection of a one-way causal relationship between the
audience and the actor. The process of threat construction, according to him, can be clearer if external context, which

stands independently from use of language, can be considered . 27 Balzacq opts for more context-oriented approach when it
comes down to securitization through the speech act, where a single speech does not create the discourse, but it is created
through a long process, where context is vital. 28 He indicates: In reality, the speech act itself, i.e. literally a single
security articulation at a particular point in time, will at best only very rarely explain the entire social process
that follows from it. In most cases a security scholar will rather be confronted with a process of articulations
creating sequentially a threat text which turns sequentially into a securitization . 29 This type of approach seems more
plausible in an empirical study, as it is more likely that a single speech will not be able to securitize an issue, but it is a
lengthy process, where a the audience speaks the same language as the securitizing actors and can relate to
their speeches
Security is inevitablerejecting it causes the state to become more interventionist, flipping the
impact
McCormack 10
[Tara McCormack, 10, is Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Leicester and has a PhD in
International Relations from the University of Westminster. 2010, (Critique, Security and Power: The political
limits to emancipatory approaches, page 59-61)]
rejection of the old security framework as it has been
Here we can begin to see the political limits to critical

The following section will briefly raise some questions about the
taken up by the most powerful institutions and states.

and emancipatory frameworks. In an international system which is marked by great power inequalities between states,
the rejection of the old narrow national interest-based security framework by major international institutions, and
the adoption of ostensibly emancipatory policies and policy rhetoric, has the consequence of
problematising weak or unstable states and allowing international institutions or major
states a more interventionary role, yet without establishing mechanisms by which the citizens
of states being intervened in might have any control over the agents or agencies of their
emancipation. Whatever the problems associated with the pluralist security framework there
were at least formal and clear demarcations . This has the consequence of entrenching
international power inequalities and allowing for a shift towards a hierarchical international
order in which the citizens in weak or unstable states may arguably have even less freedom or
power than before. Radical critics of contemporary security policies, such as human security and humanitarian intervention,
argue that we see an assertion of Western power and the creation of liberal subjectivities in the developing world. For example, see
Mark Duffields important and insightful contribution to the ongoing debates about contemporary international security and
development. Duffield attempts to provide a coherent empirical engagement with, and theoretical explanation of, these shifts. Whilst
these shifts, away from a focus on state security, and the so-called merging of security and development are often portrayed as
positive and progressive shifts that have come about because of the end of the Cold War, Duffield argues convincingly that these
shifts are highly problematic and unprogressive. For example, the rejection of sovereignty as formal international equality and a
presumption of nonintervention has eroded the division between the international and domestic spheres and led to an international
environment in which Western NGOs and powerful states have a major role in the governance of third world states. Whilst for

Duffield points out the depoliticising

implications, drawing on examples in Mozambique and Afghanistan . Duffield also draws out the
supporters of humanitarian intervention this is a good development,

problems of the retreat from modernisation that is represented by sustainable development .

The
Western world has moved away from the development policies of the Cold War, which aimed to develop third world states industrially.
Duffield describes this in terms of a new division of human life into uninsured and insured life. Whilst we in the West are insured
that is we no longer have to be entirely self-reliant, we have welfare systems, a modern division of labour and so on sustainable

Third world populations

must be taught to be self-reliant, they will remain uninsured. Self-reliance of course means the
condemnation of millions to a barbarous life of inhuman bare survival. Ironically, although
development aims to teach populations in poor states how to survive in the absence of any of this.

sustainable development is celebrated by many on the left today, by leaving people to fend for themselves rather than developing a

sustainable development actually leads to a less human and

humane system than that developed in modern capitalist states . Duffield also describes how many of these
problematic shifts are embodied in the contemporary concept of human security. For Duffield, we can understand these
shifts in terms of Foucauldian biopolitical framework , which can be understood as a regulatory power that
seeks to support life through intervening in the biological, social and economic processes that
constitute a human population (2007: 16). Sustainable development and human security are for Duffield technologies of
society wide system which can support people,

security which aim to create self-managing and self-reliant subjectivities in the third world, which can then survive in a situation of
serious underdevelopment (or being uninsured as Duffield terms it) without causing security problems for the developed world. For
Duffield this is all driven by a neoliberal project which seeks to control and manage uninsured populations globally. Radical critic
Costas Douzinas (2007) also criticises new forms of cosmopolitanism such as human rights and interventions for human rights as a
triumph of American hegemony. Whilst we are in agreement with critics such as Douzinas and Duffield that these new security

frameworks cannot be empowering, and ultimately lead to more power for powerful states ,

we need to
understand why these frameworks have the effect that they do. We can understand that these frameworks have political limitations without having to
look for a specific plan on the part of current powerful states. In new security frameworks such as human security we can see the political limits of the
framework proposed by critical and emancipatory theoretical approaches.

Shifting away from the security framework causes conflict and causes intervention only the
perm gives political content to rights
McCormack 10
[Tara McCormack, 10, is Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Leicester and has a PhD in
International Relations from the University of Westminster. 2010, (Critique, Security and Power: The political
limits to emancipatory approaches, page 59-61)]
A corollary of this retreat from a political interpretation of conflict or social instability, is the
delegitimation of social transformation in developing countries . Historically, social and political transformation
has often been accompanied by war and strife. By pathologising conflict, the human security framework acts to prohibit social or
political transformation, as such changes can only be understood in an entirely negative way (see for further discussion, Cramer

the human security framework has argued: much human insecurity

surely results from structural factors and the distribution of power , which are essentially beyond
the reach of individuals (Newman, 2004b: 358). Thus to actually overcome human insecurity, collective
action and change is needed. But this may result in internal conflict or strife, precisely the
changes that human security problematises in the first place . People may be prepared to experience
2006). As an important contributor to

disruptions to their daily existence, or even severe societal conflict or economic deprivation in the pursuit of some other goals which
are understood as worthy. The shift away from the pluralist security framework is highly problematic. The
formal links between the state and its citizens are problematised and weak and failing states are potentially held up to increased

International institutions and states have potentially

greater freedom to intervene in other states, but with no reciprocal methods of control to replace
the old political links between the state and its citizens which are weakened . The shift away from
the pluralist security framework and the rhetorical adoption by international institutions and states of a more cosmopolitan
security framework does not challenge contemporary power inequalities, rather it serves to
entrench them. Once we separate rights from any rights bearing subject, these rights are only things that can be given by
international scrutiny and international intervention.

external agencies, indeed as Chandler (2009) has argued, here the subject is created by external powers. Ultimately the cosmopolitan
and emancipatory framework which seeks to give universal human rights through international law or forms of intervention posits
abstract rights, seeking to make the world conform to universal human rights and justice in the absence of a political constituency to

the problem is that without

a political constituency to give content to those rights these rights are gifts of the
powerful, they are closer to charity . Rights in themselves, without political form, are
of little value. Here rights are assumed to be able to correct political and economic and social wrongs, such as inequality or
give it content. Indeed this is seen as necessary in the face of the current global injustices. Yet

disempowerment. Yet such problems are not the result of a lack of rights, and cannot be corrected through rights. A lack of
development is a political, economic and social problem (Lewis, 1998; Heartfield, 1996), the lack of rights or equality and
empowerment stem from the real inequalities and power relations in the world. Divorcing rights from rights bearing subjects, and
positing abstract individual rights that can only be given by external agencies, does not enhance rights but ends up formalising real
inequality (Lewis, 1998). Indeed, this is precisely what we can see with, for example, human security and contemporary interventions.
Here, the old formal equality of the pluralist security framework is no longer relevant and it is increasingly accepted that more

powerful states have a right to intervene in other states and to frame certain states as outlaw states (Simpson, 2005). Conclusion In
this chapter I have argued that there have been significant shifts in the post-Cold War security problematic which cannot be understood in terms of the
pluralist security framework. The most striking aspect of the contemporary international security problematic seems to be a shift away from and
problematisation of the old security framework in both international and national security policy discourse. I have already discussed that the pluralist
security framework with its underlying commitments of non-intervention and sovereign equality is held to be both anachronistic and immoral. This
chapter lends support to broadening the initial conclusions drawn about the critical security theory more generally. In their own terms

Critical security theorists are not critically engaging

and explaining the contemporary security problematic and offering an alternative to
critical security theorists do not seem to be very critical.

contemporary power inequalities. A critical question to ask would be why have international institutions and states framed their
security policies in terms of a rejection of the pluralist security framework and taken up cosmopolitan rhetoric? Where does this shift

critical security theorists

exclude the way in which power is being exercised in the post-Cold War international order from
their analysis. Were critical security theorists to include this in their analysis they would discover that they seem to be sharing
come from? Despite their ostensible focus on power and power inequalities, it is striking that

many of the assumptions and aims of the post-Cold War international order. Specifically in the context of the shifting international
security problematic, critical security theorists seem to share a normative and ethical critique of the old security framework,
combined with a depoliticised account of conflict and social, economic and political instability, and a depoliticised and idealised view
of the potential of major international institutions and states to intervene. Moreover, in the behaviour and rhetoric of international
institutions, the problematic theoretical implications of critical security theorys idealised assumptions of the potential of international
institutions or transnational organisations to be a force for emancipation and freedom for individuals is shown to be problematic in

this rejection of the pluralist security framework does not challenge the
status quo, but serves to further entrench power inequalities . In fact, it seems to reflect the increased freedom
practice. I have argued that

of the international community to intervene in other states.

Cede political
Its impossible to transform politics without addressing the statecriticism that refuses the
state cedes the most important political battles to the right
Shaw 99 (Shaw, professor of IR at the University of Sussex, 1999 (Martin, The Unfinished Global Revolution: Intellectuals and the New Politics of
International Relations, http://sussex.ac.uk/Users/hafa3/unfinished.pdf)
The mistakes in this passage are also twofold. First, the myth of globalisation as threat or onslaught which can only be resisted is combined with the
myth of the weakening of the state.56 Second, hopes for an alternative social order are vested in the resurrection of civil society, but Cox himself
identifies a fundamental difficulty with this scenario, the the still small development of civil society.57 The expansion of civil society is indeed crucial to
the long-term consolidation of a worldwide democratic order. But civil society is not only too weak to take the full weight of global transformation, it is
also still too national in form.58 Moreover, it is theoretically and practically inconceivable that we can advance emancipation

without simultaneously transforming state power.59 While Booth explicitly rejects world government, Cox largely avoids the role of
internationalised state organisations. He sees nation-states as playing the role of agencies of the global economy60 and seems incapable either of
understanding the global transformations of state power, or envisaging a constructive role for them. Critical international theorists have dug

themselves into a hole over this issue. In committing themselves to globalization from below , as Richard Falk61 calls it, they
are simply missing political battles that matter in todays world. Falk is certainly moving towards a new position when he writes: An

immediate goal of those disparate social forces that constitute globalizationfrom-below is to reinstrumentalize the state to the extent that it redefines its
role as mediating between the logic of capital the priorities of its peoples, including their short-term and longer-term goals.62 But this tortuous language
is hardly necessary. Peoples movements have been on the streets throughout the last decade, trying to make both national and international state
organisations responsive and accountable. The real question is how could this question ever have been marginalised in any serious radical project? It
often seems that international theorists like Cox and Falk have left the state and war aside.63 Critics evacuate the harsher edges of world

politics for the soft non-realist territory of political economy, gender and civil society. No such refuge is possible,
however. Economic and gender inequalities will not be solved so long as the repressive state is untamed . The new international
relations will have to formulate its response the continuing role of organised violence in the world order. A loose governance without
government is all too fashionable in international circles .64 However, while Booth is obviously right that all government is
imperfect, the differences between 'relatively decent' and tyrannical government , both nationally and globally, are absolutely
critical. Without addressing the nature of contemporary global state networks, and a serious discussion of the ways in
which they can be developed into an adequate global authority framework sustained by and sustaining local democracies,
we have hardly begun to fashion a new agenda.
This totalitarian regime legitimizes scapegoating and violence against people in and out of the
state turns all your security arguments
Boggs 5 (Carl, Professor of Social Science at National University, Imperial Delusions: American Militarism and Endless War, p. 87 -88)
If any single event could further eviscerate the public sphere, especially in foreign affairs, that would be the terrorist
attack of 9/11. One might argue that terrorism in general tends to favor a mood of antipolittcs in which security concerns,
authoritarian politics, and conservative agendas come to the core. The depoliticizing impact of the Red Brigades in Italy and Baader-

Meinhof in Germany during the 1970s offers two excellent cases in point. The "strategy of tension" adopted by terrorist groups hoping that dramatic acts
of political violence will bring chaos and instability, creating new space for insurgency, has, usually brought just the opposite: new levels of legitimacy
and heightened coercive powers to security states long dependent on heavy doses of patriotic mobilization, intelligence gathering, surveillance, police
controls, and militarism. After 9/11 nominally liberal-democratic system began moving ever faster along the road to

corporatism, undemocratic practices, and narrowing public discourses , If the terrorist methodology of al Qaeda and
kindred groups is designed to generate crisis and an opening for change, its actual consequences have run counter to that
aimthat is, toward a diminution of public life endemic to psychological retreat, collective fear, and social conservatism.
In the United States, such trends were at least partly reversed during Bush's buildup to the second Iraq war. Terrorism as both political act and
imminent possibility is usually accompanied by tear, despair, and paranoia--emotional responses hardly con ducive to open
discourses and democratic politics. People find themselves isolated atomized, and thus more vulnerable to
governmental controls. Dissent and protest are stigmatized and marginalized , negated or crowded out within an
atmosphere of super patriotism, demonization of enemies, and scapegoating; political complexities and nuances
quickly vanish, In the United States after 9/11, differences between Republicans and Democrats , Bush supporters and
loyal oppositionalready narrowed after decades of bipartisan foreign policybecame hard to distinguish. The terrorist
attacks generated a united patriotic response that continued into the second Golf War. Congressional action was hurriedly taken
without the distractions and impediments of debate: both the nearly carte-blanche war powers delivered to Bush
and the Patriot Act, for example, won quick passage in both Houses, over minimal and easily discredited opposition. Bush's military
option, starting with the bombing of Afghanistan in October 2001, short-circuited discussion of possible alternative courses of action. The jingoism
and ethnocentrism that-came to define patriotic unity seemed to repeat the popular mood of the Desert Storm period , again
legitimating many of the symbols and rituals vital to militarism and Empire

Alt Fails
Alt cant solveIncorporation of gender in international relations becomes coopted
Saloom in 2006
JD Univ of Georgia School of Law and M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from U of Chicago, Fall 2006
[Rachel, A Feminist Inquiry into International Law and International Relations, 12 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 159, l/n,
Stevens]
There is not much consensus between the gender theorists and those who adhere to current approaches to international
law and international relations. The biggest obstacle for gender theorists is the application of their theories . It
would be valuable to determine how international relations or international law would operate if gender were taken into
account. Gender theorists themselves have trouble formulating ways to apply their theories. Most scholars believe
that the "add women and stir" approach generally fails. 91 The notion that "bringing in" more women to the areas of
international law and international relations can transform existing practices has not been met with much optimism. 92
Theorists argue that adding women into existing frameworks fails to address the larger androcentric biases that
exist. Many theorists criticize this approach, supporting their criticisms with allegations that the issues that gender
scholars and practitioners want to address cannot be neatly incorporated in the current framework. Smith argues that:
The issues raised by feminism not only do not fit with the discipline, they disrupt the entire edifice of community and
society upon which [international relations] and the other social sciences are built. Their foundations are so embedded in
gendered identities, subjectivities, and therefore reified structures of common sense that they simply cannot be amended
to take account of gender. 93 Hooper also concurs with Smith's conclusions. She posits that "grafting the gender
variable" onto a highly masculinized [*177] framework is doomed for failure. 94 She believes that adding gender
to a checklist will not change the power dynamic that exists in international law and international relations. 95 In
the same manner, public international law is often preoccupied with issues of conflict, state sovereignty and use of force.
96 When gender is discussed in international law, it is usually relegated to the human rights law sphere. 97 If the
consensus of feminist theorists is that more radical approaches are necessary to change the gender bias that exists, then
theorists must formulate other alternatives to make the change in gender bias a feasible option. However, if the

proponents of the status quo are even partially correct, then the feminist criticisms become even more difficult
to implement. The question then becomes whether it is even desirable to wholly reject state-centrism as a
masculinist androcentric paradigm.

Essentialism
The ALT is too single-issue to make a difference in Latin America they homogenize women
and the gendered subject turning alt solvency
Cabrera in 2010
Patricia Munoz Cabrera. Intersection Violences: A Review of Feminist Theories and Debates on Violence
against Women and Poverty in Latin America. 2010.
*VAW = Violence Against Women
This tension becomes clearer if one considers the way Latin American women scholars engage with women as
a category of analysis. Few of the works reviewed explore the multilayered meanings informing the notion of
women in the context of the VAW and poverty nexus. Julia Monrrez Fragoso holds that the constructed
superiority of some categories of women and the constructed inferiority of others is an important element
informing the root causes of VAW. She holds that, regardless of their age, women with special needs, women
from different class, race and ethnic groups, and women living in poverty experience VAW in very different
ways, adding that the process of explaining sexual, gender, class and racial differences in biological terms has
naturalised social inequity. Building upon Stolcke (2000: 42), Monrrez posits a biologisation of difference
resulting from an ideological process through which modern societies try to overcome the contradictions
generated by class stratification. Biologisation of difference becomes particularly visible in times of social
conflict: instead of a critical rethinking of the system which subjugates women, social conflict is neutralised
through blaming the victims for their inferiority (2002: 10, 11). In the context of feminicide (see section 1.4
below) and other forms of VAW. Monrrez urges consideration of how class hierarchies cut across race, gender
and sexuality in ways which privilege well-off women and intensify the expendability of poor, working-class
women (2002). Based upon empirical evidence, she demonstrates that many of the murdered women of
Ciudad Jurez were active in the tertiary (services) sector, notorious for its high concentration of exploited and
poorly educated women workers. Monrrezs critique shows that both the analytic discourses and the research
priorities informing feminist scholarship on VAW are heterogeneous and not entirely exempt from power
differentials. It also evokes the contention of several US feminists of colour during the 1980s, that the
empowered subject claimed by white, middle-class US feminist theorists was primarily white and socially
privileged, whereas the subject claimed by progressive male intellectuals was primarily male . In Audre Lordes
apt summary: Racism, the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to
dominance. Sexism, the belief in the inherent superiority of one sex over the other and thereby the right to
dominance (Lorde 1982: 115). Progressive white feminists such as Sally McWilliams (1985), Teresa De
Lauretis (1990) and Jane Roland (1994) have echoed this view, recognising that the female subject is not a
homogeneous category: white academic feminists have recognized the terrible mistake we made in assuming
that all the individuals in the world called women were exactly like us (Roland 1994: 631). As De Lauretis
explained, speaking out within and against feminism by women of color has forced US feminism to confront,
both emotionally and conceptually, the presence of power relations that just could not be analyzed, altered, or
even addressed by the concepts of gender and sexual difference (1990: 133).
Feminist international relations create new hierarchies of oppressionthey place feminine
based identities as the oppressed class separated from any masculine action
Jones, 96. Ph d in poly sci and professor of international studies at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics
(CIDE) in Mexico City, 1996
[Adam, Does Gender Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations, Review of International
Studies 22:4, http://adamjones.freeservers.com/does.htm, 7/12/07]
I have suggested that the most important, and surely a lasting, contribution of feminist critiques has been to add a
gender dimension to analyses of international relations. Few scholars will be able, in future, to analyze international
divisions of labour, or peace movements, or (pace Enloe) the activities of international diplomats, without attending to
feminist perspectives on all these phenomena. But feminists' success in exploring the gender variable remains, at this
point, mixed. And until feminist frameworks are expanded and to some extent reworked, it is hard to see how a

persuasive theory or account of the gendering of international relations can be constructed. Feminist attempts
to incorporate a gender variable into IR analysis are constrained by the basic feminist methodology and all
feminists' normative commitments. A genuinely "feminist approach" by definition "must take women's lives as
the epistemological starting point."(53) And a defining element of feminist approaches, as noted earlier, is a social
project aimed at ameliorating women's structured lack of privilege and emancipating them as a gender-class. The result
is a de facto equating of gender primarily with females/femininity. It is , in its way, a new logocentrism, whereby

(elite) male actions and (hegemonic) masculinity are drawn into the narrative mainly as independent variables
explaining [421] "gender" oppression. Even those works that have adopted the most inclusive approach to gender, such
as Peterson and Runyan's Global Gender Issues, betray this leaning. Peterson and Runyan do acknowledge that "our
attention to gender ... tends to underplay the considerable differences among men and among women," and note that "it is
not only females but males as well who suffer from rigid gender roles."(54) For the most part in their analysis, though,
"gender issues" are presented as coequal with women's issues. The plight of embodied women is front and centre

throughout, while the attention paid to the male/masculine realm amounts to little more than lip-service .
Feminist criticism of IR essentializes the category of men, reinforcing the gender binaries they
are critiquing
Jarvis, lecturer in the Department of Government and International Relations, Faculty at University of Sydney, 2000
(D.S.L, International relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism , pg. 163-164) pont
We might also extend a contextualist lens to analyze Sylvester's formulations, much as she insists her epistemological
approach does. Sylvester, for example, is adamant that we can not really know who "women" are, since to do so would be
to invoke an essentialist concept, concealing the diversity inherent in this category. "Women" don't really exist in
Sylvester's estimation since there are black women, white women, Hispanic, disabled, lesbian, poor, rich, middle class,
and illiterate women, to name but a few. The point, for Sylvester, is that to speak of "women" is to do violence to the
diversity encapsulated in this category and, in its own way, to silence those women who remain unnamed. Well and good.
Yet this same analytical respect for diversity seems lost with men. Politics and international relations become the
"places of men." But which men? All men? Or just white men, or rich, educated, elite, upper class, hetero- sexual men? To

speak of political places as the places of men ignores the fact that most men, in fact the overwhelming majority
of men, are not in these political places at all, are not decision makers, elite, affluent, or powerful. Much as with
Sylvester's categories, there are poor, lower class, illiterate, gay, black, and white men, many of whom suffer the vestiges of
hunger, poverty, despair, and disenfranchisement just as much as women. So why invoke the category "men" in such
essentialist and ubiquitous ways while cognizant only of the diversity in the category "women." These are

double standards, not erudite theoretical formulations, betraying, dare one say, sexism toward men by invoking
male gender generalizations and crude caricature.

Intersectionality
The ALT Epistemology does not take into account the cultural, racial and class differences in
Latin American femininity their gender focus approach is doomed to failure
Cabrera in 2010
Patricia Munoz Cabrera. Intersection Violences: A Review of Feminist Theories and Debates on Violence
against Women and Poverty in Latin America. 2010.
Scholars and researchers working with indigenous and Afro-descendant women in Central America also
suggest that violence should be referred to in the plural, since indigenous people have historically endured
intersecting violences both as individuals and collectively, as peoples (Iximuleu Chnabjul 2008: 12). Echoing
the creators of intersectionality, Brazilian scholar Sueli Carneiro (2001) argues that for Afro-descendant
women, a feminist standpoint should incorporate gender as one theoretical variable which cannot be
dissociated from other axes of oppression. Racism, for instance, is a constitutive element of Latin American
societies and determines gender hierarchies. Carneiro stresses the structural nature of the violence committed
against black women in Latin America, insisting upon the need for feminist scholars to reflect on the colonialist
matrix of power which drives these intersecting violences and the role of historical memory in preserving the
knowledge of past violations of womens human rights. Carneiro invites feminist scholars to re-examine the
gender inequality paradigm informing Latin American feminist theorising and to recognise the simultaneous
axes of oppression at work in the disenfranchisement of the continents black and indigenous women. Carneiro
refers to internal inequalities generated by the male hegemonic system and calls on feminist scholars to
dismantle the complementary ideologies (i.e. racism) that this system has generated (2001: 2).