• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 3
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
WNDI 2006
1
Fem IR Kritik 
Negative
Feminism Kritik
Feminism Kritik..............................................................................................................................................................1INC..................................................................................................................................................................................2INC..................................................................................................................................................................................3INC..................................................................................................................................................................................4INC..................................................................................................................................................................................5IR excludes women.........................................................................................................................................................6IR is masculine................................................................................................................................................................7IR binaries...................................................................................................................................................................8IR hegemonic masculinity..........................................................................................................................................9I/L-masculine=warring..................................................................................................................................................12Link—Military spending...............................................................................................................................................13Link—National Security...............................................................................................................................................14Link—“Military Readiness”.........................................................................................................................................16Link—Conscription/Incentives.....................................................................................................................................17I/L: All Violence Interrelated........................................................................................................................................18Impact: Structural Violence...........................................................................................................................................19Impact: Violence...........................................................................................................................................................20Impact: Domestic Violence...........................................................................................................................................21Impact: Security............................................................................................................................................................22Gendered Language......................................................................................................................................................24Gender Conflation.........................................................................................................................................................27Alternative: A new international arena..........................................................................................................................28Alternative: Examine Gender Roles..............................................................................................................................29Alt Solvency..................................................................................................................................................................30AT: Permutation............................................................................................................................................................37
 
WNDI 2006
2
Fem IR Kritik 
Negative
INCInternational relations is a celebration of male power. It glorifies “hegemonic masculinity”that is sustained through its opposition to devalued masculinities and femininities.Tickner
,
J. Ann, is Associate Professor of Political Science at the College of the Holy Cross, where she teachesInternational Relations. She is 1993-94 Vice President of the International Studies Association and has been aVisiting Research Scholar at the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. She is the author of 
Self- Reliance Versus Power Politics: American and Indian Experiences in Building Nation-States
, also published byColumbia University Press, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security,
1992
.Masculinity and politics have a long and close association. Characteristics associated with "manliness," suchas toughness, courage, power, independence, and even physical strength, have, throughout history, been thosemost valued in the conduct of politics, particularly international politics. Frequently, manliness has also beenassociated with violence and the use of force, a type of behavior that, when conducted in the internationalarena, has been valorized and applauded in the name of defending one's country. This celebration of male power, particularly the glorification of the male warrior, produces more of a gender dichotomy than exists inreality for, as R. W. Connell points out, this stereotypical image of masculinity does not fit most men.Connell suggests that what he calls "hegemonic masculinity," a type of culturally dominant masculinity thathe distinguishes from other subordinated masculinities, is a socially constructed cultural ideal that, while itdoes not correspond to the actual personality of the majority of men, sustains patriarchal authority andlegitimizes a patriarchal political and social order. 6 Hegemonic masculinity is sustained through itsopposition to various subordinated and devalued masculinities, such as homosexuality, and, more important,through its relation to various devalued femininities. Socially constructed gender differences are based onsocially sanctioned, unequal relationships between men and women that reinforce compliance with men'sstated superiority. Nowhere in the public realm are these stereotypical gender images more apparent than inthe realm of international politics, where the characteristics associated with hegemonic masculinity are projected onto the behavior of states whose success as international actors is measured in terms of their  power capabilities and capacity for self-help and autonomy.
Gendering depictions of the state and international system foreclose the alternative of diplomacy and positive peace.Tickner
,
J. Ann, is Associate Professor of Political Science at the College of the Holy Cross, where she teachesInternational Relations. She is 1993-94 Vice President of the International Studies Association and has been aVisiting Research Scholar at the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. She is the author of 
Self- Reliance Versus Power Politics: American and Indian Experiences in Building Nation-States
, also published byColumbia University Press, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security,
1992
Recognizing the gendered construction of this three-tiered world picture, feminist perspectives on nationalsecurity must offer alternative conceptions. Assuming that these categories are mutually constitutive andmutually reinforcing of each other, we should heed Paul Fussell's claim, in the epigraph to this chapter, thatour conception of the possibilities of individual manhood must be redefined in theory and practice before war at the international systemic level can be regarded as avoidable. These gendered depictions of political man,the state, and the international system generate a national security discourse that privileges conflict and war and silences other ways of thinking about security; moving away from valorizing human characteristics thatare associated with the risking of life, toward an affirmation of life-giving qualities, allows us to envisagealternative conceptions of national security.
 
WNDI 2006
3
Fem IR Kritik 
Negative
INCNational securities reliance on realism legitimizes its anarchy/order and foreign/domesticdistinction. These binaries are essential to the perpetuation of all forms of violence.Tickner
,
J. Ann, is Associate Professor of Political Science at the College of the Holy Cross, where she teachesInternational Relations. She is 1993-94 Vice President of the International Studies Association and has been aVisiting Research Scholar at the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. She is the author of 
Self- Reliance Versus Power Politics: American and Indian Experiences in Building Nation-States
, also published byColumbia University Press, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security,
1992
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 shallask how it would affect the way in which we think about national security if we were to develop analternative set of assumptions about the individual, the state, and the international system not basedexclusively on the behavior of men. Realist assumptions about states as unitary actors render unproblematicthe boundaries between anarchy and order and legitimate and illegitimate violence. If we were to include theexperiences of women, how would it affect the way in which we understand the meaning of violence? Whilewomen have been less directly involved in international violence as soldiers, their lives have been affected bydomestic 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 aconnection between sexism and militarism, violence at all levels of society is interrelated, a claim that callsinto question the realist assumption of the anarchy/order distinction. Most important, these feminists claimthat all types of violence are embedded in the gender hierarchies of dominance and subordination that Idescribed in chapter 1. Hence they would argue that until these and other hierarchies associated with classand race are dismantled and until women have control over their own security a truly comprehensive systemof security cannot be devised.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
11 / 27 / 2010<span class="translation_missing">en_US, this_document_made_it_onto_the</span>Rising List!
gehad20

I'm a researcher and need full data for my references which I couldn't get here. I wish you could help me

reply04 / 05 / 2009
socialista

This raises some compelling issues.

reply08 / 11 / 2007
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...