Control + 1 – Block Headings

The realism/idealism dichotomy is gendered, obscures feminism

J. Ann Tickner (professor of international relations at USC) 2001, Gendering World Politics. Pp. 27.

Feminist IR scholars, many of whom are skeptical of IR’s scientific turn for the same reasons that postliberal feminists are skeptical of empiricism (discussed earlier), have tended to identify with the reflectivist side of the third debate. Even though scholars in the third debate have been slow to introduce gender into their analysis, this debate has opened up space for feminist perspectives in a way that previous debates did not. Most IR feminists firmly reject identification with either side of the first debate; even though IR scholars have frequently associated feminists with the idealist position feminists see this association, like that between women and peace, as disempowering and likely to further reduce their being taken seriously. Just as Schmidt noted that defining the realist/idealist divide as a debate that delegitimized the idealist position, current attempts to associate feminists with idealism has a similar effect on delegitimizing feminist perspectives. Moreover, as feminists have pointed out, the construction of the realist/idealist dichotomy is in itself implicitly gendered.
The debate between realism and liberalism is too narrow

J. Ann Tickner (professor of international relations at USC) 2001, Gendering World Politics. Pp. 25.

According to Charles Kegley, theoretical debate in IR since its advent as a discipline has ranged primarily within the boundaries of the competing worldviews of realism and liberalism. He goes on to argue that the most important topic (although, as he admits, not the only one) in international- relations theory in the 1990s was the challenge to the dominant realist paradigm that was mounted from diverse perspectives grounded in liberal or idealist" theoretical orientations. Kegley's "key cleavage" is reminiscent of the conventional reading of the first debate. While to many scholars, particularly U.S. scholars, this assessment of the field may seem accurate, for others, including feminists, this description appears excessively narrow. 65

***IMPACTS***

Impacts – War

Patriarchy is the root cause of all war and will lead to extinction

Reardon, 93 [Betty, Director of the Peace Education Program at Teacher's College Columbia University, 1993, Women and Peace: Feminist Visions of Global Security, p. 30-2]

A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of dominance, not parity, which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to "strut their stuff" as we watch with increasing horror. Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are radically inappropriate for the nuclear age. To prove dominance and control, to distance one's character from that of women, to survive the toughest violent initiation, to shed the sacred blood of the hero, to collaborate with death in order to hold it at bay-all of these patriarchal pressures on men have traditionally reached resolution in ritual fashion on the battlefield. But there is no longer any battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that if a nuclear power were losing a crucial, large-scale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles because of some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend, instantly or eventually, to all living things, all the air, all the soil, all the water. If we believe that war is a "necessary evil," that patriarchal assumptions are simply "human nature," then we are locked into a lie, paralyzed. The ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust. The causes of recurrent warfare are not biological. Neither are they solely economic. They are also a result of patriarchal ways of thinking, which historically have generated considerable pressure for standing armies to be used. (Spretnak 1983) These cultural tendencies have produced our current crisis of a highly militarized, violent world that in spite of the decline of the cold war and the slowing of the military race between the superpowers is still staring into the abyss of nuclear disaster, as described by a leading feminist in an address to the Community Aid Abroad State Convention, Melbourne, Australia: These then are the outward signs of militarism across the world today: weapons-building and trading in them; spheres of influence derived from their supply; intervention-both overt and covert; torture; training of military personnel, and supply of hardware to, and training of police; the positioning of military bases on foreign soil; the despoilation of the planet; 'intelligence' networks; the rise in the number of national security states; more and more countries coming under direct military rule; the militarization of diplomacy, and the interlocking and the international nature of the military order which even defines the major rifts in world politics. (Shelly 1983).
The justification of exploitation during war rises from male domination of women.

Karen J. Warren, Duane L. Cady, Professors at Macalester and Hamline, Spring 1994, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810167?cookieSet=1

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.
Impacts – War
War will continue until we question gender hierarchies

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,” 30

Having examined the connection between realism and masculinity, I shall examine some feminist perspectives on national security. Using feminist theories, which draw on the experiences of women, I shall ask how it would affect the way in which we think about national security if we were to develop an alternative set of assumptions about the individual, the state, and the international system not based exclusively on the behavior of men. Realist assumptions about states as unitary actors render unproblematic the boundaries between anarchy and order and legitimate and illegitimate violence. If we were to include the experiences of women, how would it affect the way in which we understand the meaning of violence? While women have been less directly involved in international violence as soldiers, their lives have been affected by domestic violence in households, another unprotected space, and by the consequences of war and the policy priorities of militarized societies. Certain feminists have suggested that, because of what they see as a connection between sexism and militarism, violence at all levels of society is interrelated, a claim that calls into question the realist assumption of the anarchy/order distinction. Most important, these feminists claim that all types of violence are embedded in the gender hierarchies of dominance and subordination that I described in chapter 1. Hence they would argue that until these and other hierarchies associated with class and race are dismantled and until women have control over their own security a truly comprehensive system of security cannot be devised.
An ethic of care and compassion is necessary to reverse our march to extinction

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,” 138

The multidimensional nature of contemporary insecurities also highlights the importance of placing greater public value on reproduction and maintenance. In a world where nuclear war could destroy the earth and most of its inhabitants, we can no longer afford to celebrate the potential death of hundreds of thousands of our enemies; the preservation of life, not its destruction, must be valued. The elimination of structural violence demands a restructuring of the global economy so that individuals' basic material needs take priority over the desire for profit. An endangered natural environment points to the need to think in terms of the reproduction rather than the exploitation of nature. This ethic of caring for the planet and its inhabitants has been devalued by linking it to the private realm associated with the activities of women; yet caring and responsibility are necessary aspects of all dimensions of life, public and private. They will be valued in the public realm only when men participate equally in the private realm in tasks associated with maintenance and responsibility for child rearing. If we are to move toward a more secure future, what we value in the public realm, including the realm of international politics, should not be so rigidly separated from the values we espouse in the home.
Impacts – War
Empirically proven - “feminine” states don’t go to war and have more peaceful domestic conditions

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,” 140-1

While states' behavior in the international system can often be described in terms similar to characteristics associated with hegemonic masculinity, states do vary across time and space, with respect both to their attitude toward security enhancement and to their attitude toward women, yet rarely have these attitudes been examined together. In an unusual cross-cultural study, which examines the role of values in the choices that states make in selecting development paths, Geert Hofstede uses gender as one of his categories of analysis. In all the societies examined in the study, women were perceived as caring for people and the quality of life. In societies that Hofstede labeled masculine, men tended to see their roles as maximally different from those of women. In societies labeled as feminine, considerable overlap in gender roles was evident; men were less assertive and more oriented toward caring. Hofstede's findings suggest that Scandinavian countries scored high on characteristics he labeled as feminine. In policy terms this has translated into sympathy for the weak at home and support for foreign aid programs abroad. According to Hofstede, both national and international disputes tend to get solved peacefully in such societies.8 Although the Scandinavian countries are not widely perceived as significant actors in the international system, their policymakers have often taken leading roles in working for peace and the natural environment, and their foreign aid programs rank among the highest in terms of per capita contributions. These countries also rank high in terms of public policies that serve the interests of women. In an interview with the New York Times (May 22, 1991), Gro Brundtland, the prime minister of Norway and the leading author f the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, claimed that in Norway, where women hold half the cabinet positions, a much stronger emphasis has been placed on child care, education, and family life than in other states. According to Hofstede, the Scandinavian example suggests that states with less militaristic foreign policies and a greater commitment to economic and ecological security may also rely on less gendered models of national identity.
No talk about peace can be legitimate or adequate if it does not reveal the patriarchal framework that props up domination.

Karen J. Warren, Duane L. Cady, Professors at Macalester and Hamline, Spring 1994, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810167?cookieSet=1

Conceptually, a feminist perspective suggests that patriarchal conceptual frameworks and the behavior they give rise to, are what sanction, maintain, and perpetuate "isms of domination"-sexism, racism, classism, warism, naturism, and the coercive power-over institutions and practices necessary to maintain these "isms." If this is correct, then no account of peace is adequate which does not reveal patriarchal conceptual frameworks; they underlie and sustain war and conflict resolution strategies. (Examples of why we think this is correct are laced throughout the remainder of the paper.) One glaring example of how the dominant cultural outlook manifests this oppressive conceptual framework is seen in macho, polarized, dichotomized attitudes toward war and peace. Pacifists are dismissed as naive, soft wimps; warriors are realistic, hard heroes. War and peace are seen as opposites. In fact few individual warists or pacifists live up to these exaggerated extremes. This suggests a reconceptualization of values along a continuum, which allows degrees of pacifism and degrees of justification for war (Cady 1989).
Male hegemonic mindsets preclude cooperation

J. Ann Tickner (professor of international relations at USC) 2001, Gendering World Politics. Pp. 52-53.

Does the fact that states' national-security policies are often legitimated by appealing to masculine characteristics, such as power and self-help, mean that certain types of foreign-policy behaviors-standing tall, rather than wimping out-are seen as more legitimate than others? Could it be that men who, in the role of defense experts, must employ tough "masculine" language and suppress any "feminized" thoughts when constructing strategic options, come to regard more cooperative choices as unthinkable and cooperative behavior as unlikely? Carol Cohn claims that the language we use shapes the way we view the world and thus how we act on it. Her analysis of the language of U.S. security experts, whose ideas have been important for mainstream security studies, suggests that this masculine-gendered discourse is the only permissible way of speaking about national security if one is to be taken seriously by the strategic community. This rational, disembodied language precludes discussion of the death and destruction of war, issues that can be spoken of only in emotional terms stereotypically associated with women. In other words, the limits on what can be said with the language of strategic discourse constrains our ability to think fully and well about national security.
AT: Cap = Root Cause
Even under socialism, women will be oppressed economically and socially

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,” 86

Contemporary Marxist approaches to international political economy take class as their basic unit of analysis. In classical Marxist theory, women were subsumed under this class analysis rather than discussed as a group with particular interests and needs. In The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Frederick Engels tied women's oppression to male ownership of private property under capitalism and to women's dependence on men for their subsistence. Engels and other Marxists believed that when women entered the labor market, they would be made economically independent and could join with working-class men in the overthrow of capitalism, thus leading to liberation for both men and women under socialism. 33 Socialist feminists argue that this type of class-based analysis ignores two important factors: first, that women are oppressed in specific ways that are attributable to patriarchy rather than to capitalism; and, second, that class analysis ignores women's role in the family. These feminists maintain that women do not have the same opportunities as men when they enter the work force in any society, socialist or capitalist. As discussed earlier, women worldwide earn less than men on an average, even when performing similar tasks. The problem of child care hinders women's entry into the job market and when they do enter the labor market women tend to be ghettoized in low-paying jobs or to face wage discrimination. In all societies, jobs that are predominantly occupied by women are considered less prestigious and therefore less well paid than those occupied by men. Women frequently experience harassment and intimidation in the workplace, and taking time off to bear and raise children may threaten job security and impede opportunities for promotion.
Marxisms exclusive focus on economic analysis ignores the extra-economic functions performed by women and the economic dependence on men patriarchy fosters

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,” 86-88

However, it is Marxism's tendency to ignore women in their reproductive roles that feminists criticize the most. For classical Marxists, procreation was seen as a natural female process, fixed by human biology. Therefore a division of labor, whereby women are primarily responsible for the rearing of children, was also seen as relatively fixed. 34 Since it assumed that women's role as caretakers of children was "natural," an assumption now questioned by many feminists, classical Marxism omitted women's roles in the family from its analysis. Feminists argue that ignoring women in their reproductive and child-rearing roles, an omission common to all approaches to political economy, leaves all the unpaid labor that women perform in the family outside of economic analysis. 35 By ignoring women in their domestic roles, Marxists and non-Marxists alike neglect certain issues that are peculiar to women, regardless of their class position. When married women move into the labor force they usually continue to be responsible for most of the housework and child rearing. 36 Besides the lack of respect for unpaid housework and the dependence of full-time housewives on the incomes of their husbands, women, including those in the work force, usually suffer a severe decline in income should their marriage end in divorce. Economic dependence may force women to stay in violent and abusive marriages. Gender ideologies, which dictate that women should be mothers and housewives, justify discriminatory practices in the labor market and place a double work burden on women. Maria Mies suggests that the historical process of the development of the gendered role of housewife in early modern Europe was an important part of the evolution of the capitalist world economy. She argues that the "nonproductive" labor of women was the foundation upon which the process of capital accumulation got started on a global scale. Mies claims that the processes of imperialism and "housewifization" were causally interrelated in nineteenth-century Europe: housewifization encouraged the demand for luxury items produced in the colonies to be consumed by European women, thus moving the display of luxury from the public to the private domain. Housewifization also produced the Victorian image of the good woman withdrawn from war, politics, and money-making, with the consequence that women's labor became a natural resource that was freely available outside the wage economy. Mies ties all these historical practices to the workings of the contemporary global economy in which former colonies are still producing consumer goods for the First World, production often undertaken by poorly paid women whose low wages are justified as supplementary income for future mothers and housewives. 37
AT: Cap = Root Cause
Reproduction is the basis of women’s oppression, not production – women do not fare better under socialism

J. Ann Tickner (professor of international relations at USC) 2001, Gendering World Politics. Pp. 16-17.

Reacting against the essentialism of radical feminism and its notion of an undifferentiated patriarchy, socialist feminism, coming out of Marxist roots, has looked to differences in men's and women's material existence as a reason for women's oppression. Socialist feminists have claimed that patriarchy has a material base that is expressed in men's control over women’s labor power. In the modern West, women's role as reproducers and household workers have reduced them to a state of economic dependence; even when women work in the labor force, they receive on average less pay than men and are still responsible for a disproportionate share of household duties. Whereas Marx claimed that capitalist modes of production were responsible for workers' oppression, these feminists have looked at modes of reproduction as primary sources of women's oppression. Claiming that classical Marxism dismissed women's oppression as less important than that of workers in capitalist systems, socialist feminists have pointed out that often women do not fare better under socialism. Women’s oppression, therefore, is linked to these various modes of production and reproduction, as well as to class and economic position.
Communism doesn’t help women

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,” 89-90

If, as many feminists claim, women's oppression is due to patriarchy as well as capitalism, could the position of women be expected to improve under socialism, as Marxists believe? Socialist feminists agree that the condition of women in socialist states usually improves in the areas of social policies, welfare, and legal rights. 41 The availability of maternity rights, day care, and other institutional reforms may further improve the position of working women in socialist states. However, studies of women in the Soviet Union in the 1980s found that while women constituted 51 percent of the work force, they were disproportionately concentrated in unskilled jobs and continued to carry most of the domestic workload. 42 Although traditional Marxism saw women's entry into the labor force as a liberation, women in the former Soviet Union have seen it as an additional burden on top of demanding household duties in a state that chose to sacrifice consumer interests to state-centric heavy industrialization. 43 Since interference in the family as an institution is as much resisted in socialist states as it is in capitalist states, problems of powerlessness and violence, which women encounter in families, remain. Moreover, writers on women in socialist states generally conclude that, even if women's conditions in the work force are improved, women are as poorly represented in positions of state power and decision making as they are in capitalist states. These feminists argue that, although women may suffer from particular forms of repression under capitalism, the liberation of women through class struggle cannot be assumed. It will only come about when women are equal to men in both the public and the private spheres, a condition that would not necessarily obtain in a postcapitalist world.