Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Shackelford/Lazarevic
Feminism Kritik
Feminism Kritik.............................................................................................................................................................................1
Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................2
Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................3
Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................4
Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................5
Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................6
***2NC BLOCKS***...................................................................................................................................................................7
2NC Link IR ..............................................................................................................................................................................7
2NC Link War............................................................................................................................................................................
2NC Im!a"t Ca#"$#$s....................................................................................................................................................................%
2NC &#ternati'e...........................................................................................................................................................................1(
&2) *erm......................................................................................................................................................................................11
&2) Ce+e t,e *-#iti"a# .................................................................................................................................................................12
&2) Ce+e t,e *-#iti"a#..................................................................................................................................................................13
***Links***................................................................................................................................................................................14
Links.IR....................................................................................................................................................................................14
Links.State ...............................................................................................................................................................................15
Links.Se"$rit/...........................................................................................................................................................................16
Links.Se"$rit/...........................................................................................................................................................................17
Links.Crisis Base+ *-#iti"s.......................................................................................................................................................1
Links.C$#t$ra# 0e1em-n/........................................................................................................................................................1%
Links.S"ien"e............................................................................................................................................................................2(
Links.S"ien"e............................................................................................................................................................................21
Links.2e",n-#-1/.....................................................................................................................................................................22
Links.Rea#ism...........................................................................................................................................................................23
Links.Rea#ism...........................................................................................................................................................................24
Links.3eterren"e......................................................................................................................................................................25
Links.4i#itarism.......................................................................................................................................................................26
Links.I+entit/ *-#iti"s...............................................................................................................................................................27
***Im!a"ts***............................................................................................................................................................................2
Im!a"ts.*atriar",/....................................................................................................................................................................2
Im!a"ts.*atriar",/....................................................................................................................................................................2%
Im!a"ts.4i#itarism....................................................................................................................................................................3(
Im!a"ts.4i#itarism....................................................................................................................................................................32
***&#ternati'e S-#'en"/***.......................................................................................................................................................33
&#t S-#'en"/.Fem *ers!e"ti'es................................................................................................................................................33
&#t S-#'en"/.Str$"t$ra# 5i-#en"e.............................................................................................................................................34
&#t S-#'en"/.Str$"t$ra# 5i-#en"e.............................................................................................................................................35
&#t S-#'en"/.Criti"ism.............................................................................................................................................................36
&#t S-#'en"/.Crisis Base+ *-#iti"s...........................................................................................................................................37
&#t S-#'en"/.*atriar",/............................................................................................................................................................3
&#t S-#'en"/.*atriar",/............................................................................................................................................................3%
***Frame6-rk***.......................................................................................................................................................................4(
Frame6-rk...................................................................................................................................................................................4(
***&77irmati'e***......................................................................................................................................................................41
8S9 F94 IR B&3 C&R3S FRO4 SO820 KOR9& FIL9.....................................................................................................41
&77.Ne-:Li;era#ism S-#'es.......................................................................................................................................................42
&77 9ssentia#ism ......................................................................................................................................................................43
&77.Re'-#$ti-ns 7ai#..................................................................................................................................................................44
&77.*erm...................................................................................................................................................................................45
&77 5i"timi<ati-n =--+............................................................................................................................................................46
1
CNDI 2010 Feminism Kritik
Shackelford/Lazarevic
Feminism Kritik 1NC
A. Links
1. The affs understanding of international relations is profoundly genderedit situates the state
as the enter of po!er relations and o"#etifies e$erything outside the "linders of prediti$e
seurity disoursethis alls into %uestion their entire politial strategy
&ui' ()
[Tricia Ruiz, CSU Hayward, Feminist Theory and International Relations: The Feminist Challenge to Realism and
i!eralism", Soundings #ournal, $%%&, htt':((honors)csustan)edu(*ournals(Soundings)'d+,
How do +eminists use gender and 'atriarchy to descri!e the +ield o+ international relations -IR./ 01erall, +eminist theory says
that most o+ the 2ey 'layers in IR , such as di'lomats, 'olicyma2ers, heads o+ go1ernment, and academic
'ro+essionals, ha1e !een, and still are, males who come +rom 'atriarchal social and 'olitical
!ac2grounds) Thus, discussions within IR remain largely constrained !y those who lac2 consideration o+
women3s roles in world 'olitics -!ecause they ha1e not !een trained to 1alue and include the 'ers'ecti1e o+ women.)
Should IR 'er'etuate the e4clusion o+ women +rom its disci'line, along with their 'otential contri!utions
and additional 1iew'oints, IR will remain a 'rime e4am'le o+ 'atriarchy, in !oth its 'ractice and
accom'lishments ) Indeed, IR is +re5uently re+erred to as the last !astion o+ the social sciences,"
indicating how rigid it remains in reconsidering itsel+ through the 6gender lens3) Feminists also a''ly the
terms 6gender3 and 6'atriarchy3 when analyzing how situations ha1e !een sha'ed to e4clude women +rom the international
'olitical arena) For e4am'le, 7ric 8) 9lanchard re+ers to a 6catch:$$3 situation, in which a candidate see2ing 'olitical o++ice
will highly de'end on 'ast military ser1ice as 5uali+ication +or the 'osition, 'utting women at a disad1antage since they
generally ha1e less military e4'erience) This signi+icantly limits a woman3s chances to attain a national go1ernment 'osition
directly in1ol1ed with international issues o+ de+ense and security); From this e4am'le alone, we can understand how the
areas o+ domestic 'olitics, the military, and e1en the to'ic o+ education -which is directly related to this e4am'le., are issues
with res'ect to which +eminists would argue that gender and 'atriarchy do not allow women e5ual access to 'ower 'ositions
in world 'olitics) <s with many theories, +eminist theory" re+lects a wide range o+ 'ers'ecti1es generating many internal
de!ates concerning how it should !e re'resented) <s =iana Thor!urn notes, there can ne1er !e a truly singular 1oice o+
+eminist +oreign 'olicy sim'ly !ecause o+ the di1ersity o+ 1iews within +eminism itsel+)"& Howe1er, a !rie+ loo2 at some
rele1ant +acets o+ the disci'line can !e seen through orraine Codes3 summary o+ two salient areas within +eminist IR theory,
stand'oint +eminism and radical +eminism)> Stand'oint theory considers how the gendered construction o+
2nowledge )))[hel's to, understand traditional to'ics in international relations" and is alerting us to the
idea that gender may !e structuring how we thin2 in the international conte4t)"? <uthor 8artin @ri++iths
classi+ies +eminist scholar #) <nn Tic2ner as a stand'oint +eminist)A 9e+ore e1en addressing e4isting IR theory, @ri++iths +irst
argues that the 'ur'ose and de+inition o+ 6theory3 is in itsel+ male:centered, !ecause it is o''ressingly normati1e rather than
con*ectural and analytic)"B Sim'ly 'ut, the 'rocesses o+ +orming and learning theory is constructed around on
automatically:acce'ted ideas o+ what is standard and normal, rather than +irst challenging the 6norm3 and
5uestioning i+ the 6standard3 is o!*ecti1e enough) In this case, 6theory3 lac2s +emale 'ers'ecti1e !ecause it is not
o!*ecti1ely sought at the onset o+ +ormulating ideas) Tic2ner argues that IR is gendered to marginalize women3s
1oices," and stresses that women ha1e 2nowledge, 'ers'ecti1es and e4'eriences that should !e !rought
to !ear on the study o+ international relations)" For e4am'le, Tic2ner would argue that security , a main to'ic in
IR, should not only !e understood as de+ending the state +rom attac2," !ut should also consider that
security +or women might !e di++erent !ecause women are more li2ely to !e attac2ed !y men they 2now, rather than
strangers +rom other states)"C% In other words, in contrast to traditional IR 1iews that 1iew security as 'rotecting
the state +rom other states, +eminists argue the to'ic o+ security should address acts o+ ra'e and 1iolence,
not only +rom +oreign 'er'etrators, !ut +rom their own +ellow citizens as well) Feminists would also add that
occurrences o+ ra'e increase during times o+ war, and is e1en used as a method o+ ethnic cleansing among the ri1alries within
their state,CC yet would ne1er enter into ty'ical IR discussions that +ocus solely on stateto: state interaction, sim'ly !ecause
IR discussions traditionally remain +ocused on states as the 2ey actors) Thus, the to'ic o+ security shows how gender
consideration, e4cluded +rom the 1ery !eginning o+ the discussion, results in 'olicyma2ing that would !e
su!se5uently e4clusi1e o+, and li2ely detrimental to , women )
2
CNDI 2010 Feminism Kritik
Shackelford/Lazarevic
Feminism Kritik 1NC
*. The affs preoupation !ith military presene is part of a larger pro#et of risis+"ased politis.
,ar is not an e$ent "ut rather a ontinual fore that auses $iolene.
Cuomo -. -Chris #) Hy'atia, Dar is not *ust an e1ent: Re+lections on the signi+icance o+ e1eryday Eiolence",
9loomington: Fall CBB>) Eol) CC, Iss) ;F 'g) G%.
Hhiloso'hical attention to war has ty'ically a''eared in the +orm o+ *usti+ications +or entering into war,
and o1er a''ro'riate acti1ities within war) The s'atial meta'hors used to re+er to war as a se'arate, !ounded s'here
indicate assum'tions that war is a realm o+ human acti1ity 1astly remo1ed +rom normal li+e, or a sort o+
ha''ening that is a''ro'riately concei1ed a'art +rom e1eryday e1ents in 'eace+ul times) Iot sur'risingly, most
discussions o+ the 'olitical and ethical dimensions o+ war discuss war solely as an e1ent :: an occurrence,
or collection o+ occurrences, ha1ing clear !eginnings and endings that are ty'ically mar2ed !y +ormal, institutional
declarations) <s ha''enings, wars and military acti1ities can !e seen as moti1ated !y identi+ia!le, i+ com'le4, intentions,
and directly enacted !y indi1idual and collecti1e decision:ma2ers and agents o+ states) 9ut many o+ the 5uestions
a!out war that are o+ interest to +eminist s :: including how large:scale, state:s'onsored 1iolence a++ects women and
mem!ers o+ other o''ressed grou'sF how military 1iolence sha'es gendered, raced, and nationalistic 'olitical realities and
moral imaginationsF what such 1iolence consists o+ and why it 'ersistsF how it is related to other o''ressi1e and 1iolent
institutions and hegemonies :: cannot !e ade5uately 'ursued !y +ocusing on e1ents) These issues are not merely a
matter o+ good or !ad intentions and identi+ia!le decisions) In J@ender and KHostmodernL Dar,J Ro!in Schott introduces
some o+ the ways in which war is currently !est seen not as an e1ent !ut as a 'resence -Schott CBB&.) Schott
argues that 'ostmodern understandings o+ 'ersons, states, and 'olitics, as well as the high:tech nature o+
much contem'orary war+are and the 're'onderance o+ ci1il and nationalist wars, render an e1ent!ased
conce'tion o+ war inade5uate, es'ecially inso+ar as gender is ta2en into account) In this essay, I will e4'and
u'on her argument !y showing that accounts o+ war that only +ocus on e1ents are im'o1erished in a num!er o+ ways, and
there+ore +eminist consideration o+ the 'olitical, ethical, and ontological dimensions o+ war and the
'ossi!ilities +or resistance demand a much more com'licated a''roach) I ta2e SchottLs characterization o+ war
as 'resence as a 'oint o+ de'arture, though I am not committed to the idea that the constancy o+ militarism, the +act o+ its
omni'resence in human e4'erience, and the 'aucity o+ an e1ent:!ased account o+ war are e4clusi1e to contem'orary
'ostmodern or 'ostcolonial circumstances)-C. T heory that does not in1estigate or e1en notice the omni'resence
o+ militarism cannot re'resent or address the de'th and s'eci+icity o+ the e1eryday e++ects o+ militarism
on women, on 'eo'le li1ing in occu'ied territories, on mem!ers o+ military institutions, and on the en1ironment) These
e++ects are rele1ant to +eminists in a num!er o+ ways !ecause military 'ractices and institutions hel' construct
gendered and national identity, and !ecause they *usti+y the destruction o+ natural nonhuman entities and
communities during 'eacetime) ac2 o+ attention to these as'ects o+ the !usiness o+ ma2ing or 're1enting military
1iolence in an e4tremely technologized world results in theory that cannot accommodate the connections among the
constant 'resence o+ militarism, declared wars, and other closely related social 'henomena, such as nationalistic
glori+ications o+ motherhood, media 1iolence, and current ideological gra1itations to military solutions +or social 'ro!lems)
3
CNDI 2010 Feminism Kritik
Shackelford/Lazarevic
Feminism Kritik 1NC
/. 0mpats This patriarhy !ill result in e1tintion and is the root ause of all impats.
Nhanenge *((2
-#ytte, 8asters M U South <+rica, <cce'ted Thesis Ha'er +or =e1elo'ment Studies, 7C0F78IIS8: T0D<R=S
IIT7@R<TII@ TH7 C0IC7RIS 0F D087I, H00R H70H7 <I= I<TUR7 IIT0 =7E70H87IT,
uir)unisa)ac)za(!itstream(C%&%%(&?%(C(dissertation)'d+.
The androcentric 'remises also ha1e 'olitical conse5uences) They 'rotect the ideological !asis o+
e4'loitati1e relationshi's) 8ilitarism, colonialism, racism, se4ism, ca'italism and other 'athological
LismsL o+ modernity get legitimacy +rom the assum'tion that 'ower relations and hierarchy are ine1ita!ly
a 'art o+ human society, due to manLs inherent nature) 9ecause when man2ind !y nature is autonomous,
com'etiti1e and 1iolent -i)e) masculine. then coercion and hierarchical structures are necessary to manage con+licts and
maintain social order) In this way, the coo'erati1e relationshi's such as those +ound among some women and tri!al cultures,
are !y a dualised de+inition unrealistic and uto'ian) -9ir2eland CBB&: &B.) This means that 'ower relations are generated !y
uni1ersal scienti+ic truths a!out human nature, rather than !y 'olitical and social de!ate) The conse5uence is that 'eo'le
cannot challenge the !asis o+ the 'ower structure !ecause they !elie1e it is the scienti+ic truth, so it cannot !e otherwise) In
this way, militarism is *usti+ied as !eing una1oida!le, regardless o+ its 'atent irrationality) i2ewise, i+ the
scienti+ic JtruthJ were that humans would always com'ete +or a greater share o+ resources, then the rational res'onse to the
en1ironmental crisis would seem to !e Jdog:eat:dogJ sur1i1alism) This creates a sel+:+ul+illing 'ro'hecy in which
nature and community sim'ly cannot sur1i1e ) -9ir2eland CBB&: &B.) This ty'e o+ social and 'olitical 'ower structure
is 2e't in 'lace !y social 'olicies) It is !ased on the assum'tion that i+ the scienti+ic method is a''lied to 'u!lic 'olicy then
social 'lanning can !e done +ree +rom normati1e 1alues) Howe1er, according to Ha!ermas -Reitzes CBBG: ;%. the scienti+ic
method only conceal 're:e4isting, unre+lected social interests and 're:scienti+ic decisions) Conse5uently, also social scientists
a''ly the scienti+ic characteristics o+ o!*ecti1ity, 1alue:+reedom, rationality and 5uanti+ia!ility to social li+e) In this way, they
assume they can un1eil uni1ersal laws a!out social relations, which will lead to true 2nowledge) 9ased on this, correct social
'olicies can !e +ormulated) Thus, social 'rocesses are e4cluded, while scienti+ic o!*ecti1e +acts are included) Society is
assumed a static entity, where no changes are 'ossi!le) 9y 'romoting a 'ermanent character, social science
legitimizes the e4isting social order, while o!scuring the relations o+ domination and su!ordination,
which is 2ee'ing the e4isting 'ower relations inaccessi!le to analysis) The +rozen order also ma2es it
im'ossi!le to de1elo' alternati1e e4'lanations a!out social reality) It 're1ents a historical and 'olitical understanding o+
reality and denies the 'ossi!ility +or social trans+ormation !y human agency) The 're1ailing condition is seen as an
una1oida!le +act) This im'lies that human !eings are 'assi1e and that domination is a natural +orce, +or which no one is
res'onsi!le) This 'ermits the state +reely to im'lement laws and 'olicies, which are controlling and coerci1e) These are seen
as !eing correct, !ecause they are !ased on scienti+ic +acts made !y scienti+ic e4'erts) 0ne result is that the state,
without consulting the 'u!lic, engages in a 'athological 'ursuit o+ economic growth)
NContinuedN
Technology can !e used to dominate societies or to enhance them) Thus !oth science and technology could ha1e de1elo'ed in
a di++erent direction) 9ut due to 'atriarchal 1alues in+iltrated in science the ty'e o+ technology de1elo'ed is
meant to dominate, o''ress, e4'loit and 2ill ) 0ne reason is that 'atriarchal societies identi+y masculinity with
con5uest) Thus any technical inno1ation will continue to !e a tool +or more e++ecti1e o''ression and e4'loitation) The highest
'riority seems to !e gi1en to technology that destroys li+e) 8odern societies are dominated !y masculine
institutions and 'atriarchal ideologies) Their technologies 're1ailed in <uschwitz, =resden, Hiroshima,
Iagasa2i, Eietnam, Iran, Ira5, <+ghanistan and in many other 'arts o+ the world) Hatriarchal 'ower has
!rought us acid rain, glo!al warming, military states, 'o1erty and countless cases o+ su++ering ) De ha1e
seen men whose 'ower has caused them to lose all sense o+ reality, decency and imagination, and we
must +ear such 'ower) The ultimate result o+ unchec2ed 'atriarchy will !e ecological catastro'he and
nuclear holocaust)