Feminism AC

Long Version

A. The Standard
The Standard is Rejecting the Patriarchy. This is the standard for two reasons.

1) Masculine Domination Irrevocably Distorts Human Thought. The Standard is a Pre-Requisite

to Affirming or Negating.

Hintikka, Philosophy Department at Florida State University, AND Harding, Professor of

Women’s Studies at the University of California, 19831:

What counts as knowledge must be grounded on experience. Human experience differs according
to the kinds of activities and social relations in which humans engage. Women’s experience
systematically differs from the male experience upon which knowledge claims have been
grounded. Thus the experience on which the prevailing claims to social and natural knowledge
are founded is, first of all, only partial human experience only partially understood: namely,
masculine experience as understood by men. However, when this experience is presumed to be
gender-free- when the male experience is taken to be the human experience- the resulting theories,
concepts, methodologies, inquiry goals and knowledge-claims distort human social life and human
thought.

2) Discourse About Weapons of Mass Destruction Is Inadequate And Incomplete Without

Gender Analysis

Dr. Carol Cohn, Director of the Boston Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights,
20052:

But [I]t
is not only the political context within which weapons of mass destruction are situated that
is deeply gendered. So are the practical and symbolic dimensions of weapons themselves. This is
perhaps most obvious in relation to small arms. Governments and international institutions are
increasingly accepting that small arms and light weapons (SALW) are practically associated with
masculinity in many cultures, with men as the vast majority of the buyers, owners or users. After
early policy failures, it is also becoming increasingly recognised that the symbolic associations of SALW with masculinity
have political effects. Specifically, in relation to disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) programmes, real
barriers to effective SALW disarmament are created by the ways in which masculine identities and roles have become
conjoined with weapons possession for many (male) combatants. There is now general recognition that there are significant
gender dimensions to the possession of small arms and light weapons. It would be naive to assume that this
association suddenly becomes meaningless when we are talking about larger, more massively
destructive weapons. And more naïve still to think that it doesn’t matter. Given the dubious
military value and problematic usability of most WMD, a focus on their symbolic dimensions has
to be central to any effort at weapons reduction or disarmament. Without gender analysis,
attempts to untangle and understand the symbolic value and meaning of WMD are incomplete
and inadequate.

1
Harding, Sandra, and Merrill Hintikka. Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics,
Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. 2nd ed. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, 2003. p. xxx. Web.
2
Cohn, Carol, Felicity Hill, and Sara Ruddick. "The Relevance of Gender for Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction."
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, 12 June 2005. Web. 2 Sep
2010. <http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/No38.pdf>.
1
 Feminism AC
Long Version

B. Definitions
1) Ought

Online Etymology Dictionary, 201034:

ought (v.)
O.E. ahte, pt. of agan "to own, possess, owe" (see owe). As a past tense of owe, it shared in that word's
evolution and meant at times in M.E. "possessed" and "under obligation to pay." It has been
detached from owe since 17c., though he aught me ten pounds is recorded as active in E.Anglian dialect from c.1825.
As an auxiliary verb expressing duty or obligation (late 12c., the main modern use), it represents
the past subjunctive.

2) Weapons of Mass Destruction

Bowman, Specialist in National Defense at the Congressional Research Service, 20025:

Weapons of mass destruction is a former Soviet military term which was euphemistically used to
denote nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. It is now widely used, despite debate over its
appropriateness, and its definition has broadened to include radiological weapons.

3) Nuclear Weapons

An explosive device whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the
splitting or combining of atomic nuclei. As such, nuclear weapons are weapons of massive destruction.

4) Possess

To have and hold as property.

5) States

The body politic as organized for civil rule under one central government.

Contention One: Nuclear Discourse

3
Created/ Run by Douglas Harper (graduate of Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pa., with a degree in history and English).
4
Harper, Douglas. "Ought." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, n.d. Web. 22 Jul 2010.
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ought>.
5
Bowman, Steve. "Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Terrorist Threat." U.S. Department of State. Congressional Research
Service, 7 March 2002. Web. 2 Sep 2010. <http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9184.pdf>.
2
 Feminism AC
Long Version

The Depersonalized Nature of Nuclear Discourse Reveals Its Limiting Masculine Nature

Cohn Two, 20056:

Women, in professional and military settings, have related experiences of realising that something
terribly important is being left out but feeling constrained, as if there is almost a physical barrier
preventing them from pushing their transgressive truths out into the open. What is it that cannot
be spoken? First, any expression of an emotional awareness of the desperate human reality behind
the sanitised abstractions of death and destruction in strategic deliberations. Similarly, weapons’
effects may only be spoken of in the most clinical and abstract terms , and usually only by those deemed to
have the appropriate professional qualifications and expertise. What gets left out, then, is the emotional, the
concrete, the particular, human bodies and their vulnerability, human lives and their subjectivity
– all of which are marked as feminine in the binary dichotomies of gender discourse. In other words,
gender discourse informs and shapes nuclear and national security discourse, and in so doing
creates silences and absences. It keeps things out of the room, unsaid, and keeps them ignored if
they manage to get in. As such, it degrades our ability to think well and fully about nuclear
weapons and national security, and so shapes and limits the possible outcomes of our
deliberations. With this understanding, it becomes obvious that defence intellectuals’ standards of
what constitutes “good thinking” about weapons and security have not simply evolved out of trial
and error; it is not that the history of nuclear discourse has been filled with exploration of other ideas, concerns, interests,
information, questions, feelings, meanings and stances which were then found to create distorted or poor thought. On the
contrary, serious consideration of a whole range of ideas and options has been preempted by their
gender coding, and by the feelings evoked by living up to or transgressing normative gender
ideals.

Contention Two: Nuclear Weapons

6
Cohn, Carol, Felicity Hill, and Sara Ruddick. "The Relevance of Gender for Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction."
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, 12 June 2005. Web. 2 Sep
2010. <http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/No38.pdf>.
3
 Feminism AC
Long Version

Nuclear Weapons Are a Self-fulfilling Prophecy Rooted in Masculine Ideology. They Are the
Ultimate Arbiter of Masculine Power.

Cohn Three, 20057:

That a nation wishing to stake a claim to being a regional or world power should choose nuclear
weapons as its medium for doing so is too frequently characterised as “natural” : advanced
military destructive capacity identifies a state as powerful. The “fact” that nuclear weapons are
being instituted as the currency for establishing a hierarchy of state power is unremarked,
unanalysed, and taken for granted by most analysts. By contrast, feminist theory, using a historical and post-
colonial lens, is better able to understand nuclear weapons’ enshrinement as the emblem of power
not as a natural fact, but as a social one, produced by the actions of states. Thus, when the United
States, with the most powerful economy and conventional military in the world, acts as though its
power and security are guaranteed only by a large nuclear arsenal, it creates a context in which
nuclear weapons become the ultimate necessity for, and symbol of, state security. And when the
United States (or any other nuclear power) works hard to ensure that other countries don’t obtain
nuclear weapons, it is creating a context in which it is perceived as keeping other nations down, to
subordinate and emasculate them – to render them eunuchs! Hence, regardless of their military
utility nuclear weapons are turned into the ultimate arbiter of political/masculine power.

C. Impacts
7
Cohn, Carol, Felicity Hill, and Sara Ruddick. "The Relevance of Gender for Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction."
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, 12 June 2005. Web. 2 Sep
2010. <http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/No38.pdf>.
4
 Feminism AC
Long Version

The Negative’s Failure to Reject the Masculine Logic of Nuclear Weapons Continues the Hegemonic
Domination of the Patriarchy.

Impact One: Extinction And No Value To Life

Patriarchal Conceptions of International Relations Do Not Favor Species Survival And Deny
Value to Life

Clark, Professor of Conflict Resolution at George Mason University, 20048:

The more intense a confrontation becomes abroad, the more extreme is the rhetoric at home, and
the less diverse is the public dialogue. When "patriotism" slips into a self-righteous nationalism
that claims moral superiority, it narrows the focus and limits the quality of public discourse to
increasingly simple ideas, expressed in emotionally-charged language. Journalist Jonathan Rowe argues
that the success of George W. Bush as a "leader" rests on his ability to appeal to the emotions of his listeners, and his use of
the simplest language-"like they use." (10) Linguist George Lakoff notes that Bush embraces those American values
characteristic of a "strong-father family": authority, discipline, individual enterprise, and personal responsibility. (11) It is a
tactic that fits smoothly into the image of a hierarchical, competitive, yet nonetheless virtuous society. American democracy,
it is implied, has succeeded in overcoming the dark side of a highly competitive, dog-eat-dog existence-although "non-
democratic" societies definitely have not. At home, Bush thus takes on the image of the protective father, not just defending
America but vigorously exporting her best virtues to all peoples he identifies as "oppressed," whether by force of arms or
imposed religious beliefs.This simplified, almost sound-bite rhetorical approach is accompanied by a
narrowing of the world view available to the American electorate. Mass culture , purveyed by television
in the form of fast-moving, intellectually undemanding, popular entertainment--including so-called "news--closets the
watcher's mind into an escape world of virtual reality that lacks connectedness with real peoples
and events in the "non-TV" world. The "enemy people" never have the opportunity to communicate
with ordinary Americans about their daily lives, their perspectives, their beliefs and goals and
values. For most Americans, they remain faceless, distant, and unimportant-to the point of not
even existing in any consciously perceived way. This state of affairs, I believe, is the result of a world
now connected by trade (mostly cheap imports from poor countries to rich countries) and by media (mostly exports
from rich countries to poor countries), without any significant people-to-people contact. Instead, both
trade and media exchanges occur via impersonal, hierarchical institutions, the giant corporations that,
in fact, construct most of "reality" today for the average American.
Our problem is that power-military, political, economic, and informational-is located at the top of
institutionalized hierarchies scattered around the planet. The "logic" of this hierarchical order
has created a cul-de-sac for humankind. The purpose of hierarchical structuring of ever-larger
societies is to increase power vis-a-vis a competing other-which means there is constant threat and
insecurity and potential for violent struggle. The meaning of life for an individual human being, as
an accepted member of a community of others, disintegrates under this enormous burden. Human
nature is not being well-served in today's "masculine hegemonic" world. To put it bluntly, patriarchy
does not favor species survival, because it blocks the one thing that is necessary for human beings
to overcome their differences and live peaceably together-namely, open, dialogic communications.

8
Clark, Mary E. "Rhetoric, patriarchy & war: explaining the dangers of 'leadership' in mass culture." Women and Language
27.2 (2004): 21+. Student. Web. 8 Aug. 2010.
5
 Feminism AC
Long Version

Impact Two: Imperialism and International Security

The Hegemonic Masculine Domination of the Patriarchy Causes Imperialism and Escalates
Conflict

Tickner, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, 19999:

Returning to Machiavelli, we find danger not in the unsocialized behavior of men in the state of
nature, but in the wild spaces inhabited by the capriclous goddess Fortuna. The feminization of
dangerous spaces outside the territory of the state has been a metaphor frequently called upon to
justify defense budgets or the policies of expansionary states. Feminist theorist Cynthia Enloe describes
pictures of native women on postcards sent home from Africa and Asia in the early part of this century, which depicted
appealing images, while making clear that these alien societies needed the civilizing government that only whites could
bestow. Former colonial states and their leaders have frequently been portrayed as emotional and
unpredictable, characteristics also associated with women.

This discourse, which associates danger with those on the outside, is frequently framed in
gendered terms. Feminists have suggested that, in today's world of advanced technologies, very
militaristic definitions of security may actually decrease the security of both women and men,
directly due to the likely level of destruction should war break out, and indirectly as it decreases
resources for other uses.

To Embrace the False, Patriarchal Mindset of Nuclear Weapons Is To Embrace Extinction, Imperialism,
Escalating Conflict, And a World Where Life Has No Value. Therefore, I affirm.

9
J Ann Tickner. (1999). Searching for the princess? Harvard International Review, 21(4), 44-48. Retrieved August 21,
2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 47034966).
6