Control + 1 – Block Headings

1. We don’t necessarily disagree with your empowerment of women- the problem is that when you include aspects of Okinawan identity projects such as economic success, struggles against imperialism, and the like, the existing institutions simply sideline the feminist agenda as “irrelevant” and “not central enough”. Women in Okinawa have a long history of being forced into distasteful jobs and excluded from the public sphere, and the truth is that the American occupation has only been the latest incarnation of this. The only way forward is to stop conflating women’s struggles into other demands and focus solely on their movement, otherwise their suffering is doomed to commoditization by being written off as a sacrifice for the greater good and just used as justification for Okinawan identity politics that, even if they succeed, will just leave at the end of the day women at the same place that they are right now- that’s all Angst
2. More ev: the affs metaphorization of the abused women as the Okinawan body obscures the gender violence itself and distorts focus on issues of gender

Linda Angst, assistant professor of anthropology @ Lewis and Clark 2005 (Local Violence, Global Media: Feminist Analyses of Gendered Representations, edited by Lisa Cuklanz and Sujata Moorti, pg 147-148)

The rape itself has also been situated within a roster of other crimes or unethical acts committed by U.S. soldiers over the past 55 years. These include robberies, beatings, and violence ending in manslaughter. That context has the effect of minimizing the impact of, and thereby desensitizing us to, the horror of this particular crime and to the crime as a rape, a violent sexual attack. In effect, we are encouraged to read that history according to certain specifications; that is, we are to read it as a history in which US. servicemen have committed repeated offenses against Okinawans-not just Okinawan women- in the years since 1945. In this sense the gender dimension of the crime at hand is minimized or forfeited to the larger ethical issues of human rights violations, violations of international law by soldiers of a foreign occupation force, and felonious crimes against the local civic order. Ironically, the metaphorization of rape as the violation of the Okinawan body politic similarly takes the focus off the specific experience of Okinawan women. This focus does not highlight crimes committed against women alone, or crimes commit-ted by Okinawans or Japanese against women or Okinawans in general. The focus is placed explicitly on the imperialist relationship of U.S. military dominance over Okinawa, not on the unequal relationship between Japan and Okinawa or on women, per se. These absences reveal how the rape-and its unwilling subject, woman-have been appropriated (and in effect erased) by all sides.
3. The affirmative appropriates women to justify the us/them dichotomy and masculine solutions

Jan Jindy Pettman, Director of Centre for Women’s Studies at Australian National University, Spring 2004, pg. 92

Such moves, meant to complicate, internationalize, and gender the account, relate to long-held feminist anxieties about the "unitary masculine actor" problem in IR that "turns a complex state and set of forces into a singular male opponent." This personification of enemy states makes their demonization easier. It also facilitates America's translation into victim/redeemer, reproducing bounded state identities that suppressed connections across and divisions within the different player states. Such constructions unleashed competitive masculinities into action: hence the 'hard masculinity' privileged in the dominant national/alliance mode.⁴¹ Feminists resisted the ways that 9/11 and its aftermath privileged the military solution and deployed 'women' in the war story as a method of legitimization. Feminists pointed to the use of women in the culture wars that lurked within the war talk, and shored up the binary Them vs. Us yet again.⁴² They also resisted the effect of masculinized responses in removing women as agents of knowledge. This in turn prompted the constant reassertion 'not in our name,' lest women's plight/danger became grounds for masculinized action yet again.
Links – Women in Afghanistan
Focus on the burqa justifies use of military force

Fluri 8, Jennifer L. Fluri, Assistant professor at Dartmouth College on Gender Studies, PhD in Women Studies, 2008. [Zed Books, Feminism and War: Confronting US Imperialism, Robin L. Riley, Chandra Talpade Mohanty, and Minnie Bruce Pratt, editors at Zed Books, p. 148]

These US senators defined the burqa as the primary identifier of women's oppression in Afghanistan; and as Senator Boxer highlights in her statement, the burqa provides a comprehensible symbol of oppres- sion because it is staunchly counter to the US cultural representation of women's independence and liberation. The unveiling and various manifestations of revealing the female body are normative and sub- sumed into the conceptions of freedom and liberty for women in the United States. The burqa provides an important symbol of oppression for public and political purposes, because of this stark contrast between burqa-clad and uncovered bodies (see Abu Lughod 2002; El Cuindi 1999; Barbs 2002). Boxer - with the support of her male counterparts in the Senate - brought the burqa from the margins of US geographic imagination to the center as the backdrop for Afghanistan and an effective method for mainstreaming citizen support of the USA as the primary 'outsider' needed to 'save and protect' Afghan women from their 'culture.' The primary form of 'saving and protecting' Afghan women quickly turned to the use of military force after the events of 9/11.
Links – Drones
The affirmative cannot solve for drones – there must be a true separation between the body as a body and a body as a target. Feminists can make the distinction.

Lauren Wilcox, Political Theory Colloquium, 12-11-2009, http://www.polisci.umn.edu/centers/theory/schedule.html

While making important contributions on the relationship between war, technology, and the legitimacy of killing, this work does not challenge the status of bodies as only important in regards to how they may be killed. Like the mainstream literature, much of the critical literature on precision bombing is complicit erasure of bodies in international relations. Critical projects such as those intent on demonstrating the ‘myth’ of precision bombing are similar in some respect to the feminist project of making visible the injurious nature of war as a counter to the narrative of glorious and humane war. Like feminist projects on making bodies visible, such critical projects suffer from similar issues, that is, the treatment of bodies as biological entities to be counted, identified and shown as an example of the brutal, violent nature of war. One of the most important feminist contributions in theorizing the body is work that highlights the ways in which strategic thought in International Relations ignores and in fact, necessarily obscures the gruesome realities of war and its impact on the human body. Beyond bemoaning the existence of euphemisms such as ‘collateral damage,’ ‘daisy cutters’ and ‘acceptable losses,’ some feminists have shown how certain abstract calculations about war are made possible by the erasure of human bodily suffering. Feminists have tried to correct theories of violence and war that work to obscure the reality of bodily violence while focusing on political, strategic, and tactic maneuverings. Such theories have been criticized by feminists for their abstraction which allows theorists to distance themselves from the horrors of war. Carol Cohn, in her landmark essay, “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” (Cohn 1987) insists that this neglect of bodily harm is not an oversight, but rather is a precondition for the existence of the theory and the strategic apparatus underpinning it. The violence and destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons are literally made ‘unthinkable’: they cannot be discussed within the terms of strategic discourse.

AT: We Help Women
Feminist issues cannot be resolved within masculinised structures

J. Ann Tickner (professor of international relations at USC) 2001, Gendering World Politics. Pp. 119-120.

The tensions and contradictions to which Stienstra has pointed are evident in the successes and failures of women's organizing. While the internationalization of feminism has been very successful in raising issues of discrimination and has made considerable strides in getting gender issues recognized by international organizations, in concrete terms women are doing less well than men in all societies. There was a recognition at the Beijing Conference that, in spite of the attention to these issues over the twenty years since the beginning of the UN Decade for Women women’s global status was not improving significantly. A significant reason for these inequalities, which continue, is that women must operate within "masculinized" organizations and structures.76 Since global organizing is far removed from the realities of many women's lives, there is a sense that although social movements are used to promote solutions that criticize' the state, a return to the state is probably necessary to meet the dislocations and poverty generated by the economic globalization of the late twentieth century."
The affirmative appropriates women to justify the us/them dichotomy and masculine solutions

Jan Jindy Pettman, Director of Centre for Women’s Studies at Australian National University, Spring 2004, pg. 92

Such moves, meant to complicate, internationalize, and gender the account, relate to long-held feminist anxieties about the "unitary masculine actor" problem in IR that "turns a complex state and set of forces into a singular male opponent." This personification of enemy states makes their demonization easier. It also facilitates America's translation into victim/redeemer, reproducing bounded state identities that suppressed connections across and divisions within the different player states. Such constructions unleashed competitive masculinities into action: hence the 'hard masculinity' privileged in the dominant national/alliance mode.⁴¹ Feminists resisted the ways that 9/11 and its aftermath privileged the military solution and deployed 'women' in the war story as a method of legitimization. Feminists pointed to the use of women in the culture wars that lurked within the war talk, and shored up the binary Them vs. Us yet again.⁴² They also resisted the effect of masculinized responses in removing women as agents of knowledge. This in turn prompted the constant reassertion 'not in our name,' lest women's plight/danger became grounds for masculinized action yet again.
Masculine views of international relations justify the “protection” of women which leads to an enforcement of oppression and hierarchies.

J. Ann Tickner, School of International Relations @ University of Southern California, 1997, http://www.jstor.org/pss/2600855

For example, feminists have argued that unequal gender relations are important for sustaining the military activities of the state. Thus, what goes on in wars is not irrelevant to their causes and outcomes. The notion that (young) males fight wars to protect vulnerable groups such as women and children who cannot be expected to protect themselves has been an important motivator for the recruitment of military forces and support for wars. Feminists have challenged this protector/protected relationship with evidence of the high increase in civilian casualties documented above.³⁵ As feminists have pointed out, if women are thought to be in need of protection, it is often their protectors who provide the greatest threat. Judith Stiehm (1982) claims that this dependent, asymmetric relationship leads to feelings of low self-esteem and little sense of responsibility on the part of women. For men, the presence of able-bodied, competent adults who are seen as dependent and incapable can contribute to misogyny. Anne Orford (1996) tells us that accounts of sexual assault by peacekeepers have emerged in many UN peacekeeping operations. However, such violence against women is usually dismissed as a "natural" outcome of the right of young soldiers to enjoy themselves. This type of behavior may also be aggravated by the misogynist training of soldiers who are taught to fight and kill through appeals to their masculinity; such behavior further erodes the notion of protection.

Links – Public/Private Dichotomy
Public/private dichotomy guarantees gender exclusion

Adam Jones, political scientist at University of British Columbia, 1996 (“Does Gender Make the World go round?” Review of international studies vol 22, number 4, JSTOR)

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the feminist critique of the state-one that extends far beyond the boundaries of radical feminism-is the project to reclaim the private. The history of political theory from ancient Greece onwards centres, in the minds of many feminists, on the progressive isolation and devaluation of the 'private' sphere (the household/oicos/domestic unit) where women have traditionally held sway, and the corresponding inflation of the public, male-dominated realm. Political thought has tended to define only the latter sphere as 'political', in the sense of being shaped by active agents and competitive or conflictive power relations. Feminists-as noted, this is a consensus position-reject the notion that the realm where women's experiences are most commonly lived should be marginalized as an analytical concern. Instead, as Susan Moller Okin and others have persuasively argued, 'the personal is political, and the public/domestic dichotomy is a misleading construct, which obscures the cyclical pattern of inequalities between men and women'. Or, as Peterson and Runyan put it, with explicit reference to international relations: Politics itself has to be redefined in view of the wide range of political activities in which women are highly involved . . . Politics is about differential access to resources-both material and symbolic-and how such power relations and structures are created, sustained, and reconfigured. According to the broader definition, politics operates at all levels, ranging from the family and community to the state and the international sphere.19
Links – Rational Actors
Rational actor model justifies patriarchy and exclusion

Adam Jones, political scientist at University of British Columbia, 1996 (“Does Gender Make the World go round?” Review of international studies vol 22, number 4, JSTOR)

The concept of the rational, self-maximizing actor is usually associated with liberal economic theory; but in key respects, it has been adopted by Realism to depict unitary state action in the international system. In particular, Realism posits a separate sphere of state activity, analytically distinguishable from domestic society and, thanks to an anarchic international environment, not subject to the rule-guided behaviour that directs and inhibits individuals in society. Feminist critiques of the rational-actor model tend to centre on the extent to which the model is constituted by capitalist and patriarchal strategies: amoral profit maximization, in the case of the first; a focus on the male-dominated public sphere, in the second. Tickner argues that individuals and states are socially constituted and . . . 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.21 The critique here is similar to one that feminists and others often deploy against epistemological 'objectivity', accusing it of abstracting the observer to a point of callous detachment from the observed. The Realist world, in Jean Bethke Elshtain's words, is one where 'no children are ever born, and nobody ever dies . . . There are states, and they are what is.'22 Again, the distinctive feminist contribution here is the labelling of Western-style rationality as a peculiarly male/masculinist phenomenon, reflecting and perpetuating patriarchal power. An important supplementary element of the critique centres on the classical tradition's vision of nature. This issue has assumed paramount significance with the explosion of concern (again in tandem with the rise of feminism) over global environmental degradation. The 'politics of defining "natural resources" as "there for the taking"' with 'no permission required, no obligations incurred',23 is held to be implicit in Realism's approach to power and resource distribution. Once again, more ecologically-minded feminists differ from other 'green' discourses in identifying the exploiter's mentality as distinctly 'masculine'. A responsible, conservationist attitude toward 'Mother Earth' is also regularly posited as feminine, by virtue of women's innate and/or constructed leaning towards nurturing and care-giving roles.
Their appeals to rationality ignore the role of social position in determining what is rational

J. Ann Tickner, Prof of IR at USC, M.A. Yale and Ph.D Brandeis, ’92, “Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving International Security,” 91

The liberal and economic nationalist perspectives both rely on an instrumental, depersonalized definition of rationality that 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.
Links – Rational Actors
Their assumption that individuals act out of self-interest to maximize economic gain is an incomplete, masculine view of humanity

J. Ann Tickner, Prof of IR at USC, M.A. Yale and Ph.D Brandeis, ’92, “Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving International Security,” 72-3

Feminist critiques of liberalism should begin with an examination of "rational economic man," a construct that, while it extrapolates from roles and behaviors associated with certain Western men and assumes characteristics that correspond to the definition of hegemonic masculinity discussed in chapter 1, has been used by liberal economists to represent the behavior of humanity as a whole. Nancy Hartsock suggests that rational economic man, appearing coincidentally with the birth of modern capitalism, is a social construct based on the reduction of a variety of human passions to a desire for economic gain. 4 Its claim to universality across time and culture must therefore be questioned. For example, Sandra Harding's African worldview, discussed in chapter 2, in which the economic behavior of individuals is embedded within a social order, is a communal orientation seen as "deviant" by neoclassical economic theory; yet it is one that represents a different type of economic behavior specific to other cultures. As Harding claims, it also contains some striking parallels with the worldview of many Western women. 5 Hartsock and Harding are thus claiming that the highly individualistic, competitive market behavior of rational economic man could not necessarily be assumed as a norm if women's experiences, or the experiences of individuals in noncapitalist societies, were taken as the prototype for human behavior. Women in their reproductive and maternal roles do not conform to the behavior of instrumental rationality. Much of women's work in the provision of basic needs takes place outside the market, in households or in the subsistence sector of Third World economies. Moreover, when women enter the market economy, they are disproportionately represented in the caring professions as teachers, nurses, or social workers, vocations that are more likely to be chosen on the basis of the values and expectations that are often emphasized in female socialization rather than on the basis of profit maximization. If this is the case, we must conclude that many women's, as well as some men's, motivations and behavior cannot be explained using a model of instrumental rationality; rather, these behaviors call for models based on different understandings of the meaning of rationality.
Their appeals to rationality ignore the role of social position in determining what is rational

J. Ann Tickner, Prof of IR at USC, M.A. Yale and Ph.D Brandeis, ’92, “Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving International Security,” 91

The liberal and economic nationalist perspectives both rely on an instrumental, depersonalized definition of rationality that 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.
AT: Aff is Liberalism Not Realism