You are on page 1of 52

Ecofem Aff Answer Answers

A2: MacGregor
Embracing the ethic of care isnt detrimental to their
possibilitiesit breaks down exploitation in hopes to
reject their patriarchal status
Kao 05 [Grace, 2005. Dr. Kao is an Assistant Professor of Religion at Virginia
Tech and also teaches womens studies and religious ethics. The International
Journal of the Humanities, Volume 3, Number 11. Pg 16-17.
http://www.rc.vt.edu/religious/pdfs/Kao_Ecofeminist%20Ethics.pdf 7/28]//kmc
The problem, then, is the following: if the vegetarianism prescribed by some ecofeminists cannot exceed
a Noddings-type relativism,17 then only cat-lovers and those who regard dogs as mans best friend
should abstain fromeating them, while those without fond memories of caring for dogs or cats (or
chickens, sheep, cows, pigs, turkeys, etc.) could rightfully continue to regard themas food. However, if
we were to push in the opposite direction out of concern and sympathy for all animals, the argument
would most likely resemble the abstractness, formality, and universality to which care-theory was to be

One way of resolving this dilemma would be to


reframe the relationship between justice and care, seeing
justice-centered approaches as generating moral requirements and
care-theory moral direction, as when those who care about a
particular national forest are prompted to write to their political
representatives about its preservation (ONeill 2000).18Anotherway of
overcoming this bind would be to politicize the ethic of care , so
that caring becomes neither oppressive for caretakers, nor merely
provincial in scope (Curtin 1991, 65-68). Our final approachto which we
now turnadopts this more politicized sensibility. The Socio-political Context
of Meat Production and Consumption Feminists have long insisted that moral problems
principally opposed!

neither exist in a philosophical vacuum, nor should be discussed as


if they did. Thus, it is only by considering the larger socio-political
context of contemporarymeat production and consumption that we can truly
appreciate the ecofeminist drive toward contextualnot universalmoral

vegetarianism. Noting first thatmeat consumption is not a natural but a culturally variable activity,
vegetarian ecofeminists have been especially troubled by its gender implications in some contexts. In
the U.S. and possibly elsewhere, meat-eating remains connected to notions of virility andmasculinity
(e.g., meat-and-potatoes men conjure up images of strength), not to mention attitudes of mastery

This logic of domination


has not surprisingly been detrimental to both women and
nonhuman others; in fact, language that feminizes nature (e.g., barren
land, virgin forests) works to legitimize its exploitation, just as the
culturalsymbolic association between women and animals in terms
of their bodies, reproductive capacities, and alleged irrationality
reinforces the inferior status of both under patriarchy. For reasons of
over nature as opposed to interconnectedness (Adams 1999).

interlocking oppressions then, vegetarian ecofeminists urge all feminists who already support the
principle of noncoercion in childbearing to attend to the particular vulnerabilities that warehoused female
animals face, aswellbe they egg-laying hens routinely de-beaked and so overcrowded in battery cages
that they cannot even stretch their wings, or dairy cows kept in a physically exhausting cycle of
pregnancy and lactation (Gruen 1993, 72-74; Adams 2002b).

A focus on the relationship between woman and nature


becomes a political attempt to expose the domination
MacGregor doesnt assume the alternative is an attempt
to take status quo ecofem movements and redirect them
Clarke 01 [Melissa, Summer. Clarke teaches in the philosophy department
at The College of Saint Rose, Albany, New York. The Good-Natured Feminist:
Ecofeminism and the Quest for Democracy by Catriona Sandilands; Feminism
and Ecological Communities: An Ethic of Flourishing by Chris Cuomo Review
by: Melissa Clarke. Pg 210-211 7/28]//kmc

The Good-Natured Feminist by Catriona Sandilands is quintessential reading for anyone who usually thinks
of ecofeminism as attempting to link "woman" (often equated with "mothering")and "nature" in an

Sandilands discusses early


ecofeminist tendencies to prioritize such ontological claims over
political ones. She argues that the ecofeminist focus on an ontol- ogy of
essentializing way. In the first of the book's two parts,

woman/nature identity is actually a political attempt to expose the


traditional connection between domination of women and nature.
Ecofeminists have used identity to gain access to the public arena in
the same way cultural feminists did. Likewise, she argues,
ecofeminists have tried to establish an identity for nature in an
effort to expose the root causes of domination and denial of political
representation of the environment in the same way environmental
philosophers did. However, Sandilands recognizes that, along with feminists in general, some

eco- feminists are beginning to realize the limits of identity politics and are further realizing that delimiting
the woman/nature connection to a very particular characterization can never fully capture the range of
women's experiences. In addition, it restricts nature to representation as a domesticated feminine subject.

Sandilands invites us to consider that any subject in the political


realm, whether it be woman, nature, or other, is inevitably more
than any singular form of representation can capture.

Attempts at identity

politics, no matter how well intentioned, marginalize those who do not fit the descriptions that are

Identity
politics is inevitably limited in its ability to lead to democracy.
Sandilands maintains that this is why ecofeminism needs to move
produced, and speaking for all women and/or nature is authoritarian and undemocratic.

beyond its initial focus on woman/nature identification to questions


of political construction.

Fem IR

Links

Development
The act of development is one with an idea of liberation
these concepts are linked to both decision making
processes and security
Detraz 12 [Nicole. Nicole Detraz is Assistant Professor of Political Science
at the University of Memphis. International Security and Gender, page 198200]//kmc
The need for reflexive scholarship extends to examining
emancipation and security. Emancipation is about removing
obstacles to choice, and the threats and vulnerabilities associated
with insecurity are important obstacles in peoples lives. Throughout the
book, emancipation has been described as a process. Regarding emancipation as a
process does not suggest a definite, knowable end point, but rather
implies that it must be the subject of continual evaluation. This
evaluation needs the input of multiple voices - including those who
experience insecurity, study conceptualizations of security, and
make policy designed to remove threats and vulnerabilities.
Feminists concerned with emancipation are not necessarily seeking
to give voice in these contexts, but rather to evaluate multiple
perspectives and provide space for them in their analysis. Two
concepts associated with emancipation are development and
empowerment. Each of these ideas is regarded as linked to peoples
ability to make choices, and are also tied to security discourses .
Chapter 5 claimed that

development is often seen as a strategy for

emancipation . This speaks to removing multiple obstacles to choice


- Eluding economic and physical constraints. Development is also
tied to human security in those discourses that stress freedom
from want either along with or prioritized over freedom from
fear. Caroline Thomas (2001: 160) explains human insecurity results directly
fro existing structures of power that determine who enjoys the entitl
ment to security and who does not. Such structures can be identified
at several levels, ranging from the global, to the regional, the state
and finally the local level. A lack of development is seen as
resulting in vulnerability which undermines human security at a
basic level. Empowerment relates to enabling people to remove obstacles to choice. Shepherd
(2010: xx) defines empowerment as increased capacity for action. A form of empowerment
that feminist scholars have studied is the ability to have a say in the
political processes that impact peoples daily lives . Chapter 3 addressed the
international communitys discussion of women at the peace-negotiation table. The UN, NGOs,
states, and scholars have all suggested that it is necessary to
include women in the peacebuilding process . This is so that gender
equity is achieved, but also in order for the post-conflict phase to be
shaped by a broad group with a stake in its future. Similarly, several

actors have stressed that women should be understood as


stakeholders in environmental issues like disaster relief (Enarson and
Morrow 1998; Mishra et al. 2004). As stakeholders they should be incorporated
into decisionmaking and policy implementation. When women have
been significantly incorporated in environmental projects the
results have ranged from improving their leadership qualities,
confidence, self-reliance, and gaining more power in their
communities (Aladuwaka and Momsen 2010). Each of these is important for achieving an increased
capacity for action. Development and empowerment are not
unproblematic concepts . Each can be approached in an essentialist
manner. Critically considering emancipation requires thinking
reflexively about potential strategies for removing obstacles to
choice. It also involves recognizing that there will be different
interpretations of what people will ultimately be free to do, once
obstacles have been removed. It mus be acknowledged that peoples choices will differ.
Saba Mahmood (2005:1-2) considers this issue with regard to womens participate11 in urban mosque
movements in Egypt. She claims: Womens participation in, and support for, the Islamist movement
provokes strong responses from feminists across a broad range of the political spectrum. One of the most
common reactions is the supposition that women Islamist supporters are pawns in a grand patriarchal
plan, who, if freed from their bondage, would naturally express their instinctual abhorrence for the
traditional Islamic mores used to enchain them. Even those analysts who are skeptical of the falseconsciousness thesis underpinning this approach nonetheless continue to frame the issue in terms of a
fundamental contradiction: why would such a large number of women across the Muslim world actively
support a movement that seems inimical to their own interests and agendas, especially at a historical
moment when these women appear to have more emancipatory possibilities available to them?

This

tension highlights differences within feminism in general (Sylvester 2010).


Some feminists express a strong commitment to recognizing
womens agency and choice, even if it manifests in channels like
participation in religious movements which are often regarded as
patriarchal. Other feminists have argued it has been impossible for
women to freely make choices as long as they have existed in
patriarchal systems. These differing perspectives highlight the
ongoing con-versations that take place among feminists, and further
illustrate that there is not a single feminist perspective on security
or emancipation. If emancipation is conceptualized as removing constraints to choice, then we
must consider cases where emancipation may result in some form of
insecurity. The case of terrorism illustrates that some women who
choose to engage in militancy view it as a means of empowerment.
Likewise, we must contemplate the fact that freeing people to make
their own choices may result in environmental insecurity . People may
choose to use resources unsustainably 0r otherwise engage in behavior that contributes to environmental

There is
not an easy answer to that question, but anY move towards this end
would need to address underlying moti- vations for peoples choices.
In the case of environmental behaviors, this may require asking
questions about how people conceptualize scarcity and abundance.
How do they understand the relationship between humans and the
environment? Exploring these underlying Actors is necessary in a
reflexive approach to security.
degradation. So, how can these tensions between emancipation and security be resolved?

Environment
The environmental security of connecting warfare and
environmental damage within the 1AC only perpetuates
conflicts
Detraz 12 [Nicole. Nicole Detraz is Assistant Professor of Political Science
at the University of Memphis. International Security and Gender, page 166168]//kmc
Some of the most obvious connections between security and
environment are the environmental impacts of conflict and warfare .
It has long been acknowledged that violent conflict can have devastating
impacts on the environment (Seager 1999). Nearly every type of violent conflict can result
in direct or indirect environmental damage. Matthew Paterson (2001: 44) addresses the environmental
effects of war by claiming the

environment has been an instrument and a


casualty of warfare itself, as strategists have used and abused
ecosystems to give themselves military advantage. For centuries,
military personnel have directly targeted the environment during
combat, usually at an extremely high price to surrounding
ecosystems. As military technology has advanced, the potential
damage to the environment has also increased. The most powerful
example of this may be nuclear winter that scientists contend would follow
At the same time, the preparations for
conflict have negative environmental consequences. Several
scholars have pointed out the array of environmental damage that
accompanies the daily activities in and around military bases
worldwide (Akibayashi and Takazato 2010; Alexander 2010). This link between
extensive nuclear war (Stone 2000).

militarized parties/activities and environmental damage is just one


of the ways that security and environment are understood to be
connected . Beginning largely in the 1980s, scholars began raising environmental issues into the
realm of high polity As argued in Chapter 1, this was important because the arena high politics had
historically been reserved for traditional seen rity concerns .

Early connections between


security and environment challenged the traditional focus of
security scholarship and called for environmental issues to be taken
as seriously as military security issues. Some voices clearly wanted
to strategically link their issue to security discourses . This tactic involves

raising environmental issues to areas that are seen as being salient. On the other hand, several actors
have pointed out that there are very real connections between environmental change and central security

"[here have been a variety of ways that actors


conceptualize a link between environment and security. An
examination of scholarly debates demonstrates that there are three
different discourses used to combine security and the environment environmental conflict, environmental security, and ecological
security (Detraz 2009). While there is overlap between the three discourses, each focuses on
issues like violent conflict.

particular elements of security and its relationship to the environment. Each discourse has its own set of
narratives for discussing the connections between security and environment. These narratives determine
several aspects of the overall discourse, including how broadly or narrowly key ideas and terms are
conceptualized, and how the security implications of environmental degradation are understood.
Environmental Conflict The environmental conflict discourse includes a combination of state security
concerns with environmental concerns. The central concern within this discourse is the potential for actors

(individuals or states) to engage in conflict over access to natural resources. These conflicts have been
identified as particularly likely under conditions of resource scarcity, and are typically understood to
threaten the stabil- lty of the state (Homer-Dixon 1999). There are several broad trends tot are identified
as increasing the likelihood of environmentally lnduced conflicts including population expansion and
migration, evironmental scarcities, globalization which brings people (and isease) into closer proximity,
and increasing recognition of environmental injustice (Barnett 2001). n example of the environmental
conflict discourse is fears about lack of water availability contributing to conflict between two parties .

Recent scholarly and media attention to the possibility water wars


between states or between sub-state actors is a reflect' of this. Even
if the potential conflicting parties in question are states, there is a
tendency to relate resource conflict to state instabity and overall
ideas of national interest. This discourse focuses almost exclusively on threats tied to
environmental degradation or scarcity and largely lacks a concern about human vulnerability. Rather the
act as a fundamental challenge to traditional notions of state security environmental conflict adds

Human
beings play a role in contributing to environmental degradation and
in engaging in resource conflict; however their security is not the
central concern for this discourse.
environmental threats to the list of items that may threaten state stability and security.

Environmental protection is profoundly gendered


Joyner 96Professor of International Law, Department of Government,

Georgetown University. Ph.D., University of VirginiaANDGeorge Little


University Graduate Fellow and Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Government,
Georgetown University (Christopher, It's not Nice to Fool Mother Nature! The
Mystique of Feminist Approaches to International Environmental Law, 14 B.U.
Int'l L.J. 223, Fall 1996, Lexis)
Feminist theory also sees the public/private distinction as problematic in
international environmental law. Feminist concern with the public/private distinction flows from its central place in liberal theory. 94
Liberalism has traditionally favored the public, male realm, over the private
sphere of life, where most women find themselves. The split "implies that the private world is uncontrolled." 95 International law in
general reinforces this idea when it establishes the gap between the "public" issues of interstate relations and the "private" domain of
domestic politics. 96 International law, like domestic law, does not govern the private,
female, world to the extent that it treats issues of "public" concern . 97
Men, who control "public" power, also dominate the "private" world.
In sum, the public/private distinction in international environmental
law functions to subordinate women and minimize the value of
women's contributions to law, society, and environmental management.
Moreover, feminist international legal theory rejects dichotomous thinking. Feminists believe that such dichotomies represent figments of gendered reasoning. 98 Feminists
are more willing to work with dichotomies, [*243] however, because they may convince men that their own reasoning distorts the understanding of all the qualities of
dichotomous relationships, placing points of conflict between the two factors above their shared traits. Feminist legal theory, at its core, presents a critical method.

Feminists challenge components of the existing international legal order. They


question why international environmental law should accept legal
assumptions, principles, and language without subjecting them to constant
scrutiny . Feminists look for any innate gender biases that international law may implicitly or explicitly countenance. C. Limitations of International
Environmental Law The feminist approach to international environmental law forms a deconstructionist methodology. Feminist theory
questions many of the normative foundations of international environmental
law as potentially sex-partial, while aiming to cure a real, specific ill: global gender inequity. Feminist legalism nonetheless suffers from a key limitation. It appears
difficult to prescribe reconstructive antidotes from its critical suppositions. What are the alternatives to the inherent conceptual legal gender biases in international law,
especially as applied to the environment? Admittedly, quick answers to this question are difficult to ascertain. D. Criticisms of International Environmental Law Three
prominent features of international environmental law have become vulnerable as notable targets of feminist criticism: (1) the concept of the state; (2) the public/private
distinction; and (3) the tension between "hard" and "soft" law. While not an exhaustive list, these notions comprise the essential pillar on which feminist international legal
theory is now grounded. Realizing the nuances of gender affected by international law thus becomes integral to appreciating a feminist perspective toward current global

The "state," which is organized, administered and preserved by a national government, constitutes
the basic unit of analysis in international law. "States" create treaties, accede to customary international
environmental law. 1. The "State"

law, and compose the membership of public international organizations. 99 "State consent" is the primary indicator of global law. 100 It is obvious, then, that feminists
would reproach the domain of contemporary

international environmental law, as women's

involvement in, and leadership of, government and statecraft is notably minimal. International
relations is conducted overwhelmingly by patriarchal influences . Males
usurp power [*244] in national society, and males carry that position of power into the international realm as well. Men control "states" (i.e., governments) and the

Women as a whole enjoy but little access to the levers of


power in domestic and international politics. 101 International organizations are viewed by feminists as "functional extensions of states" that are
international organizations created by "states."

created in order to permit governments to act collectively to achieve common state objectives. 102 Although some women do hold positions in government, men remain
the main players in domestic and international politics. "State sovereignty," assert feminist international theorists, grants legitimacy to the subjugation of women. 103 As
one prominent feminist theorist put it: "The state is male in the feminist sense: the law sees and treats women the way men see and treat women."

104 Law

is created by men, for men, in favor of men to rule over women. Similarly,
the state is created by men, for men, in favor of men to rule over women. The state thus becomes the embodiment
of international environmental law. This is true for international law in general, as well as for law specifically pertaining
to the environment. The male perception of the "state" as an autonomous actor
reinforces women's alienation from gender equality . In the view of feminists, men have
legitimated "state autonomy" as a jurisprudential means by which they can remove themselves from its gendered effects. 105 That is, men can point
to the depersonalized "state" as an actor that normatively functions independently of human control. In reality,
however, males decide and direct (in general) the course of "state" action. As
feminists see it, the conceptual divorce of the independent "state" from its
male masters cleverly masks gender bias in international law . 106 Construction
of the "state" in international relations limits the calls of women for a "different voice." [*245] 2. The Public/Private Distinction The public/private split permeates

feminists view the separation of "public" and "private"


issues affecting environmental law as destructive to gender equality .
That is, the separation of public and private life within society comes as an inherently political process that both
reflects and reinforces power relations , particularly power relationships affecting gender, race, and class. 108 Consequently,
certain activities are seen as defining the public realm, while others more aptly come to characterize the private realm. For instance, males treat
national security as a "public" issue while economic security, at least in liberal democratic societies, exists primarily in
international law. 107 Hence,

the "private" sphere. 109 Feminists tend to view this separation of state-directed activities into public and private domains as generating negative impacts, especially on
women. For example, the point is argued that liberal states should assume in their domestic societies greater responsibility for day care, parental leave, and even
"reformulated roles within marriages and families." 110 By contrast, the male state normally relegates such family concerns to the "private," non-governmental world. 111

States regularly create "hard" and "soft" international law.


"Hard" law consists of binding international legal agreements that require states to
[*246] 3. "Hard" and "Soft" Law

conform to certain rules or standards. "Hard" law usually results from treaty-making, or precepts which states universally understand to be binding rules of customary
international law or general principles of international law. Certain resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, are, for instance, "hard" legal instruments because

soft" law, on the other hand, refers to that law which is


suggestive of legal norms, but non-binding in its authority. Such " soft" law norms have become critical
features in the development of international environmental law . These "soft" law norms furnish a limited normative
they are authoritatively binding on United Nations member states. 112 So-called "

force even though it is conceded that these norms are more nascent than fully developed, and less than legally binding or enforceable in a court of law. 113 Much of this
"soft" law is contained within non-binding instruments, such as recommendations and resolutions of international organizations, declarations and final acts of international
conferences, and even draft proposals. "Soft" law documents simply recommend or exhort (but not mandate) that governments undertake certain measures. 114 General
Assembly resolutions, in contrast to Security Council actions, are non-binding international instruments. 115 States may implement them at their pleasure, if they choose
to at all, regardless of whether a government voted for or against a resolution, whether the resolution was overwhelmingly adopted, or whether it was adopted by
consensus. 116 As might be expected, repetition in state practice of the "soft" law norm may figure as a very important ingredient in the international "soft" lawmaking

feminist approaches to
international environmental law must be wary of the "hard"/"soft"
dichotomy. "Soft" law comes across as a system of empty promises
that tantalizes women with international aspirations in areas of
gender equality, but one that falls notably short on real [*247] results. After all, "soft" law represents a set of
process. Notwithstanding the gendered imagery conjured up by "hard" and "soft" rules,

recommendations, not directives. Some might think, on the other hand, that "soft" law is better than no law at all. Recommendations for normative action, they maintain,
are preferable to no guidance whatsoever. 117 Feminist international legal scholarship should embrace the former approach, particularly as a critical method. If the
international community is to achieve true progress in gender equality, "hard" law is generally preferable; "hard" law is more clear-cut and concrete and does not breed the
false hopes associated with "soft" law. Moreover, the dichotomy between "hard" and "soft" legal norms might be viewed as further evidence of international legal
patriarchy. That is, men presumably are capable of successfully addressing women's issues through "soft" law without the compulsory force that lies behind "hard" legal
norms. Consequently, one might expect that a male-dominated international legal system would prefer redressing gender-related issues through "soft" legal means, as

The
"hard"/"soft" division frequently surfaces in global environmental
law. Take, for instance, the 1982 World Charter for Nature. 118 The General Assembly adopted this Charter in the form of a
resolution. Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly are non-binding. 119 The World Charter states that the General Assembly is aware that
opposed to promulgating "hard" international legal instruments. That view, however, remains more fanciful speculation than functional fact.

"mankind is a part of nature and life depends on the uninterrupted functioning of natural systems which ensure the supply of energy and nutrients" and urges that the
Charter's recommendations "be reflected in the law and practice of each State, as well as at the international level." 120 These recommendations include avoiding

The
Charter neither outlines specific actions that states could take nor
mentions women in particular. Although the World Charter's recommendations are desirable, how effective can the General
"activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature," and by recycling natural resources and preserving the productivity of soils. 121

Assembly be in achieving genuine ecological improvements or in enforcing global environmental standards? From the feminist perspective, the World Charter's "soft"
recommendations may constitute a significant deficiency in international law, as they conjure up the binding/non-binding issue.

The aff is no more than maskingalt prevents extinction


from environmental collapse
Irving 9 [professor at Kings University College and a regular contributor to
Western News on environmental issues, Ecofeminism: our last great hope?,
Oct 29]

When the planet is ruined, the continent forlorn in water and smoke, writes Canadian poet Dionne Brand,
in her long, unflinching elegy, Inventory (2006), in which she tallies up the disaster that is the present.
There is a chilling sense of foreboding. There is the sense as well that the sand is fast running out on our
time to act; it may already be too late. However, with the most crucial meeting on climate change in the
history of the planet taking place over 14 days in Copenhagen in early December involving, it is
estimated, 15,000 participants, representing about 200 countries there is a flicker of hope, even perhaps

it may very well be that our most likely chance


for planetary survival lies in what has come to be known as ecofeminism . The
optimism for the future. Nevertheless

contemporary environmental movement and ecofeminism can be historically located in 1962 when the
marine biologist Rachel Carson (1907-1964) published her pathbreaking study Silent Spring. The books
opening sentence contained its own implied lament: there was once a town in the heart of America where
all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings. The book reflected Carsons long standing
concern that the reckless use of synthetic chemical pesticides after World War II was not only detrimental
to the environment but to human beings themselves as a part of the natural world. Another formative
figure in the intellectual development of ecofeminism is the French feminist Francoise dEaubonne (19202005) who actually came up with the word ecofeminisme; in 1974 she published Le Feminisme ou la mourt
which strongly linked the devaluation of both women and the earth. Her book provided solid historical
arguments that many women in the past used sound ecological methods that almost always were
disrupted by male-dominated interests. The book was also a call to action: women needed to take steps
immediately to save themselves and the earth simultaneously. If we listened to, and followed the counsel
of ecofeminists, dEaubonne maintained, our planet, close to women, would become verdant again for
everyone. Nothing less than the extinction of people and the planet is at stake, she insisted, and a
complete revolution in thought and action is required. Ecofeminism is the bringing together of

there are significant connections


between the domination of women, androcentrism, and the domination of
nature, anthropocentrism. These two dominations are inextricably linked in
philosophical discourses, the scientific revolution and the eighteenth-century
Enlightenment. There is a long standing discourse that has created a
fundamental dichotomy between subject and object. The objectification of
nature in the thought of Aristotle occurs by locating reality in the objects of
the natural world. With Rene Descartess 17th century discourse on the separation of mind from the
environmentalism and feminism; its the view that

body or matter thinking subject from external object - the justification for domination was solidified.

This dualism between an active subject and passive object suggests literally
man who receives, interprets, and organizes the sense data of a passive
objective nature. Since women were often associated and even conflated
with earth/nature it was a simple logical step to both see women as objects
and as passive, with men retaining a higher position in the symbolic order as active subjects.

Aristotle did not mince words on this issue. He writes in De Generatione Animalium the female, as female,
is passive and the male, as male, is active, and the principle of movement comes from him. The father
of modern science Francis Bacon (1561-1626) urged his new man of science to force from nature the
secrets she conceals in her womb, to unearth the truth that lies hid in deep mines and caves and to
shape her on the anvil. Nature, as far as Bacon is concerned, must be bound into service turned into a
slave put in constraint and molded to serve mans (not womans) ends. Both nature and women
were nothing more than objects to be undressed and exploited. Two 19th century art works are informative
here. A sculpture located in the entry to the School of Medicine in Paris is entitled, Nature revealing herself
to science, reflected the prevailing view that nature was only too eager to cast off her veil and expose her
secrets. In Edouard Manets painting, Le Dejeuner sur lherbe, a naked women picnics on the grass with

The overall intention of ecofeminism is to restore, mend, and


empower the hidden, censored and crushed voices of women and the voices
of the distressed and imperiled earth. Two influential ecofeminists who share similar wishes
two fully clothed men.

for a dual liberation although offering differing analyses are Ynestra King and Starhawk. In 1983 King
outlined a number of tenets of ecofeminism. First, she notes that

the building of Eurocentric

culture largely in opposition to nature also promotes the subjugation of


women since women are often constructed as being closer to nature . She writes
that nature hating and woman hating are particularly related and are mutually
reinforcing. Second, she sees all life on earth as an interconnected web and
not a hierarchy. There is a socially created hierarchy that is then projected on
to nature and consequently used to legitimize domination . Third, a healthy
ecosystem containing human and non human dimensions needs to be built
on and to maintain diversity. Fourth, our very survival calls out compellingly for
a new or renewed understanding of our relationship to nature. Nothing short
of a radical restructuring of human society based on feminist and ecological
principles will suffice. Starhawk is a highly respected voice in contemporary earth-based
spirituality. She is a wiccan and has written extensively on paganism, and defines the spiritual wing of
ecofeminism as based on goddess traditions, indigenous spirituality, and immanence rather than
transcendence. What is necessary, she affirms, is a full understanding and acknowledgement that the
earth is alive and will talk to us, call out to us to act to preserve her life. For Starhawk ecofeminism
challenges all relations of domination. Its goal is not just to change who wields power, but to transform the
structure of power itself.

The 1ACs framing of nature as something to be


dominated is genderedthe alternative is key to solve
Dobscha 93 [Susan, 1993. Dobscha is Associate Professor, Marketing
Associate Editor, Qualitative Methods and Critical Theory, European Journal of
Marketing. Women and the Environment: Applying Ecofeminism to
Environmentally-Related Consumption.
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?
Id=7417 7/31]//kmc
What is the connection between women and the environment in
consumer research? Statistics indicate that 80% of household
shopping is performed by women (Berk 1988). Therefore, environmentallyrelated purchase behavior is left primarily in the hands of the female
consumer. She is the one who must sift through all the conflicting
evidence concerning recycling of styrofoam. She must make tough decisions on
whether to buy non-biodegradable plastic diapers or water-wasting reusable ones. She must be cognizant

A substantial burden has been


placed on women consumers to attend to the environmental crisis.
of labels that may be misleading or blatantly false.

With women's role as primary caretaker still intact within most segments of society (Ferree 1987; DeVault

women have had to take on an additional role: that of caretaker


of the planet. Ecofeminism provides some insight into this connection between women consumers
1987),

and nature. ECOFEMINISM Eighteen years ago, well before the current environmental movement

feminist theologian Rosemary Ruether cautioned women to


look with suspicion on the symbolic role that women would be asked
to play in an ecological crisis as portrayed by the dominant
(patriarchal) culture's perspective: Any effort to reconcile such a
male with "nature," which does not restructure the psychology and
social patterns which make nature "alien," will tend to shape
women, the patriarchal symbol of "nature," (emphasis added) into
romanticized servitude to a male-defined alienation. Women will again be
emerged,

asked to be the "natural" wood-nymph and earth mother and to create places of escape from the
destructive patterns of the dominant culture. Ruether's statement illustrates several elements that

First, nature has been conceived by the dominant


culture as "alien" and separate from humans. This human/nature
separation is what feminists call a dualism which is when two
comprise ecofeminism.

concepts are separated and used for analysis. Feminists add the
idea that when two concepts such as nature and humans are
separated, hierarchy forms and one is given a higher status than
another. In this case , humans dominate nature . Second, Ruether's quote suggests that
women and nature have traditionally been aligned in terms of symbols and terminology. The popular
media has demonstrated this by popularizing the slogan "Love your
mother earth." Other examples that engender nature are "raping the
land," and "virgin resources." Third, women are already very visible in
local grassroots movements and other political activist groups
centered on changing policy and rampant consumerism in order to
save the environment. Thus, women have already begun to play that major role in the
environmental movement that Ruether prophesied. One such role is that of environmentally-conscious

the domination of women (as studied


parallels the domination of nature and that this
mutual domination has led to environmental destruction by the
controlling patriarchal society. Within feminism, a locus of scholars believe that a
consumer. The primary belief of ecofeminism is that
in traditional feminism)

historical, symbolic, and theoretical connection exists between the domination of nature and women. This
philosophy is based on four principles (Warren 1990): 1) there are vital connections between the
oppression of nature and women, 2) understanding these connections is necessary to understanding the
two veins of oppression, 3) feminist theory must include an ecological perspective, and 4) ecological

both women and


nature are dominated and thus stresses the need for a more
interdependent worldview. Ecofeminists believe that all living things are
essential to the well being of the planet and that humans are not
separate or superior. If this worldview were applied in ERC, the research agenda would be
problems must include a feminist perspective. Ecofeminism claims that

starkly different. More emphasis would be placed on the role consumers have played in environmental
destruction and how basic value structures need to be changed in accordance with the concept of
interdependence. This different vision is delineated in the sections that follow.

Resource Wars
The framing of resource scarcity/wars within the 1AC
ignore the many negative effects scarcity has on women
Detraz 12 [Nicole. Nicole Detraz is Assistant Professor of Political Science

at the University of Memphis. International Security and Gender, page 176


177]//kmc
Food security is another element of environmental insecurity that is
widely discussed in security and environment debates. Food
insecurity has been connected to both state security issues and
human security issues (Shiva 2000). However, like discussions of natural
disasters, gender is often underexplored by the environment and
security debates on food security . There is a great deal of evidence
that during times of food scarcity it is women and children who
suffer most (Steans 2006). In 2007-2008 there were startling hikes in food prices worldwide,
prompting several studies on the impacts on these types of price hikes for vulnerable populations.

There are several factors that have been linked to the food price
hikes including naturally occurring events like drought, and humancreated phenomena like falling food stocks, increased use of grains
for feedstock and bio- fuels, and changes in consumption patterns in
emerging economies around the world. Zenebe Uraguchi (2010)
examined househo in Bangladesh and Ethiopia and found that
gender inequality makes women more vulnerable to increases in
food prices.

In particular. > matters whether a household is headed by a man or a woman,

fetn3L\e-headed households at a greater risk for lacking access to nd control over resources that can cope

women in both male- and femaleheaded households were found to be more likely than men during
times of food shortages to adopt coping mechanisms which reduced
their personal intake of food, leading in some cases to food
insecurity for those women. At the same time, the study also found
that women in the areas studied were resourceful in devising ways
to cope with food scarcity. A range of mechanisms were employed, including reducing the
with external shocks like ice spikes. Additionally,

number of meals eaten per day, borrowing money from relatives to buy food, sending children to eat with

Women are vital providers


of food security for whole communities, a fact that is
acknowledged by the various UN initiatives that make gender central
to our understanding of food security. For example, the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) has undertaken a number
of projects specifically designed to promote gender equality in
agriculture and food security policies. Despite this, women
disproportionately belong to the category of marginal farmers in
rural areas around the globe, and particularly in Africa. In many
parts of this region, women are traditionally expected to produce
food to feed their families but are simultaneously excluded from
many credit opportunities and left out of much of the
decisionmaking on agricultural policy. FAO (2010) claims: Rural women
relatives or neighbors, and begging as the most serious option.

suffer systematic discrimination in the access to resources needed

for socio-economic development . Credit, extension, input and seed supply services
usually address the needs of male household heads.

Rural women are rarely consulted

in development projects that may increase mens production and


income, but add to their own workloads. When work burdens
increase, girls are removed from school more often than boys, to
help with farming and household tasks.

s shows that elements of the international

community have rec- 8nized the differential gender impacts of food insecurity and the ^cultural policy
employed to achieve food security. As always, it lmPrtant to examine these issues in a context-specific
manner

Securitization
Human security through ideas like economic, health, food,
environmental, and political ignore the unjust social
relations and unequal gender relations within the IR
sphere
Grenfell and James 08 [Damian and Paul, 2008. Damian Grenfell is a researcher in the
Globalism Research Centre at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Paul James is Academic Director of the Globalism Research Centre at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
and Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Program (UNGCCP).
Rethinking Insecurity, War and Violence. Debating insecurity in a globalizing world, pages 12-14]//kmc

Although the
literature on new wars has been influential in understanding
contemporary violence and security, the growing appeal of the
concept of human security has also become increasingly
influential, reflecting many of the changes that have come in a postCold War period of intense globalization. Human security as a
concept was made famous by the United Nations Development
Program report and its extension of traditional security debates into
a set of seven key areas: the economic, health, food, the
environmental, the political, community, and personal. Such a list
posed a challenge to the traditional conceptions of state security,
which, particularly through the discipline of international relations,
had been the dominant way of understanding why and how violence
had occurred in the world. The movement in analysis away from an emphasis on the state to
Human Security, Critical Security Studies, and the Decentering of the State

groups and individuals not only reflects the kinds of violence enacted through the New Wars, but also
reflects the fact that in the face of globalization many now see the state as less and less relevant in

While human security has largely


developed through policy via some states and international
institutions, critical security studies has also emerged to challenge
traditional security studies primarily through academic quarters.
Again decentering the state, critical security studies is in part
differentiated by the attempt to reconceptualize security to make
it an emancipatory process rather than preventative in form. As
Anthony Burke has written, the arguments of key theorists such as
Ken Booth have strong affinities with J. Ann Tickners vision of a
security based upon the elimination of unjust social relations,
including unequal gender relations and for a reformulation of
international relations in terms of the multiple insecurities
represented by ecological destruction, poverty and (gendered)
structural violence, rather than the abstract threats to the integrity
of states, their interests and core values. Together, they have
state inspirational normative goals that rightly guide many attempts
to reformulate security in more positive ways. (Burke 2007: 6-7)
discussions over the perpetuation of violence.

The 1ACs securitization ignores how women are


oppressed and effected by security, which creates a
silence and complicity towards those victimized by
policies
Sylvester 10 [Christine, 2010. Sylvester is Professor of International
Relations and Development in the Politics and International Relations
Department at Lancaster University, UK. Gender and International Security.
War, sense, and security. Page 29-30. 7/26]//kmc
Hansen is not one for poetics, but she does make sense of mermaids and worry about their security. In
2000, she wrote an intriguingly entitled piece, The Little Mermaids Silent Security Dilemma and the
Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School, which took the Copenhagen School of critical Security
Studies on for neglecting the important problematic of gender.28 Her sensory angle here highlighted the

It seemed to her that some of her colleagues


major writings were ignoring the sounds of inse- curity that women
choke back in difficult situations. They were also tending to subsume
gender problematics within larger security concerns, where women
could not be seen in order to be addressed properly. Hansen says,
Security as silence occurs when insecurity cannot be voiced, when
realms of sound and sight.

raising something as a security problem is impossible or might even


aggravate the threat being faced. 29 Subsuming security puts
gender in some social location apart from salience. It is removed
from security frameworks that locate issues of security and
insecurity in issues of nationality, religion, or race. Groups falling
under these categories can risk existential threats by states or
commu- nal actions designed to insecure through fear, and
sometimes through enforced deprivation and want.

As members of nations,

religions, and races under threat, women are subsumed: they do not compose a group in and of
themselves. So says the Copenhagen School. Hansen maintains that in not recognizing women as a
potentially threa- tened group,

the potential subject of security has no, or a


limited, possibility of speaking its security problem.30 Hansens
case in point is rape during wartime. Depending on the nation or
other group identity women hold, the security strategies available to
them at such scary moments of physical assault can be silence,
denial, or if the incident has become known, flight.31 Women can find it
nearly impossible to speak of the rape, because to do so would put them in harms way, perhaps in the
way of zina in Pakistan, the law against sexual intercourse outside bona fide marriage. When reli- gious or
national law is pitched against women, and their families are in a fury about humiliations suffered as a

the victims go silent. It is the only way


they can create some security. War, sense, and security 29 30 Christine Sylvester
result of bodily transgressions on their woman,

Subsuming security dovetails with the silencing example. Without recog- nizing that raped women are
silenced as members of a distinctive gender col- lectivity, there is little that critical Security Studies can do
to ease women out of their security dilemma. They become like H.C. Andersons little mermaid in
Copenhagen harbor. She silently hopes that love will liberate her from her watery prison and give her the
human perambulation required to be with her beloved prince. She takes the decision to leave the water
world and become human, to have a soul, only to discover that her man cannot recognize her now as a

Trapped in an existential netherworld,


she cannot be at home with him or return to familiar waters. She sits
proper subject, as the mermaid he loved.

stuck to stone in Copenhagen harbor, at once sad and quietly com- manding of the waters around her.

Glass-topped tourist boats sail in to memorialize her pain, their

passengers photographing her exquisite distress. Few hear her call,


her wails.

The 1ACs engagement of presenting a securitizing aff


with impact that needs to be solved ignores the
underlying problems within securityexamining our
assumptions of the world are key to create successful
movement
Detraz 12 [Nicole. Nicole Detraz is Assistant Professor of Political Science
at the University of Memphis. International Security and Gender, pages 12 ]//kmc

The Arab Spring is a term used to refer to the series of uprisings that took place in several states in the
Middle East and North Africa in 2010-2011. This movement captured the attention of the general public,

We heard about peaceful and violent


protests, the actions of state security forces, the activities of
insurgent groups," and discussions by the United Nations Security
Council. Each of these elements has ties to security. In the global
news, we hear stories daily about domestic-level conflicts around
the world, about wars and tensions between states, about ideas like
cyber-security and social security. This broad list highlights the fact that security is an
idea with multiple meanings. Security is a uniquely important concept in the
modern world. Common understandings of security range from interstate war and conflict studies to a concern for well being at an
individual level. Security has historically been one of the most
policy experts, and security scholars.

fundamental topics of concern for international relations (IR)


scholars . Largely since the end of the Second World War, scholars have worked to define and
understand security in the global community. Throughout its existence, security studies has been marked

there are not only


struggles over security among nations, but also struggles over
security among notions. Winning the right to define security
provides not just access to resources but also the authority to
articulate new definitions and discourses of security, as well. This
quote suggests that the ways in which we define security have important
by competing definitions of security. Ronnie Lipschutz (1995: 8) argues

implications for the scholarly and policy realms. Security is an idea


that governments typically take very seriously, so calling something
a security issue often results in increased attention and resources
being channeled in the direction of the security issue . To demonstrate how
important security has been for both

states and IR scholarship, we can examine the concepts of hjgh

politics and low politics.

Within IR, high politics has always been the


exclusive realm of security, while low politics includes things like
economics, social issues, and the environment. In the hierarchy I of
issues states face, security is at the top, while all other issues are
placed beneath it . The term high politics is illustrative of the central
place security has had for scholars and policymakers. Asking
questions and problematizing this concept contributes to making

scholarship and policymaking more reflexive . It causes us to step


back and examine our assumptions about both the definition of
security and also the way security policy is formulated and carried
out. An important component of problematizing security is
understanding the host of connections between security
topics/concepts and gender.

War
The 1ACs securitization frames war as an experience,
which ignores our emotional relationshipwe should
embrace the ethic of care to reject the over-securitization
of war
Sylvester 10 [Christine, 2010. Sylvester is Professor of International
Relations and Development in the Politics and International Relations
Department at Lancaster University, UK. Gender and International Security.
War, sense, and security. Page 24-26. 7/26]//kmc

It is noteworthy that both mainstream International Relations (IR)


and its critical Security Studies camp shy away from analyzing war
and other forms of violence as sensory experiences.
Conventionalists define, game, strategize, correlate, map causes,
and trace historical trajectories of wars, weapons, alliance
structures, civilmilitary relations and outcomes of violence. Critical
Security Studies looks at political, economic, social, and
environmental dimensions of human security as well as the
technologies of securitization that bring more and more daily
activities into national security frameworks . War as an experience
of the body has not usually been on these agendas in IR Recently,
some feminists have been looking closely into the links between war,
security, and what people see, feel, hear, smell and even taste when
they are confronted with violence in International Relations. Anne
Orford, for example, places the sense of touch high on her list of missing
elements in humanitarian war analysis.1 Judith Butler offers a powerful
set of arguments about grief and mourning as potential backbones
of an international politics with real anti-war clout .2 Jean Bethke
Elshtain earlier spoke of the good sol- dier being like the good
mother in their mutual concerns about the body, its fluids, its
discipline, its errors.3 I have written about the ways that art looting during the second Iraq war
touched people internationally, galvanizing a war for art within the war for Iraq that thrust art/museums
into the international limelight.4

Sense is especially significant at a time when

globalization enables interna- tional conflict to impact and involve


so many . People can experience war physically through the pain of
wounds and acts of wounding, through giving or receiving medical or
emergency aid, through the sights of the rifle or the lens of the
camera, through acts of revenge such as raping or being raped,
through regarding dead comrades and family members and handling
dead bodies, through capture and confinement, through the physical
effort to escape a war zone, through sleeplessness, drugs, alcohol,
and so on. People who find themselves in war zones can also
experience war through emotions. They might fear or excitedly wish
to face an enemy, because of what they have heard or think about
him and his society. They might be moved to action by religious
beliefs, nationalist feelings, or ethnic loyalties. They can also experience the

painful loss of people, property, art and archi- tectures around them and end up repulsed by what they
see, paralyzed by grief or trauma, or saddened by popular opinion about a war. They might become

a
person who is not directly involved in war can be moved for or
against a waror war in generalby the justifications given for it, by
how well or poorly it is going for ones group and oneself, by popular
opinion, by ones political party affiliation, by reports in the media,
by religion and identity politics, by representations of war in the arts
and in novels, by what one learns about war in classrooms, by the
effects of war on the economy or on ones family or future, by
memories of war and war memorials. Not everyone touches war in
the same way but everyone can be touched by it in this time of globalization
disgusted with war while others take from the same experience a certain exhilaration. Meanwhile,

as citizens, refugees, observers, participants, victims, recorders and researchers of war experiences.5
Indeed, the many wars of the post-Cold War era in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have put all of us in
an insecure zone that overflows with bodily senses. The UN Human Development Report of 1994 made the
sense and human security link explicit in its calls for freedom from fear and freedom from want, rather
than, as has been common in statist logics, freedom from invasion.6 But Anthony Burke argues that it is
difficult to get security as freedom from right, because we have become addicted to sufferingto a
rational, functional suffering embedded in the very patterns of politics and order that regulate global life.7

Our politics create and then pander to fear and dread, those twinset emotions people are so accustomed to as part of the fabric of
everyday life. To Erin Manning, sense does not pre-exist experience.
Perhaps our experiences with violence have curdled our senses.8 We help

generously at times of tsunamis, earthquakes and hurricanes and then feel sour watching shocked parents
close to our safe homes groping for words to express what it could possibly be like to learn that their 11year-old son has been shot dead on his way home from soccer practice in Liverpool. A Long Beach,
California high school student writes: If you look Asian or Latino, youre gonna get blasted on or at least
jumped. The war has been declared, now its a fight for power, money, and territory; we are killing each
other over race, pride, and respect ... They might think theyre winning by jumping me now, but soon

Freedom from fear, want, and dread goes


missing in such prosaic contexts. We experience surveillance instead
oversecuring, annoyingly securitizing, or insecuring us with
measures that supposedly keep us free from all manner of dangers
except the ones that affect us. Statist security measures can get silly when they are
not being deadly. Ministries in the UK and Homeland Security officials in the USA
insist that War, sense, and security 25 26 Christine Sylvester the ever numerous
body and mind intrusions we experience at airports, for example,
are required to secure us. Why then do we dread them? Insecurely we shuffle along in the
enough, theyre all going down!9

queue, suffering, hateful, or numbed by a bureaucratic politics that targets individuals where it once

The old security dilemma of the Cold


War more or less con- fined insecurity in International Relations to
states madly building arms and keeping us on board that mission by
blowing nuclear dust in our eyes. Today, human security has been
leveled its security logic on vil- lainous states.

bribed into silence as it faces the dilemma of jostling, waiting,


watching our bottle of water or lipstick seized, enduring repetitive
questions about who packed the bags . Compared to people in war zones, air
We desperately
need new ways of looking at the world and of overturning the fear in
security. We might start where security hurts or annoys us as
individuals. We might think, that is, about what security feels like
and does not feel like. Ideas along these lines appear in inspiring new IR texts on security that
travelers get off easy. No one, however, gets to bow out of the security stakes.

carry a critical edge and are not afraid to go into sensory spaces. To ponder new ways to think about sense

and security, consider four such texts: Anthony Burkes (2007) Beyond Security, Ethics and Violence, Lene
Hansens (2006) Security as Practice,10 Laura Sjoberg and Caron Gentrys (2007) Mothers, Monsters,
Whores: Womens Violence in Global Politics,11 and Erin Mannings (2007) Politics of Touch. Not every

sense forms that


entail suffering for security when they could be leading us to
experience security differently.
section of each book is directly relevant to sense and security, but all zero in on

The 1AC framing of war and conflict is genderedthe 1AC


is a reworked understanding of conflict that puts survival
over the well-being of others, where violence upon men
and women within war is ignored
Detraz 12 [Nicole. Nicole Detraz is Assistant Professor of Political Science
at the University of Memphis. International Security and Gender, page 1112]//kmc
Several feminist scholars analyze the specific linkages between gender and security. These feminist

security must be analyzed in terms of how


contemporary insecurities are being created and by a sensitivity to
the way in which people are responding to insecurities by reworking
their understanding of how their own predicament fits into broader
structures of violence and oppression (Tickner 2001: 47). Feminists are
often suspicious of statist versions of security that treat the
survival and well being of institutions as more important than the
survival and well being of individuals (Hudson 2005; Tickner 2001). Additionally,
feminist security scholars specifically seek to understand the
unique security situations of women and men. Most acknowledge that both
authors often claim

women and men are often negatively impacted by war and conflict;
however these impacts are typically gendered . Rather than assume
conflict or war impacts everyone similarly, or even that it impacts
the marginalized in the same ways, feminist security scholars
conclude that all stages of conflict are gendered- and this often
serves to make women more vulnerable than men to security
threats. Feminist security studies concentrate on the ways world politics can contribute to the

insecurity of individuals, especially individuals who are marginalized and disempowered (Enloe 2000;
2007; 2010; Reardon and Hans 2010). This is in contrast to traditional security approaches that have
typically evaluated security issues either from a structural perspective or at the level of the state and its
decisionmakers. There is a tendency in this literature to look at what happens during wars as well as being
concerned with their causes and endings (Riley et al. 2008; Tickner 2001). There is a danger, however, in
a simplistic analysis that automatically views women as victims in times of war. This volume calls for a
more nuanced understanding of the particular experiences of women and men during times of conflict.
This caution is echoed by many feminists who argue against simplistic notions of peaceful women and
aggressive men.

The automatic connection of women with an


uncomplicated definition of peace has worked to devalue both
women and peace. A project that unquestioningly asserts an
association between women and peace may actually serve to
disempower women by defining them in opposition to the ideas
security studies considers most crucial, specifically strategizing for
and fighting in wars (Tickner 2001). Still, many feminists who engage in security studies do

focus on particular issues and abuses women often face during war or conflict. These include rape in war,
military prostitution, refugees (many of whom are women and children), and more generally issues about
civilian casualties. Additionally, there has been increased attention paid to the place and experiences of
women as political and military leaders, soldiers, revolutionaries, and terrorists. This book explores
gendered understandings of security rather than simply the roles and responses of women in the security
debate. As mentioned above, gender can be defined as a set of socially constructed ideas about what

Gender analysis involves examining genderbased divisions in society and differential control of/access to
resources. This is different from an approach seeking to bring
women into an analysis, which can isolate women from the broader
socio-cultural context in which behavioral norms are embedded .
men and women ought to be.

Therefore, this book will not only explore the particular position of women and men within the context of
security, but also investigate the objects of study and the specific language used in the present security
discussions for examples of gendered implications.

Heg
The hegemonic framing of the 1AC frames the state as a
masculine subject within IR that needs to be securitized
Wadley 10 [Jonathan D., 2010. Wadley is a PhD candidate at the

University of Florida. His research focuses on sexual politics and European


identity. Gender and International Security. Gendering the state, page 49-51
7/27]//kmc
the qualities of gender norms are structured as dichotomous
pairs. As signifiers of identity, they establish hierarchy among the
actors upon which they are written. They include, among other things :
Often,

rationality/irrationality, civilized/barbaric, autonomous/dependent,


active/passive, and powerful/ weakall of which map onto the
dominant signifier pair of masculine/femi- nine. 47 The examination
of gender dichotomies such as these has been helpful in accounting
for how unequal, relational identities have been maintained and how
they have privileged some actors and marginalized others. However, there
are limits to this kind of analysis. By viewing relational gender identities in
dichotomous terms, one risks neglecting the variation that exists
within those categories.48 Simply put, there are different and unequal types of mas- culinity
and femininity. Within the range of masculinities, there are dominant and subordinate types. A
hegemonic masculinity is an idealized, relational, and historical
model of masculinityone to which other forms of masculinity are
subordinate. Although the qualities associated with it characterize a
small percentage of masculine actors, its idealization and cultural
pervasiveness require other actors to position themselves in relation
to it.49 And while it is continually evolving, incorporating other
forms of masculinity even as it subordinates them, it remains
identifiable.50 By performing in accordance with a dominant model
of masculinity, states can constitute (and thus, position) themselves
relationally as powerful sub- jects. For Connell, this kind of positioning is
at the heart of the concept of masculinity, to such a degree that the
term represents not a certain type of man but, rather, a way that
men position themselves through discursive practices. 51 Cynthia Enloe
argues similarly that patriarchy is perpetuated by men who are
recognized and claim a certain form of masculinity, for the Performativity
and protection 49 50 Jonathan D. Wadley sake of being more valued, more
serious, and the protectors of/and con- trollers of those people
who are less masculine. 52 A comparable process occurs among states. As with
men, the more that states are able to constitute themselves in
alliance with the norms of the hegemonic masculinity, the more
they will improve their position and boost their credibility. 53 Thus,
states have constant incentives to perform in ways that not only are

masculine, but that constitute them as a certain form of masculine


actor, one who embodies the elements of the hegemonic
masculinity. Performances that masculinize states by positioning
them closer to the ideal of the hegemonic masculinity are likely to
be most effective in the realm of security . This is because security
performances are central to the production of the state as a unitary
subject and because, so often, security performances are rendered
intelligible by highly pronounced ideas about masculinity and
femininity. War, in particular, demonstrates this claim. Long ago, Kenneth Waltz observed that in
times of war the state is united (and, therefore, a single entity) to a
greater degree than at any other time.54 Tickner makes a similar observation but
concludes that gender plays a big role in producing state unity: the state
becomes a citizen-warrior in times of war.55 Jean Bethke Elshtain and Susan Jeffords
go one step further, arguing that collective iden- tities are constructed through
the types of men and women that war creates or brings out. But
absent war, security performances are still crucial for state
production and reproduction.56 By taking dangers, threats, and
other signs of insecurity to be their objects, security performances
reproduce the boundaries between a secure self and a dangerous
other. Boundary reproduction is cen- tral to processes of statecraft, and security performances occur
where the integrity of the states boundaries are discursively challenged, often in an explicit manner.
Whether such threats are internal or external, the effect is the same. Indeed, the distinction often

One effect of successful security performances, then, is the


appearance of the state as a unitary, continuous actor, and one who
can claim legitimacy over those internal to it. An additional effect
of successful security perfor- mances is the constitution of the state
as an actor who is hierarchically dominant to certain other
international actors, frequently states. Both of these can be
collapses.

accomplished by performing security in accord with the norms of


the hegemonic masculinity . The relational quality of gender ensures that any performances
that give the state the appearance of personhood will necessarily position its personhood in relation to

Any gendered construction of the state, even if it does not


live up to masculine ideals, will be socially defined in
contradistinction from some model (whether real or imaginary) of femininity;57
thus, the gender norms that make a state intelligible as a subject also
situate it relationally to other actors. This argument may be
operationalized by first determining the dominant form of
masculinity that operates among states, and then observing states
efforts to perform security in ways that align with it . For the first step, there is
other states.

good reason to believe that a model of masculinity centered on protection has achieved dominant, if not
hegemonic, status. While the question of its hege- monic status will have to be settled empirically,
protection appears to be both clearly masculine and sufficiently widespread. And although studies of the
idea of protection are dwarfed by studies of the idea of security within IR, there is enough work that has
been done on its normative force, evolving meaning, and the growing range of performances that it
regulates to merit consideration. Work on these different aspects of protection could be usefully combined
to reveal an overarching processone through which feminist Security Studies can study the gendering of
the state that takes place at a systemic level.

Econ
The affirmatives focus on conventional growth obscures
larger inequalities that perpetuate gendered hierarchies
the alternative uses a different lens for viewing
globalization that is mutually exclusive with the affs
ontological approach
Tickner 1professor at the School of International Relations, USC. (Ann,
Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era, 7778)
Ohmaes top-down view of a borderless world, with its emphasis on the
globalization of production and finance, hides the large inequalities , stressed by critics, that
exist

within and between societies . While there are obviously enormous differences in the socioeconomic status
of women depending on their race, class, nationality, and geographic location, women share a certain commonality
since they are disproportionately located at the bottom of the
socioeconomic scale in all societies. Figures vary from state to state, but on an average, women earn three-quarters of
both

mens earnings, even though they work longer hours. Many of these hours are spent in unremunerated reproductive and caring tasks. Of the 1.3 billion people estimated to
be in poverty in the mid 1990s, 70 percent were women: the number of rural women living in absolute poverty rose by nearly 50 percent from the mid 1970s to the mid
1990s.45 Women have received a disproportionately small share of credit from formal banking institutions. For example, in Latin America, in the early 1990s women
constituted only from 7 to 11 percent of the beneficiaries of credit programs; in Africa, where women contribute up to 80 percent of total food production, in the mid 1990s
they received less than 10 percent of the credit to small farmers and 1 percent of total credit to agriculture.46 Feminist perspectives on economic globalization and on IPE
more generally have investigated the extent to which these disturbing figures are attributable to gendered effects of trends in the global economy outlined above. Findings

the new international division of labor has had significant


effects on women. Even in areas of the world where economic growth has been rapid, economic progress has
not been matched by improvements in the position of women . Women who work
in the wage sector are generally the most poorly paid, and women make up a disproportionate number
of those working in the informal sector or in subsistence agriculture,
areas of the economy that are often ignored by conventional economic
have suggested that

analysis . Women have not been left outside global restructuring;


they are participating while remaining invisible .47 Feminists are investigating the reasons for this
invisibility that exists not only at the level of policy discourse but also in the field of IPE. However,

within the statist frameworks of


itself

(for reasons given below)

structures

neorealism and

making women visible


neoliberalism does not lend

to investigating hierarchical global economic

detrimental to women;

adding women to

the liberal literature on

economic

globalization is equally problematic because it continues to hide the


gendered power structures that

feminists believe are the

cause of womens

disadvantaged position . Silence about gender occurs because it is


invisible in the concepts used for analysis, the questions that are
asked, and the preference for the state level

of analysis typical of conventional IPE.48 Certainly the

Rather
than trying to understand the conditions necessary for stability in
the international system, feminists are seeking to understand the causes
of womens various economic insecurities and investigating the
conditions under which they might be alleviated. While neorealists and neoliberals both claim that
states are furthering their own interests in the global economy, they have been less concerned with how these rewards are distributed internally . Rather
than taking the state as given, feminists seek to understand how
questions asked by both neorealists and neoliberals about the reasons for state conflict and cooperation are quite different from those of feminists.

state policies and structures, in their interactions with the global economy,
have differential effects on individuals; making visible gendered
power relationships can help us to understand how women and men
may be rewarded differentially as the state pursues gains from the global economy .
Much of feminist analysis of economic globalization comes out of a different
ontology and different methodologies than those of neorealists and
neoliberals. Concerned with questions such as the global division of labor, feminists have examined how
hierarchical structures of class, race, and gender cross and intersect with national
boundaries; they also have examined the interactive effects of these
hierarchies on the workings of the global economy. In so doing, they draw on sociological
analysis rather than rationalist methodologies based on microeconomics. Given their interest in understanding
how culture, norms, and values shape and are shaped by material structures,
they are unlikely to choose rational-choice methodologies that focus
on calculation of interest.

Threat Focus
The 1ACs framing of threats ignores the vulnerabilities
within the systemthe securitization of threats creates a
dedefinition of security, in which it is impossible to see
vulnerabilities
Detraz 12 [Nicole. Nicole Detraz is Assistant Professor of Political Science

at the University of Memphis. International Security and Gender, page 910]//kmc


Threat and vulnerability are two terms commonly discussed in
connection with both traditional notions of security and expanded
versions. P. H. Liotta (2005: 51) explains that a threat is identifiable, often
immediate, and requires an understandable response ... A threat, in
short, is either clearly visible or commonly acknowledged. A
security threat is often understood to be an entity or phenomenon
that undermines the safety and continued existence of the state .
Threats are something to be acted swiftly upon in order to eliminate them and maintain security. An
example would be if an enemys army was marching toward a states borders, that state would marshal its

Vulnerability is a broader concept than threat . A


general definition of vulnerability is the liability to suffer damage in
a potentially dangerous event (Gaillard 2010). These events can be
natural, economic, political, etc. Vulnerabilities are not as clearly
defined as threats, but can include disease, hunger, unemployment,
crime, social conflict, etc. (Liotta 2005). In a discussion of security in most forms, it is
necessary to identify potential threats and vulnerabilities. The
sources of threats and vulnerabilities will vary for different types of
security, however. For example, the sources of threats in environmental security will come from
own forces to meet them.

things like increased competition over natural resources or damage from natural disasters rather than
military might of a state. Most scholars wishing to problematize the idea of state security argue we must
be concerned with both threats and vulnerabilities.

The inclusion of vulnerabilities

and alternative threats into a discussion of security is not,


however, viewed by all as a positive move.

For example, in a widely read critique

of the notion of environmental security, Daniel Deudney (1990: 194) claims if

all large-scale
evils become threats to security, the result will be a dedefinition
rather than a redefinition of security. Waever (1995) offers another warning,
claiming that expanding the notion of security may actually serve to strengthen the hold the state

since security issues have traditionally


been seen as the purview of the state, identifying threats other than
military ones as security threats will give the state greater control
over more issues. Securitization means the issue is presented as an
existential threat, requiring emergency measures and justifying
actions outside the normal bounds of political procedure (Buzan et al.
possesses over more areas. His logic is that

1998: 24). State- sponsored solutions may or may not be the optimal resolution for each problem. In sum,
security studies has a long history within IR, but has seen some important changes in recent years (Buzan
and Hansen 2009; Collins 2007; Williams 2008). These changes include the addition of elements that have
not historically been understood as high politics. There are those who enthusiastically welcome these
additions as challenges to state-centric, military security scholarship. Alternatively, there are those who
see these additions as either watering down the concept of security past the point of effectiveness, or as
unnecessarily

Omission
Silence is violence---link of omission just proves that the
alt solves because it exposes the hegemonic nature of the
1ac---this card smokes them
Jackson 8IR, Aberystwyth U. PhD, U Canterbury (Richard, The Ghosts of
State Terror, http://users.aber.ac.uk/mys/csrv/ghost%20of%20state%20terrorrichard%205.pdf)
Employing a grounded theory approach, the analysis was considered complete when the addition of new texts did not yield any new insights or categories. The second
stage of the research involved subjecting the findings of the textual analysis to both a first and second order critique. A first order or immanent critique uses a discourses
internal contradictions, mistakes, misconceptions, and omissions to criticise it on its own terms and expose the events and perspectives that the discourse fails to

The point of this form of internal critique is not necessarily to establish the
correct or real truth of the subject beyond doubt, but rather to destabilise dominant
acknowledge or address.

interpretations and demonstrate the inherently contested and political


nature of the discourse . A second order critique entails reflecting on the broader
political and ethical consequences the ideological effects of the representations and
more importantly in this case, the silences, enabled by the discourse . Specifically, it
involves an exploration of the ways in which the discourse functions as a
symbolic technology8 that can be wielded by particular elites and institutions, to: structure the
primary subject positions, accepted knowledge , commonsense and legitimate policy responses to the
actors and events being described; exclude and delegitimise alternative knowledge and practice;
naturalise a particular political and social order; and construct and sustain a hegemonic
regime of truth. A range of specific discourse analytic techniques are useful in second order critique: genealogical analysis, predicate analysis, narrative
analysis, and deconstructive analysis.9 It is crucial to recognise that discourses are significant not just for what they say but also for what they do not say; the

silences

in a discourse

can be

as important, or even

more important

at times,

than what is openly

stated . This is because silence can function ideologically in any number of ways. For example, silence can be a deliberate means of distraction or
the suppression or delegitimisation of alternative forms
of knowledge or values, the tacit endorsement of particular kinds of practices,
setting the boundaries of legitimate knowledge, or as a kind of disciplining
process directed against certain actors among others. In other words, the silences within a text often function as an exercise
misdirection from uncomfortable subjects or contrasting viewpoints,

in power ; revealing and interrogating those silences therefore, is an important


part of first and second order critique. Lastly, it is important to note that when we examine a discourse as a
broad form of knowledge and practice, it is never completely uniform, coherent, or consistent; it always

has porous borders and often contains multiple exceptions, inconsistencies, and contradictions by different speakers and texts. Many of the terrorism scholars discussed in
this paper for example, upon a close reading of their individual texts, often express more nuanced arguments than are necessarily presented here. The important point is
not that each text or scholar can be characterised in the same uniform way, or even that these scholars agree on a broad set of knowledge claims. It is rather, that taken
together as a broader discourse and a body of work that has political and cultural currency, the narratives and forms of the discourse function to construct and maintain a
specific understanding of, and approach to, terrorism and state terrorism and that this knowledge has certain political and social effects.

This is a link- its the idea that omissions are unimportant


that causes greater harm- policy analysis should focus on
this
Jon Hanson & Kathleen Hanson * Harvard Law School Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
Summer, 2006
Lerner's experiment indicates just how ready we are to short-circuit potential perceptions of injustice. When
behavior that causes harm is perceived as normal--part of the script, the way things are, the plan, nature, or
an act of God--that behavior is less likely to be viewed as blameworthy than is abnormal behavior. In a
related phenomenon, we often deem "omissions" that produce suffering far less culpable than "acts"
that lead to similar suffering. For example, some parents are reluctant to vaccinate their child if the
vaccination has some mortality risk, even if the risk of death from foregoing the vaccination is substantially
greater. n22 Similarly, some people have argued that hurricanes should not be seeded, even if seeding would
likely reduce the storm's expected damage. n23 An unseeded hurricane is perceived as an act of nature or

God, to which blame does not generally attach. But a person or institution that actively seeded a hurricane
would likely be considered responsible for the actual harm that hurricane caused. Thus risks "caused" by
salient individual action (choosing the vaccine or seeding a hurricane) are perceived as worse than the
greater risk posed by inaction (the virus or the flooded city). When individual action is salient, we see choice
(and sometimes intent n24) and attribute causal responsibility accordingly, but where individuals fail to act,
the omissions tend to fade into the surrounding situation. n25 Policy and policy analysis reflect that
omission bias. For example, pharmaceutical [*422]companies have never been held liable for failing to
produce vaccines, but have sometimes been liable for the harm caused even by vaccines whose dangers are
unavoidable. n26 Tort law traditionally has been reluctant to impose responsibility for doing nothing n27
and generally imposes no duty to rescue. Thus, the "sunbather who watches a child going under the waves
has no duty to dive in the water, throw her a life ring, or even notify a nearby lifeguard." n28 Similar
techniques shield the legal regime itself from responsibility. As Philip Bobbitt and Guido Calabresi
have argued, lawmakers engage in legitimating subterfuges to avoid explicitly making "tragic choices" that
would cause suffering or death. n29 Policies ostensibly pursuing some justified end, but having
untoward consequences for some groups, typically are viewed less as actions causing harm than as
situationally excused omissions. n30 Of course, a purported goal need not be the actual motivation for
an act or a policy in order to have the absolving effect. Often a "cover story" need not be very strong to justify
harmful conduct. In the Lerner experiment, the subjects without a salient choice to end the shocking (the
second group) could more easily excuse themselves from blame than the subjects who were presented an
alternative. The "optionless" subjects took cover behind their assigned roles in an ostensibly valuable,
scientific inquiry. Stopping the experiment would have required affirmative, abnormal actions--going
against the flow. In part because no one expects such actions to be taken, no blame attaches to not taking
them. And in part because such omissions would be blameless, no one acts. n31

A2: Perm
Perm Failsthe inclusion of the state-based plan with the
alternative dooms the alternative to failurea lack of
understanding of feminist theories means the state wont
adopt the alt into policies
Sjoberg 10 [Laura, 2010. Sjoberg is Assistant Professor of Political Science
at the University of Florida. She holds a PhD in International Relations and
Gender Studies and a law degree specializing in International Law. Gender
and International Security, pg 1-2. 7/26]//kmc
In the intervening decades,
feminist scholars have critiqued and reformulated many of the
foundational theoretical assumptions of IR. Still, the productivity of
conversations between feminists and other IR scholars has been
more mixed than original predictions envisioned . In some areas of IR,
scholarship that uses gender as an analytical category has successfully engaged in dialogue with more
mainstream approaches. In other areas of study, however,

feminists have experienced

awkward silences and miscommunications brought about by a


lack of understanding between IR audiences and feminist
speakers .5 Security Studies is one area of IR where unsatisfactory
encounters illustrate a gendered estrangement that inhibits more
sustained conversations between feminists and IR scholars .6 As
Ann Tickner laments, feminist theorists have rarely achieved the
serious engagement with other IR scholars for which they have
frequently called .7 In many ways, the theory and practice of international security remain a mans world . Women in privileged positions
in inter- national security policy-making remain rare (and are often
identified primarily by their gender when they do reach those
positions), and entire scholarly texts can be found with no reference
to women or gender at all. This lack of communication between the
field of Security Studies and feminist scholars exists despite the
growing influence of feminist thought and practice in the policy
world. The passage and implementation of United Nations 2 Laura Sjoberg Security Council
Resolutions 1325 and 1820 (which mainstream gender in Security Council operations and oblige memberstates to include women in peace negotiations and post-conflict reconstruction), and similar initiatives
throughout the United Nations, the World Bank, and the IMF, show that gender is a salient concern in

international phenomena all show not


only womens significance in interna- tional security, but also the
relevance of gender as a factor in understanding and addressing
security matterssuch as, the increase in female suicide bombers,9 growing evidence of the use
global governance.8 Furthermore, specific

of sexual violence as a tool of war in conflicts from South Korea to the Democratic Republic of Congo,10
womens participation as soldiers in armed conflicts around the globe,11 and womens activism and

Practitioners interested in
peacekeeping,13 the study and management of refugees,14 and
protecting noncombatants in times of war15 reveal the increasing
importance of gender sensitivity to many of the actors that we study
in global pol- itics. As Spike Peterson explains, real world events
protests against conflicts (including the war in Iraq).12

are not adequately addressed by androcentric accounts that render


women and gender relations invisible.16

The State cant solvethere is no space within the State


given to reform gender politics, which means that the alt
needs to be the first step to break down gender lenses
and the perm cant solve
Wadley 10 [Jonathan D., 2010. Wadley is a PhD candidate at the
University of Florida. His research focuses on sexual politics and European
identity. Gender and International Security. Gendering the state, page 41
7/28]//kmc
Most IR scholars have not understood states to be genderedpresumably
because they have not focused on how states are made and how gender
works. The state is typically believed to possess its core identity prior
to interaction with others. Gender is, therefore, given no room
within the theory to have a constitutive relationship with that
identity. As a result, the state body and life are written about
without reference to gender, or to any other systems of meaning
that can code a states performances. This happens largely because
most scholars adhere, in Patrick Jacksons and Daniel Nexons typology, to
some form of substantialism. Substantialism, they explain, maintains
that the ontological primitives of analysis are things or entities
entities exist before interaction and all relations should be
conceived as relations between entities.8 Substantialism ranges
from the belief that states possess internally generated interests or
ideas and are, as a result, self-motivated (which Jackson and Nexon
label self-action sub- stantialism) to the more common view that interaction
changes the vari- able attributes of states, but not the states themselves
(termed inter-action substantialism).

Alternative

Gender Lens
The alternative is to reject the securitization of the 1AC
and use a gender lens to approach the affirmative
Detraz 12 [Nicole. Nicole Detraz is Assistant Professor of Political Science

at the University of Memphis. International Security and Gender, page 1517]//kmc


One way to explore the connections between security and gender is
to examine security issues through gender lenses. We can think about gender
lenses like the different lenses of a camera. As any photography buff knows, there is a vast array of
camera lenses to choose from. Some lenses allow for wide views, some for intense close-ups, while others
filter out certain colors. If we take a picture with one lens, particular elements of a scene will come to light.
For example, if we take a picture of a beach with a wide-angle lens we can see much more of the scene
than would be possible with a regular lens. Because of this, the pictures taken with each lens will look
different. The wide-angle shot will show the entirety of the scene including a broad expanse of white sand,
a long row of beach chairs with umbrellas, and crowds of people swimming, lying on the sand and walking
along the water. The regular lens will give more detail to a smaller area, including a couple sitting under a
big red umbrella with two children building a sandcastle a few feet from the clear blue water. In much the

using gender lenses allows us to view different elements of


gender as we explore a particular topic. Peterson and Runyan (1999, 2010) have
popularized the idea of examining topics in international relations through
gender lenses. They argue that gender lenses allows us t0 examine issues in
ways that go beyond what is typically visible and present in IR
scholarship. Steans (2006: 30) claims that to use gender lenses is to focus on
gender as a particular kind of power relation, and/or to trace out
the ways in which gender is central to understanding international
processes and practices in international relations. Gender/feminist
lenses also focus on the everyday experiences of women as women
and highlight the consequences of their unequal social position. It is
important to stress the plural in the idea of gender lenses in order to highlight the fact that there
are multiple elements of gender that can inform IR scholarship. If we
use a gender lens that is also sensitive to class issues in order to
understand the recent global economic downturn, our analysis will
focus on issues like the North- South differences in the feminization
of poverty. Additionally, if we use a gender lens that is also
sensitive to sexual orientation, we can better understand the
differences of experience motherhood may have for a straight
single-mother versus a lesbian couple who faces discrimination when
they try to adopt a child . It is important to understand gender with
same way,

regard to a variety of topics, including international security, and


it is important to do this in a way that acknowledges the
complexity of peoples perspectives and experiences . As conceptualizations
of security shift and broaden,

it is imperative that gender informs the

discussion . By using gender lenses, this book can identify the ways gender is currently incorporated
in security issues, as well as the ways gender can be incorporated in security studies into the future.

Each of our understandings of security has important ties to gender.


This book provides an introduction to the links between gender and security by analyzing some of the key
issues and topics within security studies through gender lenses. The book challenges narrow ideas of
security and provides an alternative conceptualization that seeks to broaden and deepen understandings
of security. This book is premised on the idea that

there are multiple ways scholars,

policymakers, the media and other actors discuss and understand


security issues. In other words, there are a variety of security
discourses at play. Discourses can be thought of as specific
ensembles of ideas, concepts and categorization that are produced,
reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices and
through which meaning is given to physical and social realities (Hajer
1995: 45). This definition suggests that discourses are constantly evolving entities that are shaped over

Political debates are typically informed by multiple discourses,


although certain discourses may become more dominant than
others as coalitions of actors succeed in promoting their preferred
understanding of the world. As certain discourses take hold, some types of policy responses
time.

may become more or less viable and the interests of some groups may be served more than others
(Backstrand and Lovbrand 2005; Cohn 1993; Haas 2002; Hajer 1995; Litfin 1999).

Voting negative breaks down gender binariesa


genderless approach to problem solving recreates the
gender hierarchy and stops exclusionary gender-based
lenses that bias predictions derail policy making
Sjoberg 10 [Laura, 2010. Sjoberg is Assistant Professor of Political Science
at the University of Florida. She holds a PhD in International Relations and
Gender Studies and a law degree specializing in International Law. Gender
and International Security, pg 2-6. 7/26]//kmc
It has been argued that all scholars approach their particular subject
matter with lenses that foreground some things, and background
others.17 In other words, scholars investigations start with the
variables that they find meaningful in global politics. For the studies
in this book, that lens is gender.18 As Jill Steans explains, To look at
the world through gendered lenses is to focus on gender as a
particular kind of power relation, or to trace out the ways in which
gender is central to understanding international processes.19 In order
to understand feminist work in IR, it is important to note that gender is not the
equivalent of membership in biological sex classes. Instead, gender
is a system of symbolic meaning that creates social hierarchies
based on perceived associations with masculine and feminine
characteristics. As Lauren Wilcox explains, Gender symbolism describes the
way in which masculine/feminine are assigned to various
dichotomies that organize Western thought where both men and
women tend to place a higher value on the term which is associated
with masculinity .20 Gendered social hierarchy, then, is at once a
social construction and a structural feature of social and political
life that profoundly shapes our place in, and view of, the
world.21

This is not to say that all people, or even all women, experience gender in the same

ways. While genders are lived by people throughout the world, each person lives gender in a different

as a structural feature of social and


political life, gender is a set of discourses that represent,
construct, change, and enforce social meaning.22 Feminism, then,
is neither just about women, nor the addition of women to maleculture, body, language, and identity. Still,

stream constructions; it is about transforming ways of being and


knowing as gendered discourses are understood and transformed .23
Therefore, there is not one gendered experience of global politics, but
many. By extension, there is not one gender-based perspective on IR
or international security, but many. Feminists can approach global
politics from a number of different perspec- tives, including realist, liberal, constructivist, critical,
poststructural, post- colonial, and ecological. These perspectives yield different,
and sometimes contradictory, insights about and predictions for
global politics. Feminist work from a realist perspective is interested in the role of gender in
strategy and power politics between states.24 Liberal feminist work calls attention to the subordinate
position of women in global politics and argues that gender oppression can be remedied by including
women in the existing structures of global politics.25 Critical feminism explores the ideational and material
manifestations of gendered identity and gendered power in world politics.26 Feminist constructivism
focuses on the ways that ideas about gender shape and are shaped by global politics.27

Feminist

poststructuralism focuses on how gendered linguistic


manifestations of meaning, particularly strong/weak,
rational/emotional, and public/private dichotomies, serve to
empower the mascu- line, marginalize the feminine, and constitute
global politics .28 Postcolonial fem- inists, while sharing many of the epistemological assumptions
of poststructural feminists, focus on the ways that colonial relations of domination and subordina- tion
established under imperialism are reflected in gender relations, and even relations between feminists, in
global politics and academic work.29 Ecological feminism, or ecofeminism, identifies connections
between the treatment of women and minorities, on one hand, and the nonhuman environment, on the
other.30 While each of the chapters in this book approach international security from a feminist

Still, feminists looking at global


politics share a normative and empirical concern that the
international system is gender-hierarchical. In feminist Introduction 3 4 Laura
Sjoberg scholarship, gender is not a variable that can be measured as a
yes or no (or male or female question), but as a more
complicated symbolic and cultural construction .31 Fundamental to
this understanding is that gender hierarchy is seen as a normative
problem, which can be revealed and analyzed through scholarly
evaluation. While gender hierarchy is a normative problem, the
perspective, each of their feminist perspectives differ.

failure to recognize it presents an empirical problem for IR


scholarship. Failing to recognize gender hierarchy makes IR
scholarship less descriptively accurate and predictively powerful for
its omission of this major force in global politics . Scholars looking
through gender lenses ask what assump- tions about gender (and
race, class, nationality, and sexuality) are necessary to make
particular statements, policies, and actions meaningful.32 As such,
feminist scholars have argued that gender matters in what we
study, why we study, and how we study global politics,33 and it matters in
a way that transforms knowledge in ways that go beyond adding women to critiquing, complicating, and
improving Security Studies.34 Feminist theorists have contributed to the field of Security Studies through
analyses and reformulations of the traditional contents of Security Studies, explorations of the roles that
women and gender play in combat and combat resolution, and by bringing attention to new or neglected

In analyzing traditional concepts in


Security Studies, feminists have demonstrated the gender bias in
securitys core concepts, such as the state, violence, war, peace, and
even security itself, urging redefinition in light of that bias.35
subjects revealed by taking gender seriously.

Feminist scholars have also gained empirical and the- oretical


insights from analyzing the various roles of women and gender in
conflict and conflict resolution. Feminists have found gender-based
language and assumptions at the foundation of debates about
nuclear strategy,36 the noncombatant immunity principle,37
peacekeeping,38 and various aspects of militarization and
soldiering.39 In addition to critiquing concepts traditionally
employed in the study of security, gender-based perspectives have
also uncovered new empirical knowledge about sexual violence in
war and gen- dered participation in armed conflict .40 For example, feminist
scholars have pointed out that rape is more prevalent in times of war than in times of peace.41 In addition
to pointing out the serious threat to womens security posed by wartime rape,42 feminists have
demonstrated that rape is institutio- nalized in war, as recreational and as a weapon.43 This book aims to
con- solidate and build on these gains, expanding on common tenets of feminist work in security to explore
new empirical situations and develop new theoretical insights. The first common tenet is a broad
understanding of what counts as a security issue, and to whom the concept of security should be applied.

Fem- inist approaches define security broadly in multidimensional or


multilevel terms. In this view, security threats include not only war
and international violence, but also domestic violence, rape,
poverty, gender subordination, and ecological destruction .44 Feminist
scholars not only broaden what is meant by security but also who merits security. Fueled by the
recognition that secure states often contain insecure women,
feminists analyze the security of individuals and communities as well
as of states and international organizations. Feminists have argued that the
personal is international [and] the international is personal. 45 The
second common theme in feminist Security Studies is an
understanding of the gendered nature of the values prized in the
realm of international security. If masculinism is the ideology that
justifies and naturalizes gender hierarchy by not questioning the
elevation of ways of being and knowing associated with men and
masculinity over those associated with women and femininity,46
then the values socially associated with femininity and mascu- linity
are awarded unequal weight in a competitive social order,
perpetuating inequality in perceived gender difference. Social processes
select for values and behaviors that can be associated with an idealized, or hegemonic, mas- culinity.47
This selection occurs because traits associated with hegemonic masculinities dominate social relations
while other values are subordinated. This cycle is self-sustainingso long as masculinity appears as a

This
dichotomous thinking about gender influences how scholars and
policy-makers frame and interpret issues of international security. A
third common theme for feminist Security Studies is the broad and
diverse role that feminist scholars see gender playing in the theory
and prac- tice of international security. In each of these chapters, gender matters in
unitary concept, dichotomous thinking about gender continues to pervade social life.48

the theory and practice of international security in three main ways: (1) it is necessary, conceptually, for
understanding international security; (2) it is important in analyzing causes and predicting outcomes; and
(3) it is essential to thinking about solutions and promoting positive change in the security realm. First,

gender can be a constitutive category which defines (and is defined


by) international actors understandings of their security as well as
those left out of security analyses. International security practice often relies on the
invisibility of women (both as labor and as a casus belli) specifically and gender generally.49 Second,

gender can be a causal variable, which causes (or is caused by)


states security-seeking behavior. Feminist scholars have argued that states foreign

policy choices are guided by their identities, which are based on association with characteristics attached
to masculinity, manli- ness, and heterosexism.50 Finally,

feminists interest in

remedying gender subordination could be epistemologically


constitutive for the theory and practice of security . If we were to reenvision security as starting from the perspective of individual
womens lives, it would change not only what security is, but how it
is conceptualized, operationalized, and acted on. The chapters in this book
argue that gender adds something to Security Studies, but that it is also a transformative force in the
constitution of security generally and security scholarship specifically. These observations lead to a final
common theme for feminist Security Studies: that the omission of gender from work on international

Instead, feminist work


on issues of international security has served
to question the supposed non- existence of and irrelevance of
women in international security politics, to interrogate the extent
to which women are secured by state protection in times of war
and peace, to contest discourses where women are linked
unreflectively with peace, and to critique the assumption that
gendered security practices address only women. 51
security does not make that work gender-neutral or unproblematic.
Introduction 5 6 Laura Sjoberg

Prereq
Acknowledging gender inequality is the first step to peace
keepingconflict is inevitable in a world absent a
genderless lens
Hudson 10 [Heidi, 2010. Hudson is Professor of Political Science and
Academic Program Direc- tor of the Centre for Africa Studies, University of the
Free State, Bloem- fontein, South Africa. Gender and International Security.
Peacebuilding building through a gender lens and the challenged of the
implantation in Rwanda and Cote dIvoire, page 256-257]//kmc
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 asks that memberstates ensure the consideration of gender in peace building
processes.1 This chapter explores what considering gender would mean,
arguing that, it requires more than acknowledging gender inequality
and foregrounding womens needs in peace processes . Considering
gender also includes seeing the differ- ential impact of conflict on
men and women and the unique knowledge and experiences that
both groups bring to the peace table. The benefits of such a strategy reach beyond
improved gender relations. Considering gender in peace building also
increases the chances of successful planning, implementation, and
institutionalization of a post-conflict order.

On the other hand,

the

exclusion of women and/or the failure to consider gender in peace


building processes risks not only womens rights, but also the
general failure of peace building as an enterprise. Inspired by Cynthia Enloes
that patriarchy is a principal cause both of the outbreak of
violent societal conflicts and of the international communitys
frequent failures in providing long-term resolutions to those violent
conflicts, this chapter contends that considering gender is a key
part of an effective peace building process.2 I argue there is a link
argument

between gender inequality and violence , and the prevalence of


discrimination against women increases the likelihood that a state
will experience internal conflict.3 If this observation is true, this chapter contends, the
success of post-conflict recon- struction can be seen as dependent on the inclusion of women and the

Building peace is an idea at once broader than and


an important framework for the peace making and peace keeping
work done by soldiers and diplo- mats.4 Perhaps peace keeping can be
pursuit of gender equity.

seen as an effort to contain the violence of a conflict, peace making


can be seen as an attempt to change the attitudes of current
combatants, and peace building encompasses both while attempting to understand and change the root causes of the conflict .5 For this
task,

feminist thinking not only offers an alternative vision of security

through the lens of gender, but also presents an inclusive view of

global security . Feminist theorizing uses gender as the lens to point


out gender inequalities, and then pays attention to the effects of
these gendered power relations as they Peace building through a gender lens 257
manifest between men and women during and after conflict .6 This
chapter contends that the evidence gathered by studying peace building from a feminist
perspective can be used to reconceptualize the peace agenda in
more inclusive and responsible ways. If gender analysis generally is
essential to peace building for its specified or bottom-up approach,
this chapter argues that a culturally contextual gender analysis is a
key tool both for feminist theory of peace building and the practice
of implementing a gender perspective in all peace work . In other words,
rather than treating women as if they had essential qualities (and therefore applying a feminist approach
as if it were universal), it is important to look for a contextually situated feminist approach. Using the tools
of African feminisms to study African conflicts, this chapter problematizes essentialist approaches to
womens roles in conflict and peace, warns against adding women without recognizing their agency,
emphasizes the need for an organized womens movement, and suggests directions for the
implementation of international laws concerning womens empowerment and protection at the local level.

The alternative is key to solve the patriarchy and its


oppression within the status quo
Detraz 12 [Nicole. Nicole Detraz is Assistant Professor of Political Science
at the University of Memphis. International Security and Gender, page 45]//kmc
There has been a general lack of attention to gender in IR
scholarship. More importantly, much IR scholarship continues the
assumption that gender differences are deterministic; that men and
women really do exhibit dichotomous characteristics. Helen Kinsella (2003296) argues by insisting on a definition of sex and gender as if their
conceptions are already settled and natural categories - indeed,
empirical categories - one completely misses the politics and power
of conceptual definition and the relationship of concepts to understanding. Categories and concepts are not neutral. Not all feminists agree on
what this means for future scholarship. Where disagreement often comes into play
is in discussions of what should be done about this and the
consequences that are likely to follow. Gender analysis challenges
the reduction of people to simplistic assumptions about their
identity based on a set of socially constructed expectations. Men
are one thing and women are another. This disregards the
complexity of individuals. Moreover, it tends to assume that generalizations can be made
across cultures with regard to the characteristics and experiences of members of gender groups. Some
feminists from the global South in particular have critiqued this position and argued this reduces the
agency of women who are often viewed as victims (Mohanty 2003; Sedghi 1994). This critique is also
extended to feminists who disregard the complexity of experiences across the globe, including differing
experiences based on race, class, sexual orientation, etc. Peterson and Runyan (2010: 7) explain that
[i]ntersectional analysis holds that there are no generic women and men; our gender identities, loyalties,
interests, and opportunities are affected by intersecting and cross-cutting gender, race, class, national,
and sexual identities. Whereas some parts of our identities may confer privilege, others may serve to
disadvantage us. For example, a straight, white, middle-class woman in France can have very different
experiences, challenges and perspective than a Arab, lower-class woman in Jordan. To imply the fact that
both are the larger group of gender is to deny the women makes them equal in complexity of the world.
That being said,

gender is an important concept in IR because of its role is


shaping inequalities in society. In every society, traits and
characteristics associated with masculinities are more highly valued

than those associated with femininities. This affects both how


institutions in society look, and the differential access of men and
women to these institutions. Ann Tickner (1992: 7) claims gender difference has played an
important and essential role in the structuring of social inequalities in much of human history and that the
resulting differences in self-identications, human understandings, social status, and power relationships are
unjustified This relates to the concept of patriarchy. Cynthia Enloe (2004: 4) explains patriarchy is the
structure and ideological system that perpetuates the privileging of masculinity.

Many differed

types of social structures and institutions can be patriarchal. For


when an institution is said to require people who are
"rational, level-headed, or decisive, as is the case with many
powerful Western institutions including public office, powerful
corporations, etc., the institution is privileging characteristics
associated with masculinities. Most feminists discuss patriarchy
because patriarchal systems marginalize that which is associated
with female, leading to the marginalization of women themselves.
Both men and women are instrumental in supporting patriarchal
systems and their continuation. Feminist scholars do not argue all
men actively support the marginalization of women while women are
innocent victims in this process. Patriarchy is a deeply rooted
process that works in both seen and unseen ways. In sum, gender
example

refers to a set of socially constructed expectations about what men


and women ought to be . Gender is distinct from biological sex, and includes - a set of criteria
about how people should be. IR scholarship has been slow to incorporate gender and gender concerns in a

This is unfortunate because of the patriarchy has in


structuring institutions in ways that value that which is masculine
over that which is feminine.
significant way.

A2: Women in IR check the alt


feminine leaders dont check state masculinitywomen
within politics are already within a masculine set of
politics, which makes it harder for them embrace their
feminine approach to policy making. that re-entrenches
policy failurethe alt is key to solve
Heeg Meruska 10 [Jennifer, 2010. Heeg Maruska is a PhD candidate in
International Relations at Georgetown University, and Assistant Lecturer in
Political Science at Contributors Texas A& M University at Qatar. Her research
interests include critical and feminist Security Studies, and IR theory more
broadly. Her dissertation focuses on the securitization of migration in Qatar.
Gender and International Security. When are states hypermasculine? Pages
248-249 7/27]//kmc
State behavior (by foreign policy elites and within popular culture)
reflects hegemonic masculinity, which is just one type of masculinity
that occurs at the top of a hierarchy of power relations. As previously
discussed, various forms of masculinities manifest on the international stage, including hege- monic
masculinity (of Western elites) and other, subordinated masculinities (such as gay men, men of color, and

Hegemonic femininity is
perfectly sound as a theoretical concept, but it is present only when
feminine values dominate the social structure under analysis. But
insofar as states are manly, the field of international politics is
dominated by states with differing hegemonic masculinities.
American hegemonic masculinitys most recent turn towards
hypermasculinity is in stark contrast to Germanys focus on
economic pri- macy. But it does not matter whether Gerhard
non-Western men), as well as many forms of subordinate femininity.

Schroeder or Angela Merkel is at the helm : like all other states,


Germany must behave in a manly way in order to compete against
other manly statesand to survive in a feminine anarchy .67 The point is
well theorized by now that when women enter politics, par- ticularly in areas
of foreign policy, they enter an already constructed masculine world
where role expectations are defined in terms of adherence to
preferred masculine attributes such as rationality, autonomy, and
power.68 This is adherence to a generalized description of
hegemonic masculinity. What I propose as hypermasculinity goes further than this, and refers
to aggressive and bellicose behavior. It is possible that female heads-of-state may
be more likely to adhere to a hypermasculine hegemonic masculinity,
in order to minimize their anatomical female-ness. Television pundits make this
point: Andrew Sullivan refers to Queens Elizabeth and Victoria, Margaret Thatcher, and now Hillary Clinton
as Warrior Queens.69 The concepts of hegemonic masculinity, and subordinate masculinities and
femininities, give this punditry (based on intuition and a specific reading of history) real theoretical heft.

The field of international politics in the US is dominated almost


completely by straight white menor women who act like men (as
is frequently said about Hillary Clinton)or by non-white men and
women who conform (by choice or necessity) to the culture of
Washington. Even the 2008 election of President Barack Obama, unprecedented as it was, does not
fundamentally alter this reality. After all, current First Lady Michelle Obamas senior thesis at Princeton
reflected on her experiences as a Black American at an Ivy League university, stating that the path I have

chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a
White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never
becoming a full participant.70 Furthermore, she continues in the next paragraph, as I enter my final year
at Princeton, I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates. It remains to be

the Obama administration ushers in an era


where the particular strand of hegemonic masculinity is less
hypermasculine than it was immediately following 9/11,
international politics remains as imbued with hegemonic masculinity
as ever. Acceptable behavior in international politics transcends the individuals race or gender; to get
seen, but while some may hope that

to a position of power, all participants (gay, straight, male, female, light or dark-skinned) must conform to
the cult of [hegemonic] masculinity.71 As Carol Cohn has showed us in the field of nuclear strategy,

learning the language is a transformative, not an additive,


process .72 Heads of state must be perceived as strong on national
security; national security relies on war or the threat of war. This is
hegemonic masculinity in the extreme. Hegemonic masculinity is
international politics, and international politics is hegemonic
masculinity. In the words of two feminist theorists, international
politics is a process which is always already gendered and which is
maintained as gender-neutral only in reducing gender to women
and their particular concerns.73 If gender is not widely considered to be useful as a line
of inquiry into politics, it is only because politics are dominated so completely by the mindset of

Most of the time, defence of the


patriarchal order does not require an explicit masculinity politics.
Given that heterosexual men socially selected for hegemonic
masculinity run the corporations and the state, the routine
maintenance of these institutions will normally do the job. This is
the core of the collective project of hegemonic masculinity, and the
reason why this project most of the time is not visible as a project.
Most of the time masculinity need not be thematized at all. What is
brought to attention is national security, or corporate profit, or
family values, or true religion, or individual freedom, or international
competitiveness, or eco- nomic efficiency, or the advance of science.
Through the everyday working of institutions defended in such
terms, the dominance of a particular kind of masculinity is
achieved.74 Connells work is foundational, but it is important to note that the under- standing of
hegemonic masculinity. As R. W. Connell wrote:

hegemonic masculinity as an elite-driven conspiracy is partial. Instead, hegemonic masculinity can be


understood as the top dog in a set of power relations that include subordinate masculinities and
femininities, and in which we all participate, whether or not we want to, by virtue of membership in society
at large.

Framework

State Bad
framework is badit works inside the assumption that the
state is good and gender-neutralthis only perpetuates
the masculine framing of the state and silences the need
to integrate gender
Wadley 10 [Jonathan D., 2010. Wadley is a PhD candidate at the
University of Florida. His research focuses on sexual politics and European
identity. Gender and International Security. Gendering the state, page 53-54
7/27]//kmc

Bigos discussion of protection suggests that this model of masculinity can be studied usefully through the
technologies deployed as states strive to emulate Performativity and protection 53 54 Jonathan D.

the concept of protection is becoming to


the production and reproduction of the state. But his work also shows, unintentionally, the necessity of incorporating gender into Security Studies . As performances of
protection increasingly come to characterize the way a state does
security, the connection of those performances to dominant
masculine ideals must be taken into account. Yet, even for scholars
who are amenable to process-oriented ontologies, gender is omitted .
Wadley it. And it suggests how central

Those within IR whose theo- retical innovations have paved the way for a processual relational account of
identityWendt, Campbell, Jackson and Nexon, to name a fewmust go further by considering gender as

They operate with frameworks well


adapted to theories of performativity, yet stop short of applying the
insights of Butler, Weber, and other feminists. Remedying this
a central component of those processes.

shortcoming by integrating gender is a necessary step . Still, an even


larger hindrance to a more complete incorporation of gender into
the field of Security Studies is the reluctance of the field to move
away from its substantialist foundation, to get to a point where
gender can be studied as an identity-constituting system of
meaning, with effects that go beyond shaping the secondary identity
of an already-existing entity. Until more scholars move in this
direction, there will be little recognition that the personhood of the
stateits body and lifeis itself a product of performances read
through gendered norms of intelligibility . And until that is recognized,
most within Security Studies will continue to view the state as a
genderless being. One danger of such a view is apparent: With the states
masculine identity masked, the protection it offers may seem like a
good deal.

Role Playing Bad


Roleplaying within debate needs to be recreated
exclusionary concepts of debate create a self fulfilling
prophecy that re-entrench the masculine, policy centered
performance, which only makes the IR gender lens worse
we need to instead change our conception of debate to
incorporate a performative lens that isnt based within
gender
Wadley 10 [Jonathan D., 2010. Wadley is a PhD candidate at the
University of Florida. His research focuses on sexual politics and European
identity. Gender and International Security. Gendering the state, page 40.
7/26]//kmc
The analysis presented here challenges the disciplines tendency to
treat states as genderless persons by exploring the role of gender in
the security performances of states. In so doing, it draws upon the
concept of performativity the idea that, in the words of Judith
Butler, identity is performatively con- stituted by the very
expressions that are said to be its results.6 It argues that
performances within the field of security, much like performances
within the daily lives of people, carry no intrinsic meaning, but must
be made sense of through a system of symbolic meaning that
cannot be but gendered . Through such performances, identities
become salient, and masculine and feminine subjects are created.
While this process is less palpable for states than it is for humans, it is
nonetheless observable in broad patterns. States can be observed reifying
themselves through performances of security, particularly through those
which establish them as stable and masculine protectors. Recent work on the
politics of protection, particularly that done by Didier Bigo, suggests the
constitutive effects that protection has upon both providers and recipients. It
stops short, however, of recognizing that these effects may be enabled by the
gendered meaning that different forms of protection carry. When such
meanings are considered, it becomes evident that by being
masculine protectors, states can position themselves favorably in
relation to other international actors and gain legitimacy from their
domestic audiences.This means that states are gendered, and are
gendered in much the same way as people are: through repeated
performances. When state identity is viewed in this light, the
anthropomorphic assumption, as it is commonly used, appears
woefully inadequate. To be clear, it is not being suggested that drawing
parallels between human subjects and state subjects is bad in-and-of- itself.
Indeed, useful parallels can be drawn, despite (or, perhaps, because of) the
notion that both states and persons are fuzzy sets.7 The trouble lies in
assuming that states, or people, are constituted outside processes

of interac- tion, and that either can be made sense of without


considering the relational identities they take on through the
systems of symbolic meaning through which they operate.
Anthropomorphic assumptions tend to treat the state as a
genderless, unitary actoroften, one that is ontologically primitive
to its interactionswhile neglecting the ways that the actor-ness
and unity of the state are an effect of iterated, gendered
performances, particularly in the realm of security. By viewing
security performances with an eye toward their constitutive effects,
and by moving gender to the center of that analysis, one gains not
only a richer understanding of how states reproduce themselves (i.e.
where their person-like identities come from), but a clearer
picture of the hierarchical relations that exist among states and
between states and domestic populations.

Reps Key
Our reps are key to breaking down the gendered lens
within IR policiesthe alternative isnt ignoring gender,
that only makes the problem worse, but instead breaking
the silence and using our speech act to recreate gender
structures
Wadley 10 [Jonathan D., 2010. Wadley is a PhD candidate at the
University of Florida. His research focuses on sexual politics and European
identity. Gender and International Security. Gendering the state, page 38-39.
7/26]//kmc
scholars of International Relations (IR) tend to treat
the state as if it were a person. It is assumed to have interests
and intentions, said to act (and often, to act rationally), even
allowed to experience death. In the most extreme cases of anthropomorphization, the
state is explicitly given a body and a life. For most scholars, it seems perfectly
naturalcommon sense, evento speak of the state in this way .
Indeed, so commonplace is the attribution of personhood that it is hard
to think of the state without appropriating the language used to
describe the beliefs, emo- tions, motivations, and actions of
individual human beings. Such naturalness is reflected in the fact
that metaphors of personhood are not restricted to one or two
subfields, but characterize the discipline as a whole, so much so that
in a field in which almost everything is contested, this seems to be
one thing on which almost all of us agree. 1 And yet, despite the
For analytical purposes,

stubbornness of these metaphors and the consistency with which


they are used, rarely are they reflected upon. Surprisingly few studies
have considered explicitly the ontolo- gical status of the state and
the degree to which it may be said to exist as if it were a person.
Even fewer scholars have looked at this foundational assump- tion
through a gender lens .2 When one does, one thing becomes abundantly clear: The
state, though understood as a person, remains a strangely
ungendered being. For anyone who wishes to bring a more thorough
consideration of gender into the study of International Relations,
this should set off alarm bells. Feminists have shown that it is problematic to study actors
as if they are genderless things. Ignoring gender too often means elevating the
masculine subject to universal status, leading to the production of
theories that not only are partial, but that mask their partiality
through claims to universality . In IR, ignoring gender means not
recognizing the ways in which key actors are defined and
differentiated by their relationship to norms of masculinity and
femininity. Leaders, states, international organizationsall of these
act in accordance with gender norms, albeit in different ways at
different times. Additionally, by ignoring gender, the analyst remains

blind to processes through which these gendered identities are


producedprocesses that are in many ways central to the operation
of world politics. The arenas in which the actors engage each other
are saturated with gendered meaning and it is this fact that enables,
for example, a state to act like a man or act like a woman. Thus,
gender, which was defined earlier in this volume as a system of symbolic meaning that creates social
hierarchies based on perceived asso- ciations with masculine and feminine characteristics,3 is not
simply an attri- bute possessed by certain actors, but a system
through which those actors are constituted and positioned relative
to each other. One great contribution of feminist IR has been to draw the attention of other IR
scholars to these arguments, despite the reluctance of conventional theorists to incorporate gender into

Given the work that has been done to


demonstrate the dangers of theorizing without gender, it is highly
questionable for the bulk of IR scholars to write about the state as if
it is not gendered, especially when it is understood, conceptually, to
exist and act as if it were a person . Failing to consider the role of
the processes they are attempting to explain.

gender does not make ones theory gender-neutral, and


conceptualizing the state as a generic, non-gendered actor does not
make it so. Nowhere is the silence toward gender more deafening
than in the field of International Security. The study of war, anarchy,
alliancesall observably gendered processesstands to benefit the
most from the recognition that the key actors do not act without, or
outside of, gender. Yet, the field has been slow to incorporate the study of gender, even though
almost twenty years have passed since Ann Tickner criticized its dominant paradigm
for project- ing the values associated with hegemonic masculinity
onto the international behavior of states. Within realism, she
argued, the state has been con- ceptualized through an historical
worldview that privileges the experiences of men. Other approaches can be,
and have been, criticized on the same grounds, offering similarly partial theories owing to their common

upon the Western political and philosophical tradition, which


has produced a foundation of political concepts that assumes the
political actor is a man. The proliferation of constructivist and poststructuralist scholarship over the past twenty years has, despite
much promise, brought little help, largely side- stepping questions
of gender. Nonetheless, the epistemological pluralism of Security Studies
today means that the field is much more amenable to approaches
that incorporate gender, and that incorporate it in new ways, than it
was at the time when feminists within IR first raised these concerns .
reliance

The argument that states are produced within, and not outside of, their environ- ment is no longer esoteric.

Security and insecurity are understood by many to be


interpretations made within an intersubjective realm of interaction
among states, rather than the absence or presence of objective
threats .4 And the role of representation, speech acts, and discursive
structures in outlining the parameters of security practices and
giving them meaning is better appre- ciated, as well.5 As a result of
these developments, the field of feminist Security Studies is well
positioned to theorize the role of gender in innovative ways.

Specifically, there is more room now to apply post-positivist insights


into how gender works onto the field of Security Studies.

A2: Alt must be a policy option


Policy-only framing failsonly a rejection of securitization
can help us understand global patterns
Sylvester 10 [Christine, 2010. Sylvester is Professor of International
Relations and Development in the Politics and International Relations
Department at Lancaster University, UK. Gender and International Security.
War, sense, and security. Page 27-28. 7/26]//kmc

Taking a bit of distance from excruciating sense experiences, Burke


suggests that not only are global patterns of insecurity, violence
and conflict getting ever more destructive and out of hand, but ...
the dominant conceptual and policy frameworks we use to
understand and respond to them are deeply inadequate and
dangerous. 17 Security is set up in western political circles and in IR texts as the be all and end all
It is the quality, value, or assurance that sews up the heart
of a good community, maintains identity and rights, and keeps one
free. But the logic is odd: watch for bullies and beat them up first or hunt out the suspects and retaliate
fiercely everywhere. Such was the explicit raison detat of George W. Bushs response to 9/11. If we
really felt the beating heart of security, most heads of state could be
out of a job. The Promised Land would have been delivered. The
of the state.

power that comes from screaming SECURITY a thousand times


would have lost its capacity to put us on edge by now. That power
would be gone and so would the system of politics that has no real
security end in mind . Burke: as a global community, we need no longer
be beholden to such existential visions of exclusion, dominance and
violence, where life exists at the whim and mercy of power. No more
war against the Other; we can light our own paths out.18 Sovereign state
narcissism, however, puts only itself in mind, which means, says Burke, that our fears and desires may
not be our own.19 How to exorcise them? And whose fears are they? Wary of anything that smacks of
parental power to command our thoughts and force us into insecurity in the name of secur- itybe it a
school or ones own family situationBurke recommends the sense-freeing enablement that Sylvia Plath
puts into her poem, Daddy. Anyone who knows the American poet Plath, who lived a distressed
existence War, sense, and security 27 28 Christine Sylvester in England with her husband Ted Hughes,
recalls her struggles over her father, who died when she was 9 years old. Daddy is a father exorcism that
pulls no punches in expressing her sense of an evil controlling man, whose influence over her she finally
kills with a poetic stake through his fat black heart. His telephone line to her head disconnects at that
point and she joins the villagers dancingstomping, as she puts iton his grave.