1NC SHELL
A. The affirmative is legal liberalism which is used to legitimate and
continue masculine dominance through reliance on construction of social
norms as constitutional. This re-entrenches status quo violence
against women and makes it seem inevitable and natural.
MacKinnon, Harvard Law Professor, 1989 (Catherine, Toward a Feminist Theory of
the State, 237-240)
In male supremacist societies, the male standpoint dominates civil society in the form of
the objective standardthat standpoint which, because it dominates in the world,
does not appear to function as a standpoint at all. Under its aegis, men dominate
women and children, three quarters of the world. Family and kinship rules and sexual
mores guarantee reproductive ownership and sexual access and control to men as a
group. Hierarchies among men are ordered on the basis of race and class, stratifying
women as well. The state incorporates these facts of social power in and as law. Two
things happen: law becomes legitimate, and social dominance becomes invisible.
Liberal legalism is thus a medium for making male dominance both invisible and
legitimate by adopting the male point of view in law at the same time as it enforces that view
on society.
Through legal mediation, male dominance is made to seem a feature of life, not a onesided construct imposed by force for the advantage of a dominant group. To the
degree it succeeds ontologically, male dominance does not look epistemological:
control over being produces control over consciousness, fusing material conditions
with consciousness in a way that is inextricable short of social change. Dominance
reified becomes difference. Coercion legitimated becomes consent. Reality
objectified becomes ideas; ideas objectified become reality. Politics neutralized and
naturalized becomes morality. Discrimination in society becomes nondiscrimination in
law. Law is a real moment in the social construction of these mirror-imaged
inversions as truth. Law, in societies ruled and penetrated by the liberal form, turns
angle of vision and construct of social meaning into dominant institution. In the
liberal state, the rule of lawneutral, abstract, elevated, pervasive both institutionalize
the power of men over women and institutionalizes power in its male form.
From a feminist perspective, male supremacist jurisprudence erects qualities valued from
the male point of view as standards for the proper and actual relation between life
and law. Examples include standards for scope of judicial review, norms of judicial
restraint, reliance on precedent, separation of powers, and the division between
public and private law. Substantive doctrines like standing, justiciability, and state
action adopt the same stance. Those with power in civil society, not women, design
its norms and institutions, which become the status quo. Those with power, not
usually women, write constitutions, which become laws highest standards. Those
with power in political systems that women did not design and from which women
have been excluded, write legislation, which sets ruling values. Then,
jurisprudentially, judicial review is said to go beyond its proper scopeto
delegitimate courts and the rule of law itselfwhen legal questions are not confined
to assessing the formal correspondence between legislation and the constitution, or
legislation and social reality, but scrutinize the underlying substance. Lines of
precedent fully developed before women were permitted to vote, continued while
women were not allowed to learn to read and write, sustained under a reign of sexual
terror and abasement and silence and misrepresentation continuing to the present
day are considered invalid bases for defeating unprecedented interpretations or
initiatives from womens point of view. Doctrines of standing suggest that because
womens deepest injuries are shared in some way by most or all women, no individual
woman is differentially injured enough to be able to sue for womens deepest injuries.
Structurally, only when the state has acted can constitutional equality guarantees be
invoked. But no law gives men the right to rape women. This has not been
necessary, since no rape law has ever seriously undermined the terms of mens
entitlement to sexual access to women. No government is, yet, in the pornography
business. This has not been necessary, since no man who wants pornography encounters
serious trouble getting it, regardless of obscenity laws. No law gives fathers the right to abuse
their daughters sexually. This has not been necessary, since no state has ever systematically
intervened in their social possession of and access to them. No law gives husbands the right
to batter their wives. This has not been necessary, since there is nothing to stop
them. No law silences women. This has not been necessary, for women are
previously silenced in societyby sexual abuse, by not being heard, by not being
believed, by poverty, by illiteracy, by a language that provides only unspeakable
vocabulary for their most formative traumas, but a publishing industry that virtually
guarantees that if they ever find a voice it leaves no trace in the world. No law takes
away womens privacy. Most women do not have any to take, and no law gives them
what they do not already have. No law guarantees that women will forever remain
the social unequals of men. This is not necessary, because the law guaranteeing sex
equality requires, in an unequal society, that before one can be equal legally, one
must be equal socially. So long as power enforced by law reflects and correspondsin
form and in substance--to power enforced by men over women in society, law is
objective, appears principled, becomes just the way things are. So long as men
dominate women effectively enough in society without the support of positive law,
nothing constitutional can be done about it.
Law from the male point of view combines coercion with authority, policing society
where its edges are exposed: at points of social resistance, conflict, and breakdown. Since
there is no place outside this system from a feminist standpoint, if its solipsistic lock
could be broken, such moments could provide points of confrontation, perhaps even
openings for change. The point of view of a total system emerges as particular only
when confronted, in a way it cannot ignore, by a demand from another point of view.
This is why epistemology must be controlled for ontological domination to succeed,
and why consciousness raising is subversive. It is also why, when law sides with the
powerless, as it occasionally has, it is said to engage in something other than law
politics or policy or personal opinionand to delegitimate itself. When seemingly ontological
conditions are challenged from the collective standpoint of a dissident reality, they
Through the industrial revolution our technological evolution had been moving upward by leaps
and bounds. Soon so also would our cultural evolution. In the same way that new material
technologies souch as machines and medicines were bringing about seemingly miraculous
changes, new social technologies, such as better ways of organizing and guiding human
behavior, would speed the realization of humanitys higher potentials and aspirations. At long
last, the age-old human striving for justice, for truth, for beauty could bring our ideals to reality.
But gradually this great hope and promise began to wane. For during the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries rational man continued to oppress, kill, exploit, and humiliate
his fellow and sister humans at every turn. Justified by such new scientific
doctrines as the social Darwinism of the nineteenth century, the economic slavery of
inferior races continued. Instead of being fought to save heathens or for the
greater glory and power of God and king, colonial wars were now waged for rational
economic and political purposes, such as the promotion of free trade and the
containment of rival economic and political powers. And if male control of women
could no longer be based on such irrational grounds as Eves disobedience of the
Lord, it would now be justified by new rational scientific dogmas proclaiming that
male dominance was a biological and/ or social law.
Rational man now spoke of how he would master nature, subdue the elements,
andin the great twentieth-century advanceconquer space. He spoke of how he had to
fight wars to bring about peace, freedom, and equality, of how he had to murder
children, women, and men in terrorist activities to bring dignity and liberation to
oppressed peoples. As a member of the elites in both the capitalist and communist worlds, he
continued to amass property and/or privilege. To make more profits or to meet higher
quotas, he also began to systematically poison his physical environment, thereby
threatening other species with extinction and causing severe illness in human adults
and deformities in human babies. And all the while he kept explaining that what he
was doing was either patriotic or idealistic andabove allrational.
Finally, after Auschwitz and Hiroshima, the promise of reason began to be questioned. What was
one to make of the rational and efficient use of human fat for soap? How could one explain the
carefully reasoned military experiments of the effect of atomic bombs and radiation on living and
totally helpless human beings? Could all this superefficient mass destruction be called an
advance for humanity?
Was explosive industrial overexpansion, the regimentation of whole populations into
assembly lines, the computerization of individuals into numbers a step forward for
our species? Or were these modern developments, along with the increasing
pollution of land, sea, and air, signs of cultural regression rather than cultural
progress? Since rational man seemed bent on desecrating and destroying our
planet, would it not be better to turn back to religious man, to the time before
scientific advances plunged us into our secular-technological age?
By the last quarter of the twentieth century, philosophers and social scientists were
not only questioning reason but all the progressive modern ideologies. Neither
capitalism nor communism had fulfilled its promise. Everywhere there was talk of the
end of liberalism as realists asserted that a free and equal society was never
anything but a utopian dream.
Disillusioned by the purported failure of the progressive secular ideologies, all over the world
people were returning to fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, and other religious teachings.
Frightened by increasing signs of impending global chaos, masses of people were turning back to
the old androcratic idea that what really matters is not life here on earth but whether, by
disobeying Godand the commands of the men speaking for him on earthwe will be violently
punished through all eternity.
Given the reality of global annihilation posed by nuclear bombs, from the perspective of a
worldview that offers no realistic alternatives to the prevailing system, there do seem only three
ways to respond to what increasingly look like insoluble global crises. One way is to go back to
the old religious view that the only way out is in the next world, whereas born-again Christians
or Shiite Muslims assertGod will reward those who obeyed his orders and punish those who did
not. The second is through more immediate forms of escape: nihilism, desensitivization, and
hopelessness that fuel the angry disillusionment of punk rock, the mind numbing excesses of
drugs, liquor, or mechanical sex, the decadence of grasping overmaterialism, and the deadening
of all compassion through a modern entertainment industry that begins to resemble the bloody
circuses of the last days of the Roman Empire. The third way is to try to drive society back to an
imaginary pastto the good old days before women and inferior men questioned their proper
place in the natural order.
But from the perspective we have been developing, based on the careful
reexamination of our present and past, all this hopelessness is unfounded. All is not
hopeless if we recognize it is not human nature but a dominator model of society that
in our age of high technology inexorably drives us toward nuclear war. All is not futile
if we recognize that it is this system, not some inexorable divine or natural law, that
demands the use of technological breakthroughs for better ways of dominating and
destroyingeven if this drives us to global bankruptcy and ultimately to nuclear war.
In short, if we look at our present from the perspective of Cultural Transformation theory, it
becomes evident that there are alternatives to a system founded on the force-based
ranking of one half of humanity over the other. What also becomes evident is that the
great transformation of Western society that began with the eighteenth-century
Enlightenment did not fail but is merely incomplete.
In the world as it will be when women and men live in full partnership, there will, of
course, still be families, schools, governments, and other social institutions. But,
like the already now emerging institutions of the equalitarian family and the socialaction network, the social structures of the future will be based more on
linking than ranking. Instead of requiring individuals to fit into pyramidal
hierarchies, these institutions will be heterarchic, allowing for both
diversity and flexibility in decision making and action. Consequently, the
roles of both women and men will be far less rigid, allowing the entire
human species a maximum of developmental flexibility .
LINKS
Privacy Links
(Andrea Dworkin was an American feminist, author and outspoken critic of sexual
politics, particularly of the victimizing effects of pornography on women. Intercourse) DOA 7.2.15
MAY http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseI.html
This is nihilism; or this is truth. He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body,
distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and
that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature,
science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some
("violate") the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include
his anus is not synonymous with entry. A woman has an anus that can be entered, but her anus is not synonymous
privacy, a lesser integrity of the body, a lesser sense of self, since her
body can be physically occupied and in the occupation taken over. By
definition, as the God who does not exist made her, this lesser privacy,
this lesser integrity, this lesser self, establishes her lesser significance:
not just in the world of social policy but in the world of bare, true, real
existence. She is defined by how she is made, that hole, which is synonymous with entry; and intercourse, the
act fundamental to existence, has consequences to her being that may be intrinsic, not socially imposed.
(Andrea Dworkin was an American feminist, author and outspoken critic of sexual
politics, particularly of the victimizing effects of pornography on women. Intercourse) DOA 7.2.15
MAY http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseI.html
The context in
which the act takes place, whatever the meaning of the act in and of itself,
is one in which men have social, economic, political, and physical power
over women. Some men do not have all those kinds of power over all
women; but all men have some kinds of power over all women; and most
men have controlling power over what they call their women--the women
they fuck. The power is predetermined by gender, by being male.
Intercourse as an act often expresses the power men have over women.
Without being what the society recognizes as rape, it is what the society-- when pushed to admit it--recognizes as
dominance. Intercourse often expresses hostility or anger as well as dominance. Intercourse is frequently
performed compulsively; and intercourse frequently requires as a precondition for male performance the
objectification of the female partner. She has to look a certain way, be a certain type--even conform to preordained
behaviors and scripts--for the man to want to have intercourse and also for the man to be able to have intercourse.
The woman cannot exist before or during the act as a fully realized, existentially alive individual. Despite all
efforts to socialize women to want intercourse-- e.g., women's magazines to pornography to Dynasty; incredible
rewards and punishments to get women to conform and put out--women still want a more diffuse and tender
sensuality that involves the whole body and a polymorphous tenderness. There are efforts to reform the
circumstances that surround intercourse, the circumstances that at least apparently contribute to its disreputable
(in terms of rights and justice) legend and legacy.
not in any way address the question of whether intercourse itself can be
an expression of sexual equality. Life can be better for women-economic and political conditions improved-- and at the same time the
status of women can remain resistant, indeed impervious, to change: so
far in history this is precisely the paradigm for social change as it relates
to the condition of women. Reforms are made, important ones; but the
status of women relative to men does not change. Women are still less
significant, have less privacy, less integrity, less self- determination. This
means that women have less freedom. Freedom is not an abstraction, nor is a little of it
enough. A little more of it is not enough either. Having less, being less, impoverished in freedom and rights,
women then inevitably have less self-respect: less self-respect than men
have and less self-respect than any human being needs to live a brave and
honest life. Intercourse as domination battens on that awful absence of
self-respect. It expands to fill the near vacuum. The uses of women, now,
in intercourse-- not the abuses to the extent that they can be separated
out--are absolutely permeated by the reality of male power over women.
We are poorer than men in money and so we have to barter sex or sell it
outright (which is why they keep us poorer in money). We are poorer than
men in psychological well-being because for us self-esteem depends on
the approval--frequently expressed through sexual desire--of those who
have and exercise power over us. Male power may be arrogant or elegant;
it can be churlish or refined: but we exist as persons to the extent that
men in power recognize us. When they need some service or want some
sensation, they recognize us somewhat, with a sliver of consciousness;
and when it is over, we go back to ignominy, anonymous, generic
womanhood. Because of their power over us, they are able to strike our hearts dead with contempt or
condescension. We need their money; intercourse is frequently how we get it. We need their approval to be able to
survive inside our own skins; intercourse is frequently how we get it. They force us to be compliant, turn us into
parasites, then hate us for not letting go. Intercourse is frequently how we hold on: fuck me. How to separate the
act of intercourse from the social reality of male power is not clear, especially because it is male power that
constructs both the meaning and the current practice of intercourse as such. But it is clear that reforms do not
change women's status relative to men, or have not yet. It is clear that reforms do not change the intractability of
women's civil inferiority. Is intercourse itself then a basis of or a key to women's continuing social and sexual
inequality? Intercourse may not cause women's orgasm or even have much of a correlation with it--indeed, we
rarely find intercourse and orgasm in the same place at the same time--but intercourse and women's inequality are
like Siamese twins, always in the same place at the same time pissing in the same pot. Women have wanted
intercourse to work and have submitted--with regret or with enthusiasm, real or faked--even though or even when it
does not. The reasons have often been foul, filled with the spiteful but carefully hidden malice of the powerless.
been--despite the cruelty of exploitation and forced sex--a consistent vision for women of a sexuality based on a
harmony that is both sensual and possible. In the words of sex reformer Ellen Key: She will no longer be captured
like a fortress or hunted like a quarry; nor will she like a placid lake await the stream that seeks its way to her
embrace. A stream herself, she will go her own way to meet the other stream. 4 A stream herself, she would move
over the earth, sensual and equal; especially, she will go her own way. Shere Hite has suggested an intercourse in
which "thrusting would not be considered as necessary as it now is. . . [There might be] more a mutual lying
together in pleasure, penis-in-vagina, vagina-covering-penis, with female orgasm providing much of the stimulation
necessary for male orgasm." 5 These visions of a humane sensuality based in equality are in the aspirations of
women; and even the nightmare of sexual inferiority does not seem to kill them. They are not searching analyses
into the nature of intercourse; instead they are deep, humane dreams that repudiate the rapist as the final arbiter
of reality. They are an underground resistance to both inferiority and brutality, visions that sustain life and further
endurance. They also do not amount to much in real life with real men. There is, instead, the cold fucking, dutybound or promiscuous; the romantic obsession in which eventual abandonment turns the vagina into the wound
Freud claimed it was; intimacy with men who dread women, coital dread--as Kafka wrote in his diary, "coitus as
punishment for the happiness of being together." 6 Fear,
Women have failed to find the right relationship to the law due to the fact
that they are considered to have more private lives
West 88
(Robin West is the Frederick J. Haas Professor of Law and Philosophy and Associate Dean
at the Georgetown University Law Center. Jurisprudence and Gender) DOA 7.1.15 MAY
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1642&context=facpub
Minimally, I want to suggest that feminists should think about the possibility that the notion of a "fundamental"
experienced contradiction, grounded in the material and existential state of connection with the other, might help
us explain women's subjective lives, as well as close the broadening gap between cultural and radical feminist
theory. The presence of such a contradiction, for example, explains why some women see the possibility of
intimacy in pornographic depictions of female sexual submission while others see the threat of invasion (and it
would explain why many women see both). The presence of a contradiction underlying women's subjective lives
It explains
why women insist upon and embrace an ethic of care and the right to
have children without economic hardship, while at the same time fighting
for rights of individuation, physical privacy, and freedom. Finally, it
explains the complex relationship between the emerging feminist legal
theory and dominant legal theory: it explains, for example, why legal
feminists are both attracted to liberal rights of individuation, physical
also clarifies the existential basis of many of the apparent tensions in feminist legal reforms.
privacy, and individual security, and at the same time are threatened by
them. The contradiction explains why feminists understand, and even
sympathize with, critical legal theory's rights critique, but will never
endorse it. That women live with a fundamental contradiction between
invasion and intimacy is much harder to test than the parallel claim that men
live in a fundamental contradiction between autonomy and alienation for this simple reason: the fundamental
contradiction that characterizes men's lives is manifested absolutely all over the place in public life. As Kennedy
correctly claims, once we are sensitized to it, we see the "fundamental contradiction" in art, literature, music, and,
perhaps most emphatically, in virtually every field of law. The fundamental contradiction that characterizes
though, test the sense of this contradiction against the evidence of our own experienced lives, if not the evidence
of art, literature and legal doctrine. When I read Carol Gilligan's book for the first time several years ago, I had an
unequivocal shock of recognition. What she is saying, I thought then and still think, is important, transformative,
empowering, exciting, enlivening, and, most fundamentally, it is simply true. It is true of me, and was true of my
mother, and is true of my sisters. She has described the way I think, what I value, what I fear, how I have grown,
and how I hope to grow. And she has described the moral lives of the women I know as well. Her book captures
what I know and have always known but have never been able to claim as my own moral vision, and what parts of
that vision I share with women generally. When I read Andrea Dworkin's book, I had the same unequivocal shock
of recognition. What Dworkin is saying about intercourse is important, transformative, empowering, exciting,
liberating, enlivening, and most fundamentally, it is simply true. It is true of me, was true of my mother, and is true
of my sisters. She is describing how I have been debased, victimized, intruded, invaded, harmed, damaged,
injured, and violated by intercourse. Yet it also seems undeniably true to me that these two feminist visions of my
subjective life rest on flatly contradictory premises.
(Joan B. Landes is a Ferree Professor of Early Modern History and Women's Studies at
Penn State. Feminism, the Public and Private) DOA 7.3.15 MAY
A central platform of feminist critique and attempted revision of mainstream thought has focused on the
public and private distinction has led to much confusion. When feminists, mainly anthropologists, first focused on
the distinction, there was an apparent universal sexual asymmetry that fitted neatly into an explanation of womens
subordinate position and as an ideology that constructed that position. As Ludmilla Jordanova has argued, The
distinction itself has to be treated as an artifact whose long life history requires careful examination.33
For feminist
historians, the public/private distinction has been linked to the notion of
separate spheres, one of the most powerful concepts within womens
history since its recrudescence in the 1960s. Such binary distinctions have
come under attack from a range to theoretical positions, including
powerful feminist solvents which stress multiplicity, plurality, and the
Furthermore, like gender itself, public and private have been used as a rich source of metaphor.
blurring of boundaries.
(and have never been) conceptual absolutes, but a minefield of huge rhetorical potential.5 Despite their
social and psychic worlds are ordered, but an order that is constantly shifting, being made and remade. Historians
grappling with this complicated web of structures, meanings, and behaviours have had to work on a number of
different levels. Should these dichotomous categories be treated only in terms of languages, or of attitudes and
values. Or should they be described in terms of languages, or of attitudes and values. Or should they be described
in terms of the organization of space, time, the location of people ?
these ideas have come to be used, but it is a profound misunderstanding to think that they are either analytically or
descriptively the same thing. For example, while conceptual dichotomies such as public and private are constructed
with a drive to fix boundaries between at least two different constructs which can be separated and contrasted, the
concept of domesticity and its concomitant, domestic ideology, seems historically to have no other half. (The
literal opposite of domesticity would be the wild untamed or, alternatively, foreign or strange, as in domestic goods
The most common distinction has focused on the state as representative of the public in contrast with private
organizations such as the church, voluntary societies, and, particularly, privately owned business or professional
At times this private sector has been conflated into civil society,
regarded as above all else, the sphere of private interest, private
enterprise and private individuals.8 In this formulation, civil society
would include a notion of private life, the family, and sexuality,9
especially in the discussions of totalitarian as opposed to democratic
regimes.
enterprise.
reforms are
limited by their premises, by the unexamined assumptions upon which
they are based. One such assumption embodies the radical separation of the market
and the family, the idea that the market structures our productive lives
and the family structures our affective lives. In the nineteenth century, the family
was seen to constitute a separate sphere of activity a sphere particularly
suited to women. Womans sphere may no longer be considered to be
just home and family, but we do continue to view the family as something
sharply distinct from the market. The vision of the market and the family as a dichotomy1 the
often receives insufficient attention is the ideological foundations of social reforms. In particular,
perception that the social life comprises two separate though interdependent spheres can be describes as a
structure on consciousness.2 By structure of consciousness. I mean a shared vision of the social universe that
underlies a societys culture and also shapes the societys view of what social relationships are natural and,
therefore, what social reforms are possible. In my discussion of the market/family dichotomy, I shall refer frequently
The
state/civil society dichotomy is crucially related to the complexities of the
market/family dichotomy; and the dichotomy between male and female is
particularly important both to the ways in which the market/family
dichotomy now affects human existence and to out hopes for constructing
new ways of thinking about and leading out live s. These three dichotomies are each
to two other dichotomies the ones between state and civil society and between male and female.
distinct; none is logically dependent upon another and none necessarily entails another. Nevertheless, deep ties
exist among them, and each reflects a way of thinking that entails a radical division of the world. All three
The configuration of acts and actors of September 11, 2001 is not one that
international law, centered on states, has been primarily structured to address.1
Neither was most of mens violence against women in view when the laws of war,
international humanitarian law,2 and international human rights guarantees were
framed.3 The formal and substantive parallels between the two
prominently their horizontal legal architecture, large victim numbers, and
masculine ideology4make both patterns of violence resemble dispersed
armed conict, but the worlds response to them has been inconsistent.
Since September 11th, the international order has been newly willing to treat
nonstate actors like states as a source of violence invoking the law of armed
conict. Much of the international community has mobilized forcefully
against terrorism.5 This same international community that turned on a
dime after September 11th has, despite important initiatives,6 yet even
to undertake a comprehensive review of international laws and
institutions toward an effective strategic response to violence against
women7 with all levels of re- sponse on the table, even as the responsibility to
protect from gross and systematic violence is increasingly emerging internationally
as an afrmative duty.8 The postSeptember 11th paradigm shift, permitting potent
response to massive nonstate violence against civilians in some instances,
exemplies if not a model for emulation, a supple adaptation to a parallel challenge.
It shows what they can do when they want to. If, in tension with the existing
framework, the one problem can be confronted internationally, why not the other?
content/uploads/2010/10/HILJ_47-1_MacKinnon.pdf
Viewed through a gendered lens, September 11th was markedly sex-neutral on the
victims side. Women, along with menif, one supposes due to sex discrimination
in employment, not equal numbers of themwere people that day.9 At the World
Trade Center, women and men together rushed up and up to help, crawled down
and down being helped, jumped unbearably, ran covered with fear and ash,
became ash. Then, day after day, month after month, there they all were, one at a
time on the special memorial pages of The New York Times, 10 often smiling,
before. In remembrance, they were individuals, did everything, had every prospect.
Then on one crushing day, they were vaporized without regard to sex. On the
perpetrators side, the atrocities were hardly sex- or gender-neutral. Animated by a
male-dominant ethos, this one in the guise of religiona particular fundamentalist
extremism that has silenced women, subordinated them in private, and excluded
them from public lifethese men bound for glory and pleasure, some for virgins in
a martyrs paradise,11 exterminated people by the thousands to make a point.
The rest of the world is still trying to gure out exactly what that point was. But this
aggression, these atrocities, this propaganda by deed, made September 11th an
exemplary day of male violence. Every other day, as well as this one, men as well
as women are victimized by mens violence. But it is striking that the number
of people who died at these mens hands on September 11th, from 2800
to 3000, is almost identical to the number of women who die at the hands
of men every year in just one country, the same one in which September
11th happened.12 Women murdered by male intimates alone could have
lled one whole World Trade tower of September 11s dead.13 This part
of a war on women in only one country, variously waged in all
countries,14 is far from sex-equal on either side. To call violence against
women a war, especially in a legal context, is usually dismissed as metaphorical,
hyperbolic, and/or rhetorical. Since the U.N. Charter, when war ceased being the
definitive legal term, international law speaks of armed conflict or armed
attack. This body of law primarily regulates the use of force between or within
states or for control of states.15 If one side is armed and the other side is not, or if
states are not the units or focus of the ghting, the conflict may not qualify.
Whether the ghting has reached the point where peacetime law and institutions
have broken down is a prime criterion. Violence against women has not looked like
a war in this system in part because states are not seen to wage it, nor does it
present armies contending within or across or against or for control or for denition
of states. It is not about state power in the usual way. Nor do the sexes look like
combatant groups are thought to look. Neither sex is considered to be in uniform.
The regularities of their social behavior are not seen as organized, so their conict
looks more chaotic than ordered. Women are usually unarmed, many
weapons used against women are not regarded as arms, and women do
not typically ght back. Even attacks on women by men that employ
conventional weapons are not considered armed attacks or a use or
threat of force in the international legal sense.16 The battle of the
sexes simply does not look the way a war is supposed to look.
content/uploads/2010/10/HILJ_47-1_MacKinnon.pdf
Law Links
gender neutral, and that women and men are therefore similarly related
to those institutions.
Exclusion of Law from the Domestic Sphere. Feminists point out that law has
been conspicuously absent from the domestic sphere and that this has
contributed to womens subordination. On a practical level, it leaves
wives without a remedy against domination by their husbands, and on an
ideological level, it devalues women and their functions. The important
activities of our society are regulated by law, and when law maintains a
hands-off posture, it implies women simply are not sufficiently important
to merit legal regulation. The insulation of the womens sphere conveys
an important message: In our society law is for business and other
important things. The fact that the law in general has so little bearing on
womens day-to-day concerns reflects and underscores their
insignificance. Thus, once again law has failed truly to be rational,
objective, abstract, and principled.
A distinction should be made between this description of part of the ideology and
the more complicated picture of ideas and reality. The history of laissez-faire
policies toward domestic life is considerably more complex than this description
suggests. Laws have regulated family life, directly and indirectly, for
centuries. Laws have also long reinforced the dichotomy between the
private home and the public market, and they have done so in ways
that have been peculiarly destructive to women.
The strategies set forth in the masculine mode for the transition process
tend to be primarily political and economic. They are at their best in
proposals for staged disarmament and plans for industrial conversion.
They are conceived as steps to be taken in the public arena, in a
particular, incremental style (though of varying degrees of rapidity) and
impacting primarily on public life. The value changes included in
transition scenarios tend to be norms for social and public policies such as
protection for human rights and procedures for conflict resolution. They
are corporate rather than personal and conceived so as to have a direct
impact on the public domain. The consequent effects of value changes on
the private and personal spheres are given little if any more attention in
world order transition strategies than in present public policy formation.
This blindness to secondary consequences gives feminists, who do assess
policy impact on women, cause for concern that the proposals are indeed
more rearrangement than transformation. Indeed, it is this masculine
preoccupation with the public and structural that has aborted the
transformative potential of most twentieth-century revolutions. It kept
them as just that: a revolution, a turning of the major power wheels that
failed to produce changes in the fundamental global order. Such changes
remove a particular group from political power but do not make
connections to changes in the interpersonal realm nor to the nonmaterial
sources of personal empowerment that feminism emphasizes. (It must be
noted that some women researchers and futurists, myself included, have produced
these same kinds of masculine scenarios.) The transition scenarios in the masculine
mode have always been far weaker, less convincing, and less relevant either to the
goal or the present reality than are their visions of transformed structures. In
general there is a significant disjuncture between the transformative
visions and the plans for the process to achieve them. Masculine models
of transformation exhibit little or no consideration of the personal and
individual changes that will be required. It is my opinion that this
weakness in world order modeling results from the lack of the human,
explicit, behavioral elements that are characteristic of the feminine mode.
State Link
Status quo analyses of international law center on the State as
the primary actor in global politicsthis confines women to a
domestic sphere outside the scope of international analysis
Sassen-96 (Saskia, Professor in the Department of Urban Planning at Columbia,
Toward a Feminist Analytics of the Global Economy, 4 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 7
1996-1997)
The particular form that the feminist critique of international law is taking has the
effect of avoiding the question of sovereignty, and the implications of its unbundling
for the emergence of new actors in cross-border relations and as subjects of
international law. In a critical review of the feminist scholarship on international law,
Knop notes that personifying the State has the effect of denying the individual and
collective identity of women within a State and across States.' Women are confied to
the realm of the given State and rendered invisible from the perspective of
international law insofar as they are subsumed under the State's sovereignty. Her
central argument is that we need both a critical examination of sovereignty and of
the assumption that it pertains exclusively to the State.6 The impact of globalization
on sovereignty has been significant in creating operational and conceptual openings
for other actors and subjects.62 Feminist readings that personify the State leave
sovereignty unexamined; the State remains the exclusive subject for international
law. This is not to deny the importance of the types of critiques evident in this
feminist scholarship. But when it comes to a critique of international law, leaving
out the issue of sovereignty and taking its confinement to the nation-state as a
given represents a fall-back on statism--the legitimacy of the State as the subject of
international law regardless of whether it is representative of the people's will, or
more fundamentally, rigorous in its adherence to the precepts of democratic
representation.63 Why does it matter that we develop a feminist critique of
sovereignty today in the context of globalization? It matters because globalization is
creating new operational and formal openings for the participation of non-State
actors and subjects. Once the sovereign State is no longer viewed as the exclusive
representative of its population in the international arena, women and other nonState actors can gain more representation in international law; contribute to the
making of international law; and give new meaning to older forms of international
participation, such as women's longstanding work in international peace efforts.'
Beyond these issues of participation and representation is a question about the
implications of feminist theory for alternative conceptions of sovereignty.65
Like Tickner, many IR feminists problematize the state and raise questions as to its
status as protector of women. Peterson argues that, in addition to its relegation of
sexual violence and its threat to the private domestic realm, the state is implicated
in the ways that women become the objects of masculinist social control not only
through direct violence (murder, rape, battering, incest), but also through
ideological constructs, such as womens work and the cult of motherhood, that
justify structural violenceinadequate health care, sexual harassment, and sexsegregated wages, rights and resources (1992c, 46). However, while not denying
the possibility of limited protection offered by the state (Harrington 1992), FST
contests the notion of protectionthe exchange of obedience/subordination for
(promises of) securityas a justification for state power (Peterson 1992c, 50).
Peterson likens the states provision of security for women to a protection racket,
implicated in the reproduction of hierarchies and in the structural violence against
which they claim to offer protection (1992c, 51). In addition, Stiehm argues that
the state typically denies women the opportunity to be societal protectors, assigning to them the role of protected despite the predatory threat often posed by
their ostensible guardians (1983a). Governmental attempts to achieve total security
versus an external threat can result in predictable oppression: The problem is that
the potential victim is both more accessible and compliant than the marauder.
Because the protector is embarrassed and frustrated by his failure to protect, he
restricts his protectee instead (373). By circumscribing the possibilities of the
female deployment of legitimate force, the masculine state effectively denies the
development of what Stiehm calls a defender society, one composed of citizens
equally liable to experience violence and equally responsible for exercising societys
violence (367).
Impacts
In an article entitled "Naming the Cultural Forces That Push Us Toward War" (1983),
Charlene Spretnak focused on some of the fundamental cultural factors that
deeply influence ways of thinking about security. She argues that patriarchy
encourages militarist tendencies.
Since the major war now could easily bring on massive annihilation of
almost unthinkable proportions, why are discussions in our national
forums addressing the madness of the nuclear arms race limited to
matters of hardware and statistics? A more comprehensive analysis is
badly needed ...
A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized
nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of dominance not
parity, which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to
"strut their stuff" as we watch with increasing horror.
Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that
are radically inappropriate for the nuclear age. To prove dominance and
control, to distance one's character from that of women, to survive the
toughest violent initiation, to shed the sacred blood of the hero, to
collaborate with death in order to hold it at bay-all of these patriarchal
pressures on men have traditionally reached resolution in ritual fashion on
the battlefield. But there is no longer any battlefield. Does anyone
seriously believe that if a nuclear power were losing a crucial, large-scale
conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear
missiles because of some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a
nuclear exchange today would extend, instantly or eventually, to all living
things, all the air, all the soil, all the water.
If we believe that war is a "necessary evil," that patriarchal presumptions
are simply "human nature," then we are locked into a lie, paralyzed. The
ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust.
The causes of recurrent warfare are not biological. Neither are they solely
economic. They are also a result of patriarchal ways of thinking, which
Just as the Kurgan invasions truncated our early cultural evolution, totalitarians
and would-be totalitarians still block our cultural evolution at every turn
today, aided by both old and new androcratic myths. In the last few
centuries, the partial shift from a dominator to a partnership society has
partly freed humanity, allowing some movement toward a more just and
equalitarian society. But at the same time there has been a strong
countermovement, on both left and right, to more deeply entrench the
dominator society in its modern or totalitarian form.
But what is most remarkable is that what many futurists are actually sayingpractically, in so many words-is that we must leave behind the hard,
conquest-oriented values traditionally associated with "masculinity." For is
not the need for a "spirit of truly global cooperation, shaped in free
partnership," "a balancing of individualism with love," and the normative
goal of "harmony with rather than conquest of nature," the reassertion of
a more "feminine ethos"? And to what end could "drastic changes in the
norm stratum" or a "metamorphosis in basic cultural premises and all
aspects of social institutions" relate if not to the replacement of a
dominator with a partnership society?
The transformation from a dominator to a partnership society would
obviously bring with it a shift in our technological direction: from the use
of advanced technology for destruction and domination to its use for
sustaining and enhancing human life. At the same time, the wastefulness
and overconsumption that now robs those in need would also begin to
wane. For as many social commentators have observed, at the core of our
Western complex of overconsumption and waste lies the fact that we are
culturally obsessed with getting, buying, building and wasting things, as a
substitute for the satisfactory emotional relationships that are denied us
by the child-raising styles and the values of adults in the present system.
Above all, the shift from androcracy to gylany would begin to end the
politics of domination and the economics of exploitation that in our world
still go hand in hand. For as John Stuart Mill pointed out over a century ago in his
groundbreaking Principles of Political Economy, the way economic resources are
distributed is a function not of some inflexible economic laws, but of political-that is,
humanchoices.
Impact: Violence
The patriarchy itself is a form of violence.
Reardon, 1993
(Betty, Director of Peace Education Program at Columbia University, Women and
Peace:
Feminist Visions of Global Security, page 14)
While a comprehensive concept of peace far more than the absence of war is the
notion that informs and motivates most of the women's peace movement, war
itself, the political uses of armed conflict, is the starting point of the search for
peace; for peace will ultimately depend on the abolition of war, the negation of
armed conflict. The field of peace research has identified this negation as negative
peace. Negative peace, it has been asserted, is essential to the transcendence of all
other forms of violence; and, it is argued, it is violence, not conflict, that is the core
issue to be addressed in confronting the problem of war. Feminists, especially,
argue that there is a fundamental interrelationship among all forms of
violence, and that violence is a major consequence of the imbalance of a
male-dominated society. Force of various types, from the intimidation of
rape to the social imposition of dependency, maintains this balance, In
itself, the patriarchy is a form of violence.
War has always been the most well organized and destructive form of violence in
which human beings have engaged, However, physical or direct violence,
particularly military violence, in the twentieth century appears to be more
varied and is certainly more socially destructive than it has ever been.
Armed conflict itself is a common condition of life throughout the world.
"Low intensity conflict, the constant and pervasive warfare that has
plagued Central America, the Philippines, and other areas where internal
violence and other struggles characterize politics, has become the rnost
common form of war in our time. It is waged by governments, political
factions and drug lords. Such "civil conflicts, and the excessive
violence that currently plagues urban society, take more civilian lives than
lives of combatants, and disrupt and debase the life of entire societies. For
example, gunfights have occurred between rival gangs in cities; children have been
shot on playgrounds and have shot each other in their schools. In the fall of1991,
the New York Times reported that many children, some as young as nine, carry guns
for "protection.
While the media and policymakers focus more on the major events of armed conflict
among nations, such as that which has kept the Middle East In a constant state of
hostility, these other incidents of warfare go on unabated.
Impact: Fascism
The model of Man as Dominator is responsible for fascism.
Eisler, 1987
(Riane, codirector of the Center for Partnership Studies, The Chalice and The Blade:
Our History, Our Future, page l66.)
The modern rise of fascism and other rightist ideologies is most lamented
by those who still harbor hope that we may continue our cultural
evolution. They note with alarm that rightist ideologies that reimpose
authoritarianism and push us back to a time of even greater injustice and
inequality. They are particularly alarmed by the unilateralism of rightists and
neorightists, their idealization of violence, bloodshed and war, recognizing the
imminent danger this way of thinking to our safety and survival. But there is a third
aspect of rightist ideology that is rarely noted. This is that rightists-all the way
from the American Right at the end of this century to the Action Franco
used at its start-not only accept, but openly recognize the systems
relationship between male dominance, warfare, and authoritarianism.
Impact: Diplomacy
Patriarchal playacting kills diplomacy.
Cohn et al. 2005
(Carol Cohn[Senior Research Scholar in Political Science, Wellesley College; Senior
Researcher, Fletcher School of Law and DiplomacyTufts], Felicity Hill [Peace
and Security Adviser, United Nations Development Fund for Women], and Sara
Ruddick [Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Womyns Studies, The New School for
Social Research], The Relevance of Gender for Eliminating Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission 6-7, 12 June 2005, available
at http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/No38.pdf)
Alternatives
The ultimate and fundamental value that informs women's peace efforts is
the sanctity of all life, including the lives of those whom militaristic
thinking designates as enemies. For example, it was women's groups who spoke
most forcefully of the callous lack of concern for the thousands of Iraqi civilian lives
exhibited in the use of excessive force to expel the occupying forces of Iraq from
Kuwait in January and February 1991. These views and values are very
different from those that now govern security policy making. Current
policy makers do not seem to be able to envision a truly different world,
one that is authentically secure, peaceful, and humane. In The New World
Order they seem to see a future very much the same as the present, with
minor adjustments in power arrangements still held in place by force or
the threat of force to be applied with the sanction of the United Nations.
They seldom grasp the possibilities for alternatives to arms and violence
in extreme conflict situations. Women know the world can be very
different, and they can and do envision alternative futures in which the
peoples of the world can live together as to enhance the quality of life for
all. Women have conceptualized a peaceful world, not one without conflict,
but as one without violence. Women's visions of the future involve the
achievement of authentic, comprehensive global security. Such visions
are evident in the emergent framework of global security that can be
discemed in womens major campaigns and actions for peace, justice, and
the environment.
It has long been my belief that authentic transformation of the global order is
as much a matter of emotional maturity as of structural change. The crux
of the argument set forth in this book, that neither sexism nor the war
system can be overcome independently from the other, lies in the
This hypothesis is what lies at the base of feminist insistence that the
personal circumstances of women have political roots and political
significance. It is central to what some have perceived as an inordinate
feminist emphasis on specific details of personal relationships between
men and women and preoccupation with domestic social and economic
policies that affect the everyday quality of life for women. Child care,
abortion rights, and payment for housework, although conceptualized and
expressed in terms of improving womens lot, are at base as structural as
the concerns with such issues as peace-keeping forces and adjudication
procedures that world order models have emphasized.
Alternative: Transformation
Feminist models are key to transformation because oppression
and militarism are interrelatedonly feminist viewpoints
observe the interrelation and solve the root of the problem.
Reardon, 85
(Betty, Director of Peace Education Program at Columbia, Sexism and the War
System, Syracuse University Press, pg 2)
My reflections during these years have been related primarily to the actual and
potential roles of women and womens movements in the process of structural
transformation, which the world order movementcomprising scholars and activists
seeking to end war and oppressionsees as fundamental to the achievement of
peace. These reflections on the need for womens perspectives and participation in
the transformational process have led me to recognize the common characteristics
and manifestations of womens oppression and warfare. It is clear that
interrelationships exist between contemporary militarization and other reactionary
trends, including opposition to womens struggle for equality. A few feminist peace
researchers, in fact, have moved from disciplined speculation to serious substantive
study regarding the causes of both sexism and the war system, their common
characteristics, and the interrelationships between sexist oppression and
militarization. I have come to believe that the two problems not only are
symbiotically related, but are twin manifestations of the same underlying cause.
This requires that they be viewed as twin, not separate, problems. They should
command simultaneous and equal attention from those fields of research,
education, and political action that purport to be devoted to their abolition.
women
that respond to the concerns, needs and experiences of women from different
feminisms contributions in the 1980s and envisioning its future for the 1990s and beyond, I want to share some of
my thoughts about the continued usefulness of a theory sown in the field of gender differences. Whether we like it
gender is still (and historically has been) an organizing concept in our society. We
have no choice but to work and theorize for change from a position within a bi-polar
gender system. We can challenge a dichotomized thinking and bi-polar substantive
construction, but we cannot ignore is systematic, political, practical, and lived
experience. Gender may not be a unified concept or separable experience, but it is a coherent, functional springboard for change. By combining
or not,
what we gain from existing differences analyses with a dominance (or power) analysis and emphasizing feminist methods, we can design a useful
theoretical base for our next decade. I prefer to call this modification of gender difference theory by another name feminist solidarity. My argument is
that gender difference analysis can give birth to feminist solidarity. I offer these thoughts as a part of an ongoing conversation.
Gender Difference To Feminist Solidarity: Using Carol Gilligan And An Ethic Of Care
In Law affirmed feminist lawyer who often writes for several accolade law journals. Her written works
are the source of many gender inequality/ feminist research papers and testimonials
Feminists ought not let our theory- building be immobilized by the much of this causation quagmire. However it was that
the
domination of women
privileging some speakers and stories ( mens) excludes and marginalizes others (womens) because of those power dynamics
gender difference theorists insist on uncovering the stories of people, particularly women, who traditionally have been excluded and
subordinated and marginalized in the power structures of society. As difference theorists have developed and as gender theorists
Without a doubt, women of color are excluded and oppressed in more complex and
different ways from white women, just as poor women are oppressed and excluded in a more dramatic ways that rich women.
We cannot separate which parts of our oppression are gender-based and which parts are race or class based. These dominating and oppressing forces
that doesnt mean women of all races, classes and identities cannot
work together in a feminist solidary to end unjust discrimination against all women
and all people. In the United States for example, sexual difference remained a formal barrier to
womens rights to vote until 1920, long after formal barrier of race and property
ownership had been eliminated for men. No woman whether white or black, rich or
interact synergistically. But
their sex, as opposed to their race, may be justified on some occasions. For example, Title VII, a federally enacted equal employment law, permits sex-
accusing them of raping her. As Ntzoke Shange points out, all Western
civilization depends on her. On top of all of this, out of impudence,
imitativeness, pique, and a simple lack of anything meaningful to do, she
thinks she needs to be liberated. Her feminist incarnation is all of the
above, and guilty about every single bit of it, having by dint of repetition
refined saying Im sorry to a high form of art. She cant even make up
her own songs.
There is, of course, much to much of this, this woman, modified, this
woman discounted by white, meaning she would be oppressed but for her
privilege. But this image seldom comes face to face with the rest of her
reality: the fact that the majority of the poor are white women and their
children (at least half of whom are female); that white women are
systematically battered in their homes, murdered by intimates and serial
killers alike, molested as children, actually raped (mostly by white men);
and that even Black men, on average, make more than they do. If one did not
know this, one could be taken in by white mens image of white women:
that the pedestal is real, rather than cage in which to confine and
trivialize them and segregate them from the rest of life, a vehicle for
sexualized infantalization, a virginal setup for rape by men who enjoy
violating the pure, and a myth with which to try to control Black women.
(See, if you would lie down and be quiet and not move, we would revere
you too.) One would think that the white mens myth that they protect
white women was real, rather than a racist cover to guarantee their
exclusive and unimpeded sexual accessmeaning they can rape her at
will, and do, a posture made good in the marital-rape exclusion and the
largely useless rape law generally. One would think that the only white women
in brothels in the South during the Civil War were in Gone With the Wind. This is
not to say there is no such thing as skin privilege, but rather that it has
never insulated white women from the brutality and misogyny of men,
mostly but not exclusively white men, or from its effective legalization. In
other words, the white girls of this theory miss quite a lot of the reality
of white women in the practice of male supremacy.
Beneath the trivialization of the white womans subordination implicit in
the dismissive sneer straight white economically-privileged women (a
phrase that has become one word, the accuracy of some of its terms being rarely
documented even in law journals) lies the notion that there is no such thing as
the oppression of women as such. If white womens oppression is but an
illusion of privilege and a rip off and reduction of the Civil Rights
movement, there is no such thing as a woman, our practice produces no
theory, and discrimination on the basis of sex does not exist. To argue
that oppression as a woman negates rather than encompasses
recognition of the oppression of women on bases such as race and class is
to say that there is no such thing as the practice of sex inequality.
Lets take this the other way around. As I mentioned, both Mechelle Vinson and
Lillian Garland are African American women. Wasnt Mechelle Vinson
oppression with any man. That does not make her condition any more
definitive of the meaning of women than the condition of any other
woman is. But trivializing her oppression, because it is not even
potentially racist or class-biased or heterosexist or anti-Semitic, does
define the meaning of being anti-woman with a special clarity. How the
white woman is imagined and constructed and treated becomes a
particularly sensitive indicator of the degree to which women, as such, are
despised.
If we build a theory out of womens practice, comprised of the diversity of
all womens experiences, we do not have the problem that some feminist
theory has been rightly criticized for. When we have it is when we make
theory out of abstractions and accept the images forced on us by male
dominance. The assumption that all women are the same is part of the
bedrock of sexism that the womens movement is predicated on
challenging. That some academics find it difficult to theorize without
reproducing it simply means that they continue to do to women what
theory, predicated on the practice of male dominance, has always done to
women. It is their notion of what theory is, and its relation to its world,
that needs to change.
If our theory of what is based on sex makes gender out of actual social practices
distinctively directed against women as women identify them, the problem that the
critique of so-called essentialism exists to rectify ceases to exist. And this bridge,
the one from practice to theory, is not built on anyones back.
AT: Perm
The political system is inevitably patriarchalnational security
concerns supercharge our willingness to submit to asserted
authority.
Reardon, 85
(Betty, Director of Peace Education Program at Columbia, Sexism and the War
System, Syracuse University Press, pg 32-33)
The two most relevant points to be noted are (1) the psychological factors
that incline most of us to accept limitations on participation when national
security is said to be threatened, and (2) the relationship of womens
participation to the level of political freedom and democratic participation
in general. As mentioned earlier, the more repressive a regime is, the
more sexist it is likely to be. Sexism, militarism, and repression are
emotionally conditioned, produced by fear, strengthened by intimidation,
and maintained largely as a consequence of the paralysis of the critical
capacities of the citizenry. As Fornari observes:
One of the most typical effects of the warlike impulse is that it dulls the critical
sense of the people, paralyzing above all their ability to evaluate the destruction
rationally.
This interplay between limited feminist analysis of the war system and the
exclusion of even that limited analysis from most research and policy
discussions perpetuates the same masculine exclusion of the feminine
from peace research and world order studies as it has from the traditional
social sciences and virtually all institutions of authority and legitimation.
This exclusion in turn leads to an even more negative trend among some
feminists who interpret feminism as seeking equal advantage for women.
Seeking equal advantage places the emphasis on advantage, and in
essence buys into the system of advantaged and disadvantaged. Policies
and strategies tend to concentrate on how to move more women from the
latter into the former category.
Such policies and strategies encourage women to seek success within the
dominant structures characterized by masculine values and behaviors.
Thus many feminists even in the academic, research, and social change
fields have accommodated to the dominant masculine value structure.
Indeed, business and professional women are encouraged to do so by some
womens magazines and special training workshops that teach them how to dress
for success and how to behave more professionally. Most such instruction is
based on a not-too-subtle process of masculinization, including wearing business
suits and partaking in completely objective decision making. These behaviors
call forth understandable criticism from many feminists as reinforcing the
present system, which peace researchers and world order scholars assume
to be in need of total transformation. Unfortunately for both feminism
and transformation, among those few women who have gained real power
status in boardrooms, in the professions, and at the highest levels of state
are too many examples of such masculinization who serve as oft-quoted
evidence that women in power would be no different from men.
AT: Capitalism
A just political and economic system is impossible until we
solve for gender based oppression.
Eisler, 1987
(Riane, codirector of the Center for Partnership Studies, The Chalice and The Blade:
Our History, Our Future, page l96.)
Many people today recognize that in their present form neither capitalism
nor communism offers a way out of our growing economic and political
dilemmas. To the extent that androcracy remains in place, a just political
and economic system is impossible. Just as Western nations like the United
States, where slates of candidates are financed by powerful special interests, have
not yet reached political democracy, nations like the USSR, ruled by a powerful,
privileged and mostly male managerial class, are still far from economic democracy.
it converts stored energy directly into waste and destruction without any
useful intervening fulfillment of basic human needs. Following the
present period marked by the decline in systems of patriarchy,
Henderson predicts neither economic nor ecological reality will be
governed by the masculinized values now deeply associated with male
identity.
Similarly in The Sane Alternative, the British writer James Robertson contrasts
what he terms the hyper expansionist or HE future with a sane humane,
ecological or SHE future. And in Germany Professor Joseph Humber
dexcribes his negative economic scenario for the future as patriarchic.
By contrast, in his positive scenario, the sexes are on a socially equal
standing. Men and women share in paid positions as well as household tasks, child
rearing, and other social activities.
The central theme unifying these and other economic analyses, though of
critical importance for our future, still remains largely unarticulated. This
is that traditional economic systems, be they capitalist, are built upon
what, borrowing from Marxist analyses, may be called the alienation of
caring labor. As this caring laborthe life-sustaining labor of nurturing,
helping, and loving othersis fully integrated into the economic
mainstream, we will see a fundamental economic and political
transformation. Gradually, as the female half of humanity and the values
and goals that in androcracy are labeled feminine are fully integrated into
the guidance mechanisms of society, a politically and economically healthy
and balanced system will emerge. Then, unified into the global famly
envisioned by the feminist, peace, ecology, human potential, and other
gylanic movements, our species will begin to experience the full potential
of its evolution.
AT: Realism
Realism positions women as a dangerous other who must be
dominatedthis functions as another link to the kritik.
Steans 98
(Jill, professor of International Relations at Keele University, Gender and
International Relations: An Introduction, pg 54-55)
Feminists have pointed out that the use of gender in the imagery in realist
texts is highly significant. The realist conception of the autonomous state
is frequently juxtapositioned against images of anarchy or a disorderly
international state of nature. The use of such imagery must be seen in
terms of a deeply rooted fear of the feminine. In realist texts, the
political community can be seen as a community of men whose power is
based upon the domination of those outside. Once again much of the
gendered imagery and symbolism in realism is derived from political
theory. While Machiavelli did not explicitly personify nature, it is clear
that the masculine world of human agency in history and autonomy is
juxtapositioned against the world of women and relations of dominance
and dependence. In Machiavellis work, the male world of order, law, and
liberty is constantly threatened by fortuna, a force which threatens the
overextended state or ambitious ruler, and fortuna is a woman. Pitkin
argues that the masculine world of order and virtue is haunted from
behind the scenes by female forces of great power. The feminine in
Machiavelli represents the Other, that which is opposed to the
masculinized world of order and discipline. Women represent the Other,
a force that not only threatens the political order, but mens very sense of
self. Machiavellis notion of autonomy is misogynistically defined. It leads
to relations which must be seen in terms of dominance and dependence.
Hobbess conception of anarchy and order is also profoundly gendered.
However, the female force which appears in these writings, which had to
be mastered, is no longer fortuna, but the state of nature.
If we pursue the analysis of modern history from the perspective of the underlying
conflict between androcracy and gylany, as the different paths for our cultural
evolution, the emergence of the modern secular ideologies acquires a new and far
more hopeful meaning. By using the new analytic tools provided by Cultural
Transformation theory, we can see how the replication of ideas like equality and
freedom gradually led to the formation of new ways of looking at the world. Acting
as attractors, such gylanic ideas served as a nuclei for the formation of new
systems of belief, or ideologies, which were gradually disseminated through the
social system and in part replaced the androcratic paradigm. In bits and pieces
these ideologies challenged a pyramidal world ruled from the top by God, with men,
women, children, and finally the rest of creation in descending dominator order.
Aff Answers
2AC Block
Perm Solves: Plans reform of the law is key--Policy change is
the first step of structural change
Reardon , 1993 (Betty, Director of Peace Education Program at Columbia
University, Women and Peace: Feminist Visions of Global Security, pg 166)
I have tried to make two things sharply evident in this review of the
relationship between women and peace: the need to change the modes of
thinking we bring to issues of national and world security and the need to
change the structures that exclude womens full and vitally needed
contribution to the peacemaking process. To bring about structural
change we need policy change. In other words, just as women are now
asserting a new and unprecedented effort to gain a voice and articulate
their perspectives to the public, they must also find ways to be heard by
policy makers. Feminists in seeking ways to bring womens experience
into politics are raising new policy questions based on criteria from
womens ways of thinking. From such questions, steps toward the
evolution of a transition scenario may arise.
As I have tried to demonstrate, womens ways of thinking lead to a distinctly
feminine approach to security issues that is quite different from the
current approaches to national security applied by the dominantly male
political leadership. Throughout, I have tried to demonstrate the need to
bring the feminine approach into policy making, and to bring more women
into the policy making process, to introduce feminine perspectives and
criteria, and to provide the benefits of womens ways of thinking. The
feminine approach suggested here produces a particular set of criteria
that women bring to the assessment of security policy. These criteria, like
womens visions of a world at peace, derive directly from the four
essential security expectations outlined in the introduction that comprise
the feminist concept of authentic global security. They can be designated
as sustainability, vulnerability, equity, and protection.
feminist theory
controversy. Feminists who struggle against acknowledgement of sex or gender differences find Gilligans Varity of theory damagingly reminiscent of a
romanticized 19th century separate spheres ideology, and hence quite pernicious. Other feminists, who assert that gender relations are power
hierarchies and about institutionalized privilege, consider Gilligan type works disturbing, because they valorize voices of women that are arguably
results of subordination and oppression. Some feminists combine both these arguments and criticism. Some feminists combine both these arguments and
criticize Gilligans work for its vulnerability to cooptation, misuse, or appropriation by the conservative right. Late, another
feminist critique
of gender difference theories has emerged. This criticism is laced with postmodernist/ poststructuralists theoretical
concepts. It eschews difference theorys reliance upon a universalized liberal-humanist
subject or more potentially, on an unspoken assumption of a white, economically
comfortable, heterosexual woman. A similar criticism is wielded by critical race and
sexuality theorists, these powerful challenges contend that gender difference
theorists are estialists, ahistorical, and insensitive to race, class and sexual
preference, ethnicity, age, motherhood, and physical challenges. Specific criticisms of Gilligan and
other feminist difference theory projects are more prevalent in the non-legal literature, but they have made their way into law journals and legal
conferences as well
[*379] I have mixed feelings about participating in this symposium as the feminist
voice. On the one hand, I want to support the symposium editors' attempt to
broaden the standard categories of international legal methodologies by
including feminism in this undertaking. On the other hand, I am conscious
of the limits of my analysis and its unrepresentativeness -- the
particularity of my nationality, race, class, sexuality, education and
profession shapes my outlook and ideas on international law. I clearly
cannot speak for all women participants in and observers of the international legal
system. I also hope that one day I will stop being positioned always as a feminist
and will qualify as a fully fledged international lawyer. My reservations are also more
general because presenting feminism as one of seven rival methodological
traditions may give a false sense of its nature. The symposium editors'
memorandum to the participants encouraged a certain competitiveness:
we were asked, "Why is your method better than others?" I cannot answer
this question. I do not see feminist methods as ready alternatives to any
of the other methods represented in this symposium. Feminist methods
emphasize conversations and dialogue rather than the production of a
single, triumphant truth. n1 They will not lead to neat "legal" answers
because they are challenging the very categories of "law" and "nonlaw."
Feminist methods seek to expose and question the limited bases of
international law's claim to objectivity and impartiality and insist on the
importance of gender relations as a category of analysis. The term
"gender" here refers to the social construction of differences between
women and men and ideas of "femininity" and "masculinity" -- the excess
cultural baggage associated with biological sex.
[*380] The philosopher Elizabeth Grosz has pointed out that feminist theorizing
typically requires an unarticulated balance between two goals. Feminist
analysis is at once a reaction to the "overwhelming masculinity of
privileged and historically dominant knowledges, acting as a kind of
counterweight to the imbalances resulting from the male monopoly of the
production and reception of knowledges" and a response to the political
goals of feminist struggles. n2 The dual commitments of feminist methods
are in complex and uneasy coexistence. The first demands "intellectual
rigor," investigating the hidden gender of the traditional canon. The
second requires dedication to political change. The tension between the
two leads to criticism of feminist theorists both from the masculine
academy for lack of disinterested scholarship and objective analysis and
from feminist activists for co-option by patriarchal forces through
participation in male-structured debates. n3 Feminist methodologies
challenge many accepted scholarly traditions. For example, they may
clearly reflect a political agenda rather than strive to attain an objective
truth on a neutral basis and they may appear personal rather than
detached. For this reason, feminist methodologies are regularly seen as
unscholarly, disruptive or mad. They are the techniques of outsiders and strangers.
Just as nineteenth-century women writers used madness to symbolize escape from
limited and enclosed lives, n4 so twentieth-century feminist scholars have
Privacy Extensions
Privacy is good for women- allows them to make their own
decisions about their bodies
Barnett 98 (Hilaire Barnett is Senior Lecturer in Law at Queen Mary & Westfield
College, University of London. She is the author of several books and study guides
on Constitutional and Administrative Law and Feminist Jurisprudence. Introduction
to Feminist Jurisprudence) DOA 7.2.15 MAY