Control + 1 – Block Headings

Fem IR Generic DDI 2010

Feminist International Relations Kritik

Feminist International Relations Kritik 1

1NC Shell (1/3) 4

Human Rights 1NC Shell [1/2] 7

***LINKS*** 9

Links – International Relations 10

AT: Women Included in IR Now 14

AT: Our IR isn’t Gendered 15

Links – Focus on the State 16

Links – Crises 19

Links – Security 20

AT: Human Security 22

Links – Borders/Boundaries 23

Links – Hegemony/Power Projection 24

AT: There are Women in the Military 28

AT: War is Good for Women 31

Links – Terrorism 32

Links – Nuclear Discourse 33

Links - PMCs 34

Links – Democracy 35

Links – Democracy 36

Links – International Organizations 37

Links – Human Rights 38

Links – Women’s Rights/Women’s Issues 40

AT: Universal Human Rights 41

2NC AT: Human Rights are Good for Women 42

Links – Postcolonialism 44

Links – Economy/Development 45

Links – Nation Building 51

Links – Free Trade 53

AT: Development/Economic Growth Helps Women 54

AT: Trade = Cooperation 55

Links – Environment 56

Links – Science 61

Links – Withdrawal from Okinawa 62

Links – Representations of Japanese Women 65

Links – Representations of Okinawa Rape 66

2NC AT: Okinawa Withdrawal Helps Women 67

Links – Women in Afghanistan 68

Links – Drones 69

AT: We Help Women 70

Links – Public/Private Dichotomy 71

Links – Rational Actors 72

AT: Aff is Liberalism Not Realism 74

***IMPACTS*** 75

Impacts – War 76

AT: Cap = Root Cause 79

Impacts – Environment 81

Impacts – Turns the Case 83

AT: Case Outweighs 85

AT: Utilitarianism 88

Discount Aff. Evidence 89

***FRAMING*** 92

Discourse Key 93

Theory Key 96

Methodology Key 97

AT: Kritik Ignores Research 98

***ALTERNATIVE*** 99

Alternative Solves – General 100

Alternative Solves Patriarchy 108

Alternative Solves Middle East War 109

Alternative Solves Violence 110

Alternative Solves Human Rights 111

Alternative Solves Economy/Development 112

Alternative Solves Democracy 114

Alternative Solves Imperialism 115

Alternative Solves - Environment 117

Alternative Solves Afghan Development 118

Alternative Solves Military Prostitution 119

AT: Alternative Doesn’t Spill Over 120

AT: Alternative Can’t Solve War 121

AT: Alternative Causes Insecurity 127

AT: Alternative Can’t Overcome Social Structures 129

AT: Alternative Can’t Overcome Realism 130

AT: Alternative Can’t Overcome Competition 132

2NC AT: Alternative Universalizes 133

AT: Alternative Universalizes 135

AT: Alternative Excludes Other Groups 136

AT: Essentialism Bad 137

AT: Essentialism (Environment Impact) 140

AT: Identity Politics Bad (Butler) 141

AT: Identity Politics Bad 143

AT: Feminism Universalizes Women’s Experience 146

AT: Sexual Difference = Socially Constructed 147

AT: You Portray Women as Victims 149

AT: Alternative Replaces Masculinity with Feminity 151

2NC AT: Permutation 152

AT: Permutation 154

2NC AT: Realism 160

AT: Realism 162

***AFFIRMATIVE*** 169

AFF 2AC AT: Fem IR Kritik (1/4) 170

AFF AT: State Link 174

AFF AT: Economy Link 176

AFF AT: Quantitative Method Link 177

AFF AT: Human Rights Link 178

AFF: Korean Prostitution Link Turn 179

AFF: Military Presence/Colonialism Link Turn 180

AFF: Human Security Turn 183

AFF: Case Outweighs 184

AFF AT: Root Cause of War 185

AFF: War Turns Gender Violence 188

AFF: Alternative Doesn’t Solve 191

AFF: Alternative Doesn’t Solve Conflict 195

AFF: Permutation Solves 196

AFF: Permutation Solves/AT: Realism Bad 202

AFF: Permutation Solves (Environment) 203

AFF AT: Can’t “Add Women and Stir” 204

AFF AT: Gender Key 205

AFF AT: Discourse Key 206

AFF: Resentment Turn 209

AFF: Essentialism 210

AFF: Ethnocentrism Turn 212

AFF AT: Kritik Can Incorporate Other Perspectives 219

AFF: Identity Politics Bad 220

AFF: Victimization Bad 224

1NC Shell (1/3)
A. Gendered scripts, taught to us from birth, determine the way we see the world. It is impossible to escape the effect social constructions of gender have on positive statements of the world

bell hooks, former Prof of English at Yale, Oberlin, USC, and City College in New York, Ph.D UC Santa Cruz, 7/25/04, “Understanding Patriarchy,” http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/20613.php

Patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit in our nation. Yet most men do not use the word "patriarchy" in everyday life. Most men never think about patriarchy-what it means, how it is created and sustained. Many men in our nation would not be able to spell the word or pronounce it correctly. The word "patriarchy" just is not a part of their normal everyday thought or speech. Men who have heard and know the word usually associate it with women's liber­ation, with feminism, and therefore dismiss it as irrelevant to their own experiences. I have been standing at podiums talking about patriarchy for more than thirty years. It is a word I use daily, and men who hear me use it often ask me what I mean by it. Nothing discounts the old antifeminist projection of men as all-powerful more than their basic ignorance of a major facet of the political system that shapes and informs male identity and sense of self from birth until death. I often use the phrase "imperialist white-supremacist capi­talist patriarchy" to describe the interlocking political sys­tems that are the foundation of our nation's politics. Of these systems the one that we all learn the most about growing up is the system of patriarchy, even if we never know the word, because patriarchal gender roles -are assigned to us as children and we are given continual guid­ance about the ways we can best fulfill these roles. Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. When my older brother and I were born with a year separating us in age, patriarchy determined how we would each be regarded by our parents. Both our parents believed in patriarchy; they had been taught patriarchal thinking through religion. At church they had learned that God created man to rule the world and everything in it and that it was the work of women to help men perform these tasks, to obey, and to always assume a subordinate role in relation to a powerful man. They were taught that God was male. These teachings were reinforced in every institution they encountered--­schools, courthouses, clubs, sports arenas, as well as churches. Embracing patriarchal thinking, like everyone else around them, they taught it to their children because it seemed like a "natural" way to organize life. As their daughter I was taught that it was my role to serve, to be weak, to be free from the burden of thinking, to caretake and nurture others. My brother was taught that it was his role to be served; to provide; to be strong; to think, strategize, and plan; and to refuse to caretake or nurture others. I was taught that it was not proper for a female to be violent, that it was "unnatural." My brother was taught that his value would be determined by his will to do violence (albeit in appropriate settings). He was taught that for a boy, enjoying violence was a good thing (albeit in appropriate settings). He was taught that a boy should not express feelings. I was taught that girls could and should express feelings, or at least some of them. When I responded with rage at being denied a toy, I was taught as a girl in a patriarchal household that rage was not an appropriate feminine feeling, that it should be not only not be expressed but be eradicated. When my brother responded with rage at being denied a toy, he was taught as a boy in a patriar­chal household that his ability to express rage was good but that he had to learn the best setting to unleash his hos­tility. It was not good for him to use his rage to oppose the wishes of his parents, but later, when he grew up, he was taught that rage was permitted and that allowing rage to provoke him to violence would help him protect home and nation. We lived in farm country, isolated from other people. Our sense of gender roles was learned from our parents, from the ways we saw them behave. My brother and I remember our confusion about gender. In reality I was stronger and more violent than my brother, which we learned quickly was bad. And he was a gentle, peaceful boy, which we learned was really bad. Although we were often confused, we knew one fact for certain: we could not be and act the way we wanted to, doing what we felt like. It was clear to us that our behavior had to follow a predetermined, gendered script. We both learned the word "patriarchy" in our adult life, when we learned that the script that had determined what we should be, the identities we should make, was based on patriarchal values and beliefs about gender.

1NC Shell (2/3)

B. International Relations excludes feminine perspectives in its descriptions of global politics

Darryl Jarvis, Ph.D in IR from University of British Columbia, 2000, “International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism: Defending the Discipline,” p. 145

The Third Debate has thus evolved a new addendum, one where gender and identity politics questions even dissident thought, labeling it an equally suspect discourse propagated largely by white middle class hetero-sexual males. This represents a new, deeper, subversive tendency in dissident scholarship, perhaps more radical and more threatening than even Ashley's. This time the charge is not just that we have been thinking wrong, or not thinking at all, but when not thinking we have been actively constructing gender gulags, excluding women by segregating and denying them access to international relations. In its most overt form practitioners are charged with being misogynist, sexist, racist, and homophobic, a disposition in theory that manifests itself in to what Steve Smith describes as pomophobia, or what V. Spike Peterson laments as the failure of feminist literature to be taken seriously in International Relations." For feminists, such a predilection represents an "androcentric system of thought inherited from early western state making[,] ... revitalized in the Enlightenment," and now cemented in international relations as a form of "masculinism" but one which is "rendered so invisible as to be absent in even critical and postmodern accounts."" International Relations thus represents a form of professionalized bigotry, evolved through the natural outgrowth of unreflective men theorists who are wedded implicitly "to an unacknowledged and seemingly commonplace principle that international relations is the proper homestead or place for people called men." Men of all political stripes have, according to Sylvester, been winking at feminists as they walk by, failing to read them, appoint them, take them seriously, or acknowledge them." In such a "chilly climate," women have been sys-tematically "evacuated" from International Relations, forced into their assigned places at home, and even when they have managed to break free of such places, "their words have been lost, or covered-up and stored in the basement, . . . ignored because they are the views of people called women and 'women' have no place in the political places of 'men.""' Of "all the institutionalized forms of contemporary social and political analysis," concludes R.B.J. Walker, International Relations is "the most gender- blind, indeed crudely patriarchal." At the center of this disciplinary bastion of male privilege and repression, feminists identify an unreflective male-body-politic, one unknowingly prone to gendered or masculinist worldviews because of their unconscious male-sexuality. Underpinning much contemporary feminist theory is an implicit assumption of innate difference between men and women, where social inequalities stem as much from the hormonal/ anatomical attributes of men as they do from social institutions like patriarchy or the thought practices associated with rational or positivist-based epistemologies. For many feminists, the litany of allegations also derive from psychoanalytic interpretation, where, for example, the arms race, strategic and military studies, comparative force assessment, military-industrial complexes, or studies of the new surveillance technologies represent a male obsession with hardware and high politics characteristic of the egocentric, aggressive, powerseeking, rational man who unconsciously transposes his phallocentric desires into war-hunting-sport-fighting-power-seeking pursuits. Using a type of neobiological cum psychosociological logic, males are seen to project a testosterone-induced aggression/violence indicative of hormonal dispositions or imprinted primeval genetic memories to protect food sources or territory, for example. Or, as the case may be, some men never mature. They continue to play with dangerous toys-motorbikes, racing cars, weapons, and war-flirting with death." For Helen Caldicott, some men simply display a fascination with killing. Why? Perhaps, she notes, "Because women know from birth that they can experience the ultimate act of creativity, whereas boys and men lack this potential capacity and replace it with a fascination with control over life and death and a feeling of creative omnipotence."" Women, on the other hand, are "allied to the lift process" by virtue of "theft hormonal constitution." "She is not afraid to admit she has made a mistake and is generally interested in life-oriented human dynamics. She innately understands the basic principles of conflict resolution."" Men, by contrast, when they make war do so for reasons of psychosexual virility, in order to demonstrate their sexual potency as aging, white, elite male decision makers. As Caldicott notes, "It is never the people who make the decision to kill who get killed. It is the boys who usually don't even know what a dispute is about, let alone understand the intricacies of international politics. [These] old men act out theft fascination with killing, theft need to prove theft toughness and sexual adequacy by using innocent pawns."" Here, male aggression is ascribed to the deeply embedded psychodramas played out in male minds, the psychosociology of the male as a competitive sex predator, for example, and the fixation with phallocentric satisfaction." Men theorists of international relations are still really boys playing with guns, tanks, and bombs, caught up in the activity of psychosexual play as they study or help prepare for, make, and fight wars. "Little boys with big toys" was the popular expression of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and of the protests by women at Greenham Common against the deployment of Pershing and Cruise miles in the United Kingdom. For Caldicott, for example, the arms race was little more than an incidence of "missile envy," a competition between male superpowers intent on projecting theft power as a phalloeentrie expression of their desire to compete and dominate. Indeed, for Caldicott, it is no accident that missiles and phalluses have a certain similarity in shape and appearance."

1NC Shell (3/3)
C. The logic of patriarchy can only end in total annihilation

Betty Reardon, Director of the Peace Education Program at Teacher's College Columbia University, 93, “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).
D. It’s not enough to add women and stir – vote negative to fundamentally alter the way we approach international relations

Laura Sjoberg, assistant prof of political science @ University of Florida, 2008, "The Norm of Tradition: Gender Subordination and Women's Exclusion in International Relations”, p. 177-178.

If what is “traditional” is endogenous, then the problem of women’s underrepresentation is structural rather than incidental. To argue that the problem is structural is to argue that adding women to the ranks of our faculties, our tenure rolls, and our journals is insufficient to redress women’s subordination. Even if women were numerically “equal” to men in terms of their participation and rank in the profession, they would still be participating in a men’s world. Nancy Hirschmann explains that “one cannot merely add women’s experience to the dominant discourse because the two utilize different ontological and epistemological frameworks” (1989, 1242). Maybe women’s experiences in life also color their preference for nonmainstream theories. I am not saying that there is one “woman’s perspective” or that all women necessarily have something in common (except, perhaps, some experience of gender subordination). But gender subordination is rampant throughout the world and even in the United States. J. Ann Tickner argues that women’s marginality in life helps them to see women’s marginality specifically and political marginality more generally in scholarship. This argument would help explain the difference of chosen areas of study. The argument is essentially that subordination alters perspective (Pettman 1996; Tickner 2001). Catharine MacKinnon argues that differences between women and men in task, perspective, and even physicality are the result of gender subordination rather than its cause, because subordinated people have different tasks and see the world differently (MacKinnon 1989). The incompleteness of gender subordination accounts for the exceptions, while the fact of gender subordination accounts for the norm. Spike Peterson argues that “the femininity and masculinity that inform our identification as women and men have pervasive implications for the lives we lead and the world(s) in which we live” (1999, 37).

Human Rights 1NC Shell [1/2]

Their attempt to solve human rights internationally is inherently flawed- such practices and conventions silence women through an invisible gender hierarchy

Brooke A. Ackerly, Associatie Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, 2008, “Universal Human Rights in A World of Difference,” p. 133-34, PK

Post-war international human rights conventions and practices offer an example of invisibly institutionalized gender hierarchy. Despite sex’s being an illegitimate basis of discrimination in all human rights documents since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,407 women’s human rights violations were persistently unseen or ignored by mainstream policy and human rights organizations until relatively recently.408 Working often independently, often in tandem, women’s human rights activists, scholars, and policy entrepreneurs have demonstrated that while occasionally a prudential tool for social criticism in a given moment of time, the international instruments for promoting human rights, even the international instruments for promoting women’s human rights, have been inadequate for securing women’s human rights.409 Despite significant progress in integrating gender into mainstream international agreements – such as Security Council resolution 1325410 which requires gender analysis in the design and evaluation of UN peace-keeping missions and the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court411 – and in getting gender-specific international conventions, declarations, and platforms passed, the realization of women’s human rights still depends on the work of grassroots activists to challenge local laws, practices, and norms. Given the political viability of local laws, practices, and norms that violate women’s human rights, intra-cultural criticism and cross-cultural criticism are essential tools for realizing women’s human rights. And yet, “human” rights do not help women in many local contexts because what it means to be “human” is locally determined.
And the impact is systemic patriarchy- our framing is a pre-requisite to solving their impacts

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).