1NC

K
a. The 1AC is a form of benevolent masculinity that
legitimizes systems of patriarchy. Cooperation with
China is not neutralinternational relations are
based on power, sovereignty, and securitization
against the feminine Otherthis turns case
Tickner 92 (Tickner, J. Ann, J. Ann Tickner is a feminist international
relations theorist. She is a distinguished scholar in residence at the School of
International Services, American University, Washington DC, Gender in
international relations: Feminist perspectives on achieving global security
Columbia University Press, 1992)
Masculinity and politics have a long and close association. Characteristics
associated with "manliness," such as toughness, courage, power,
independence, and even physical strength, have, throughout history, been
those most valued in the conduct of politics, particularly international politics.
Frequently, manliness has also been associated with violence and the use of
force, a type of behavior that, when conducted in the international arena, has
been valorized and applauded in the name of defending one's country. This
celebration of male power, particularly the glorification of the male warrior,
produces more of a gender dichotomy than exists in reality for, as R. W. Connell
points out, this stereotypical image of masculinity does not fit most men. Connell
suggests that what he calls "hegemonic masculinity," a type of culturally dominant
masculinity that he distinguishes from other subordinated masculinities, is a
socially constructed cultural ideal that, while it does not correspond to the
actual personality of the majority of men, sustains patriarchal authority and
legitimizes a patriarchal political and social orde r. 6 Hegemonic masculinity is
sustained through its opposition to various subordinated and devalued
masculinities, such as homosexuality, and, more important, through its
relation to various devalued femininities. Socially constructed gender
differences are based on socially sanctioned, unequal relationships between
men and women that reinforce compliance with men's stated superiority.
Nowhere in the public realm are these stereotypical gender images more
apparent than in the realm of international politics, where the characteristics
associated with hegemonic masculinity are projected onto the behavior of
states whose success as international actors is measured in terms of their
power capabilities and capacity for self-help and autonomy . Connell's definition of
hegemonic masculinity depends on its opposition to and unequal relationship with various subordinated
femininities. Many contemporary feminists draw on similarly socially constructed, or engendered,
relationships in their definition of gender difference. Historically ,

differences between men and

women have usually been ascribed to biology. But when feminists use the
term gender today, they are not generally referring to biological differences
between males and females, but to a set of culturally shaped and defined
characteristics associated with masculinity and femininity. These characteristics can
and do vary across time and place. In this view, biology may constrain behavior, but it should not be used
"deterministically" or "naturally" to justify practices, institutions, or choices that could be other than they

are. While what it means to be a man or a woman varies across cultures and history, in most cultures

Framed in
its own set of binary distinctions, the discipline of international relations
assumes similarly hierarchical relationships when it posits an anarchic world
"outside" to be defended against through the accumulation and rational use
of power. In political discourse, this becomes translated into stereotypical notions
about those who inhabit the outside. Like women, foreigners are frequently
portrayed as "the other": nonwhites and tropical countries are often depicted
as irrational, emotional, and unstable, characteristics that are also attributed
to women. The construction of this discourse and the way in which we are
taught to think about international politics closely parallel the way in which
we are socialized into understanding gender differences. To ignore these hierarchical
gender differences signify relationships of inequality and the domination of women by men.

constructions and their relevance to power is therefore to risk perpetuating these relationships of
domination and subordination. But before beginning to describe what the field of international relations
might look like if gender were included as a central category of analysis, I shall give a brief historical

feminist theories must go

beyond injecting women's experiences into different disciplines and attempt
to challenge the core concepts of the disciplines themselves. Concepts
central to international relations theory and practice, such as power,
sovereignty, and security, have been framed in terms that we associate with
masculinity. Drawing on feminist theories to examine and critique the
meaning of these and other concepts fundamental to international politics
could help us to reformulate these concepts in ways that might allow us to
see new possibilities for solving our current insecurities. Suggesting that the personal
is political, feminist scholars have brought to our attention distinctions between
public and private in the domestic polity: examining these artificial boundary
distinctions in the domestic polity could shed new light on international
boundaries, such as those between anarchy and order, which are so
fundamental to the conceptual framework of realist discourse.
overview of the field as it has traditionally been constructed. However,

b. Impact is extinction gender hierarchies result in

serial policy failure, unchecked violence, and
structural violence
Clark 4
Mary E., PhD and professor of biological studies @ Berkeley, "RHETORIC,
PATRIARCHY & WAR: EXPLAINING THE DANGERS OF "LEADERSHIP" IN MASS
CULTURE", http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4005307/Rhetoricpatriarchy-war-explaining-the.html
I begin by questioning the notion that patriarchy is a "natural" or "inevitable"
form of human society. By "patriarchy" I do not mean a community or society where males hold
political positions as spokespersons for the whole and often are adjudicators of local disputes. This "male
function" is common in tribal and indigenous societies. But men's power over others is severely limited and

Patriarchies,
rather, are those much larger societies where not only is there gender
dominance; they also are highly class-structured, with a small, powerful elite
controlling the rest of society, A short history of these entities is necessary to understand
today's dilemma. Rigidly controlled patriarchies have evolved and disintegrated at
generally held only at the pleasure of the entire group, especially the elder women. (4)

many times and in many places in the past few millennia of human existencewhich, being the era of written history, is the condition of humankind most familiar to
us. But, as I have argued elsewhere (5) this was an unknown political condition
throughout earlier human existence, when small, egalitarian, highly dialogic
communities prevailed. Even today, small remnants of such societies still
exist in comers of the planet that escaped the socially destructive impact of
Western colonization. Modern Western "democracies" are, in fact, patriarchal
in structure, evolving out of the old, male-dominated aristocracies of late-Medieval Europe. Those
historic class/caste hierarchies were legitimized by embedded religious dogma and inherited royal
authority. Together, church and monarch held a monopoly of physical and economic power, creating
politically stable, albeit unjust, societies. During the gradual development of the religious Reformation,
coupled with the Enlightenment's concept of the "individual citizen," emerging egalitarian ideas threatened
to destabilize the social coherence of patriarchal regimes. At the same time, principalities and dukedoms
were fusing into kingdoms; kingdoms, in turn, were joining together as giant nation states. The United
Kingdom was formed of England, Wales and Scotland-each a fusion of local earlier dukedoms. City States
of Italy fused rather later. Bismarck created the "Second Reich" out of diverse German-speaking
princedoms in the 1870s. And, adding to this growth in the sheer size of patriarchies there was a doubling

Nation-states emerged as "mass cultures,"

with literally millions of persons under the control of a single, powerful
government. The centralized physical power possessed by most of these several industrializing
European nations matched or exceeded that of ancient Rome. To achieve coherence of such
societies demanded a new legitimating force to create a broad base of
support among giant, diverse populations. The erosion of the belief that classes were a
of populations every couple of generations.

god-given, "natural" state of affairs was hastened by the introduction of low-cost printing and rapidly
growing levels of literacy (both necessary to underpin the new Industrial Age). These politically equalizing
forces unleashed a host of social discontents that had to be controlled. The old religious threats of
damnation or excommunication were fast losing their force, and new legal systems circumscribed the

voices threatened
the stability of the new giant states. The "solution," of course, was to take
control of the public dialogue, to define the legitimate "topics of
conversation." This is the primary role of political "leadership" in today's mass societies, and that
absolute powers of monarchs to control social behavior. This very cacaphony of

leadership uses two major tools to wield its influence: rhetoric and the mass media. I suggest, then, that

the high potential for internal instability in giant patriarchal states is a

primary factor in setting the stage for today's global insecurity and the
extreme militaristic rhetoric that exists both within and between nations.
Before continuing this discussion of patriarchy's dangers, I would note that, although in modern Western
patriarchies the domination of women by men is less evident as women have gained increasing political
and economic status, women with such status tend to assume the "shoulder pads" and "language" of men
when it comes to political and economic institutions. Women like Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India,
Golda Melt, Israeli Prime Minister; Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Reagan's Ambassador to the United Nations;
Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State; Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Prime Minister; and
Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Security Advisor, come readily to mind. (Thatcher cites the following
terms the media applied to her: Iron Lady, Battling Maggie, and Attila the Hen. (6)) The glass ceiling in the
corporate world has proved harder to crack, however, so fewer well-known examples exist there of
powerful females. (Katherine Graham, who became publisher of the Washington Post after the death of her
husband, was one of the few powerful women who to her credit, did not adopt the patriarchal mode.)
Hence, I regard the Western nations' politico-economic world view as very much in accordance

with that of historical patriarchies, with perhaps one or two Scandinavian exceptions. I thus
conclude that the language of international politics today is "gendered" by the

political insecurity experienced by leaders of earlier patriarchies , and that the

presence of women in such governments has little effect on the framework of public dialogue. (I recall
hearing Geraldine Ferraro, when running for Vice-President in 1984, assure an interviewer that she would

it is not our X and Y

chromosomes that are at issue here; it is the gendered world view that
not hesitate to push the "nuclear button" if necessary.) Hence,

underpins our institutions and frames our behaviors . As long as those in

power "think" in this patriarchal box, we will live in a globally-armed camp,
where war-leading even to the annihilation of our species-is a constant, real
possibility.

c. Alternative is to reject the 1AC in favor of crossideological and transnational feminist

methodologies. Issues-based feminist coalitions are
key to challenging masculinity epistemologies and
creating transformative politics
Franks, From the Journal of International Womens
Studies, 2 (Myfanwy Franks, 5-2002, " Feminisms and Cross-ideological
Feminist Social Research: Standpoint, Situatedness and Positionality
Developing Cross-ideological Feminist Research, Journal of International
Womens Studies, Bridgewater State University,
http://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1601&context=jiws)
What might be feminist in one situation will not necessarily be feminist in another. Not only have we
learned this from black feminist writers and women of colour such as hooks (1981); Carby (1982); Puar
(1996); Williams (1995) but also from Western feminist writers who have adopted Foucaldian theory and

Given the issues over standpoint, how can the researcher

decide what is the most feminist way to proceed, especially in cross-cultural
or interideological research? One possibility is to encourage participatory
research but the problem is that unequal and frequently unarticulated power
relations mean that the participatory approach can be either exploitative or a
pretence (Healy 2001). Nancy Hartsocks formulation of standpoint theory
has frequently been criticised for being monolithic but as Hirschmann (1997)
suggests there are multiple feminist standpoints within Hartsocks
theorisation. This frequently revisited theory can be expanded to accommodate postmodern thinking.
put it to feminist usage.

OLeary (1997) rightly suggests that beyond difference and discord caused by a multiplicity of standpoints

Although as feminists we
cannot deny our differences, the way forward may lie in issue based
coalitions. This is not a rainbow coalition which suggests that
somehow we only need to discover the universality inherent in the
human condition (Bourne 1987:22 in Yuval Davis 1994: 421) but in
the far more complex moments of connection and shared interest
within diversity, a mobile network of differentials of power. This can be
and power relations the converse possibility of coalition exists.

applied in feminist social research - so nonfeminists for instance are not necessarily perceived as the

Sasha Roseneil (1999) has pointed to the possibility for an issue-based

postmodern politics. We have had to relinquish the idea that there is an
overarching feminist politic. Negotiating the minefield of what it is that it
might be to be feminist (and non-feminist) from different standpoints
becomes less fraught from this viewpoint. We need to be able to work
globally to change the global positionality of women as less powerful
than men and our best chance may well be through issue based
coalitions. Collaboration on social research by communities of
shared interest might bring about targeted local change as well as
enemy.

influence global attitudes to particular issues. With regard to feminist social

research, I conclude that a pragmatic and situated feminist research which is
applied rather than an end in itself, which uses the materials available in any
given context and is of relevance to its users is the way forward. I see a
pragmatic feminism as being about transforming the environments and
cultures we inhabit - to make them more women friendly. Mary Klages (1997)
suggests that American feminism has generally been pragmatic because much American feminist thought
is oriented toward getting things done, toward theorizing Journal of International Womens Studies Vol. 3,
No. 2 May 2002 45 so that some kind of social action or change can take place. She calls it theorizing-forapplication and bases it in a number of political movements including Marxism, civil rights and the
womens liberation movement.

This down-to-earth approach would seem to have a

greater application in the developing world (and in my view in the
developed world) than theorization for its own sake. As Um Zhivago, an activist in a
Palestinian refugee camp interviewed by Elizabeth Warnock Fernea in her global search for Islamic
feminism, said A revolution is like cooking; before you begin, you look in the cupboard to see what
ingredients you have to hand to work with (Warnock Fernea 1998:414). When I gave this quote at a recent
conference in Morocco someone immediately pointed out that this was locating women back in the
kitchen. She was undoubtedly right but globally the majority of women are still positioned in the kitchen as

We have to start from the

metaphorical kitchen in which we might find ourselves, with the materials
that are available. As Liz Stanley suggests (above), in feminist social
research, we must not let theory be in an imperialistic relationship with life.
Research subjects and methodologies are built from the conditions in which
we find ourselves. As feminists we need to develop an understanding of each
others standpoints, locatedness and positionalities. In short, feminist social
research is pragmatically based, reflexive in using the materials available and
is sometimes about issues that are not condoned by all feminists at any given
time. It is unhelpful to prescribe methods in such diversity. In fact Millen suggests that at times it is
carers and nurturers and frequently as unpaid labour.

preferable to abandon feminist methodologies in order to advance the broader agenda of feminist
research (Millen 1997:2). Feminist research could for instance be quantitative. The method is not the

What makes it feminist is its concern

with the rights and opportunities of women wherever they may be
situated, located and positioned. In the process we need to seek out
the possibilities for collaboration in feminist social research in terms
of making coalitions, researching our similarities and differences. Postproblem but the questions we ask might be.

script on Praxis Within their diverse ideological frameworks, feminists, religious and secular, are all seeking
their own brand of gender justice. They are all engaged in resisting and diluting located patriarchal
formations. The struggle for this justice is what Rana Kabbani (1993), from a Muslim perspective, has
described as gender jihad. The scope for agreement across difference on appropriate feminist goals is
clearly limited yet, through my research with Islamic and Christian revivalist women, I conclude that

there are some possibilities for shared concerns between the Muslim,
Islamist, Christian Evangelical, and other religious and secular feminists
(Franks 2001) which could give rise to cross cultural/cross ideological
research studies. These include, for example, where marriage is a cultural expectation, the right to
choose whom one marries.viii There is a generally shared belief that all women should have the right to an
education. Feminists within Islam and Christianity share a concern that the interpretation and transmission
of religious texts should not be the male domain it has historically been in Western and Eastern traditions.
There are shared concerns regarding financial security in motherhood, a womans right to her own income
in or out of marriage and the right to appropriate support in the tasks of childbirth and childcare. Feminists
from different backgrounds support womens right to work outside the home if she so wishes but some are

There is also
common desire for action against the sexual objectification and
exploitation of women. It may be that feminists with different
equally concerned that women involved in childcare should not be forced to work.

constructions of gender might work together by targeting issues

where the construction of femininity is not the most pressing issue
but where gender justice relating to the positionality of women is.
Such shared and serious issues in sectors of both developed and
developing countries might be, for example, forced marriage or
international trafficking of women. It is not possible to offer a definitive template for a crossideological, issue-based, feminist social research methodology. This is because such projects represent

What can be said is that emerging

cross-ideological methodologies, building upon aspects of feminist
action research as well as feminist research and development work,
would be located and reflexive and would involve a high degree of
trust building. At the initial stage the emphasis might be more on
establishing ways of working together than on the substantive research. It
would be essential to develop and pilot situated grass-roots methods of data
collection and to agree on modes of analysis. In order to achieve the latter it
might be necessary to re-examine the epistemological basis of
specific methodologies and modes of analysis and evaluate them not
only in relation to gender bias but also on terms of possible
Eurocentricism, (post-) Christocentrism and neo-liberal
individualistic assumptions.
uncharted territory and need to be developed in the field.

T
a. Interpretation: The Peoples Republic of China refers
to the government
BYU Law Review, 15
[8-17-15, BYU Law Review, Volume 2014 | Issue 3 Article 11, A
Broken System: Failures of the Religious Regulatory System in
the Peoples Republic of China,
http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2934&context=lawreview, p. 754, accessed 7-10-16]
The Peoples Republic of China refers to the government structure of China. It is
notable that the constitution of the PRC stipulates that the PRC is to operate
under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of MarxismLeninism and Mao Zedong Thought. 117 Therefore, while the PRC regulatory structure is the face of
religious regulation, it might be appropriately thought of as the body of religious regulation in China
inseparable from the mind (the CPC), but unable to act absent command from the CPC. The PRC
government acts as an agent of the CPC leadership and the methods of CPC control will be outlined in this
section.

b. Violation: The aff plan goes through an organization

outside of the governmentthey dont even talk to
the government about these abuses.
c. Standards:
1. GroundThe aff takes away DAs specific to the
Chinese government which is key ground on this
topic.
2. FairnessThe aff forces the negative to debate
against a random organization. That explodes the
amount of affs that are seen on the topic. There is
no way that the negative can be prepared to
debate against every organization in China.
3. EducationThey take away education about the
Chinese government and have us debate about
some other organization in China. Its not what we
came here to learn.
d. Voters:
1. FairnessIn order to have a successful debate, the
debate must be fair. Without a fair debate, the aff
will win every round and people wont want to join.
Debate is already dying, and affs like this make
people joining want to join less because the
research burden is too much.
2. EducationWe come here to learn, its one of the
core values of debate. They strip the one reason
we come here from us and should be voted down
for that alone.

Theory
a. Interpretation: The affirmative is allowed to read
one, and only one plan OR advocacy.
b. Violation: They read both
c. Vote neg
1. Fairnessthe negative is in no way going to be
able to debate against two different methods of
solving. Having a plan and advocacy allows for
them to spike out of anything we read against
them because this part does this and this part
does this
2. Advocacy constructionmake them create and
defend one policy. In the real world, policy makers
dont get to have multiple methods of solving in
one plan, they get one.
3. Stade defensemake them either defend or reject
the state. Doing both makes it impossible to be
neg because we have to debate against the state
and for the state at the same time.

Case
1. Weigh the K against the case. The USfg and
international relations isnt the sphere that should
be pushing the policy in the 1ac. Proven by the K, the
patriarchy reinforces the harms described in the 1ac.
We win that adopting a feminist perspective is a
prerequisite to the aff.
2. They read literally no cards about how the aff solves.
They only read one decision framing card. Vote neg
on presumption.

2NC

Extensions

Link
The 1AC presumes international relations to be genderneutralmasculine modes of power are reproduced
through institutionalized action and legitimized through
rational, economic, and realist policies that serve to
disadvantage already marginalized communities
Rasoul, Sana Azad 12, E-Internal Relations Students, Can We Simply Add
Gender To Other International Relations Theories?. http://www.eir.info/2012/01/28/can-we-simply-add-gender-to-other-international-theories/,
7/8/16, CV
In seeking to understand the international can we simply add gender to other international theories? If
all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves?(Mary Astell, 1668) Where are the women?
This question has allowed feminist understandings of International Relations to pose a very different image
of the way we come to see how IR is produced and reproduced. Can we simply add gender to other

feminist understandings cannot be

viewed as mere supplements to the more classical paradigms because of the
epistemological and ontological variations at work. This essay will focus on three key
international theories? This essay will argue that

areas known to be central to the study of IR, questions of war/security, power and the state. These
categories will be used to show the different ways in which feminist scholars have come to understand
these concepts in contrast to the more dominant neo-neo synthesis analysis. Whilst this essay appreciates
the wide range of scholarship that has come to be called feminism, some of which try to work within

it will nevertheless be argued that taking key arguments from

the critical/postpositive branch of feminism we are not simply adding
something that has been missing from the way we come to understand the
world. What emerges in feminists work is the urge to step away from many of
the assumptions about the world we live in and beyond the obsession of
studying inter-state relations by simply asking where are the women? Before
existing theories

these three core concepts can be analysed more fully it is first necessary to briefly outline the broad
understanding of IR through a feminist lens in order to grasp just what we mean when we speak of gender.
Looking Through a Feminist Lens: IR revisited The introduction of feminist theories has questioned the
production of power and knowledge of mainstream international theories .

For feminists the state

and market are gendered and womens contribution to political and economic
life is neither seen as relevant nor important in the study of the international
(Gillian, 2004). As such, mainstream theories are preoccupied with the study
of the powerful, marginalising those that fall outside the abstract categories
of state, anarchy, autarky and individualism (Burchill et al 2005). As a
discipline itself, feminists see IR as man-made. Importantly, feminists state that
gender does not automatically mean the study of women, nor is it concerned with biological differences,

instead it is about both femininity and masculinity and how both these
categories are socially constructed through various mechanisms within and
beyond the state. From the onset then feminist understandings distinguish themselves from
mainstream theories, for instance they do not accept, like liberal theorists do of the distinction between
the public/private. In addition, through their focus on non-state actors feminist perspectives bring fresh
thinking in the post 9/11 decentred and uncertain world something which marks them from realist
understandings of IR. Furthermore, unlike realists feminists are uneasy with accepting the contrast
between the chaotic sphere of the international marked by the state of nature and that of the ordered
state. As the essay begins to analyse more deeply feminist understandings of the state, power and war

feminist theories are part of the

wider emergence of more critical approaches to understanding IR which
these basic principles will be clarified further. On a final note,

include amongst others post-colonialism, green politics, constructivism or

those that have been placed under the rubric of post-positivism. A part of the
problem with seeing gender and indeed feminism as something to be added
is the methodological bias embedded into how we come to study IR . In Tickners
(1997) words for those that see theory building as sets of logically related, ideally caused propositions, to
be empirically tested or falsified in the popperian sense (1997, 618) feminist understandings tend to be
looked down upon. Gender and the state The nature of the state for mainstream theories is a crucial part
of how we come to perceive the international and it is for this reason that the state is chosen as a unit of
analysis to portray the divergence of views between feminists and other mainstream theories. For

states appear to be manly and this is reinforced with the sharp

public/private distinction whereby the role of family and women in particular
are kept out of the public realm, feminists thus assert that the personal is
political. The state itself becomes a gendered construction. Think of Hobbs
feminists

portrayal of the state of nature. Current mainstream theories take mans dominance in society as a given
and this is reflected in the way we think about the state. Realists claim that we live in a world dominated
by anarchy and so in order for states to survive they must help themselves and prevent any attack that
may threaten its existence. The state then is in constant preparation for war. Feminists claim that
assumptions about how states act are all rooted in masculinity. This is because the state is seen as the
vehicle through which war is made, but the Hobbesian state of nature that realists point to provides only
half the picture. Feminists ask how it is that only parts of what constitutes the state of nature is included,
they dont deny that there is conflict and war but there are also forms of inclusion and cooperation which

By adding gender feminists are going beyond the

injection of the concept into mainstream theories. It is in effect calling for an
ontological revisionism, a recognition that it is necessary to go behind the
appearance and examine how differentiated and gendered power constructs
the social relations that form that reality (Gillian 2004, 77). By revealing the
presence of a gendered state feminists are also revealing the ways in which
the discipline as a whole becomes gendered as a consequence of this (Gillian
2004, 82). So if we go back to the idea of a state that is divided internally
between a public and private sphere feminists argue that when we input
gender we are essentially restructuring the methodology of international
relations, as Adam Jones notes (1996, 412) What if scholars of international political economy
also needs to be reflected.

standardly factored in womens contribution in the domestic/reproductive sphere? This would lead to a
restructured vision of human beings most basic economic processes and interactions-the material
foundation, in international political economy, of the modern state system. Thus womens experiences will
no longer be confined to an area that is regarded as apolitical and ahistorical by both liberal and realist
conceptions. Tickner argues that through a re-examination of the state, feminists demonstrate how the
unequal social relations on which most states are founded both influence their external security-seeking
behaviour and are influenced by it (1997, 628). Thus the state no longer becomes an abstract concept but
one very much bound to the inhabitants of it and to the set of relations it embodies. For instance, Wendy
Brown (1992) explores the implications of a male-dominant society in which the very institutions of the
state are bound up with notions of manhood. She argues that To

be protected by the very

power whose violation one fears perpetuates the specific modality of
dependence and powerlessness marking much of womens experiences
across widely diverse cultures and aspects (1992,9). Thus from one feminist
scholar to another there is a weariness of seeing the state as vehicle
of change since it is an embodiment of masculine modes of power ,
what Brown (1992) calls the new man exerting its control through the police and the military. As a

it appears to become a
difficult task to add gender onto theories such as realism since it requires
the deconstruction of the state as a whole. Brown sums this up by arguing
that a feminist theory of the state would essentially be simultaneously
articulating, deconstructing, and relating the multiple strands of power
consequence when we dig deeper into the analysis presented by feminists

compromising masculinity and the state. The fact that neither state power
nor male dominance are unitary or systematic means that a feminist theory
of the state will be less linear argument that the mapping of an intricate grid
of often conflicting strategies, technologies, and discourses of power (1992,
14). Having shown that gender cannot just be incorporated into other
theories without questioning the fundamental premises
underpinning mainstream theories such as realism the essay will
now focus on power and questions of war and security to add further
weight to the argument that feminist understandings of the
international need to be taken seriously in their own right. Power, War
and Security Security is also an important, if not the most important subject in the study of IR. Realists
view security in primarily political and military terms, a top down approach
while feminists take a bottom up approach defining security in the
multidimensional and multilevel terms-as the diminution of all forms of
violence, including physical, structural and ecological ( Tickner 1997, 624). In addition
Peterson (1992, 31) states that a global security crisis exists and this demands a rigorous re-analysis of
security since dominant theories are unable to authentic politics and/or political community outside of the
state, challenges to state sovereignty seem to imply either an embrace of hierarchical empires or a
rejection of politics entirely (1992, 31). Security then needs to be analysed not just in terms of what is
going on outside the borders of a sovereign state, but also what occurs inside the state and across

In viewing security this way feminists are simultaneously challenging

the way conventional theories think of concepts such as power and even on
the issue of war as well as pointing to the gendered nature of national
security through phenomenas such as rape and prostitution at US camps.
The way war is made, sustained and supported all require the analysis of
gender and its manipulation and construction by the state. War then is not just
boundaries.

something that happens out there beyond the official borders of the state (a realist claim) but is

Thus to understand war-making

feminists look internally as well as externally injecting lived memories into
their analysis. Enloe (1993) argues that during the Cold War states had to convince the public of a
maintained and allowed through internal mechanisms.

real danger whereby men were encouraged to confront this danger head on whilst womens role was

Because mainstream theories shy away

from including actors that are not states in their work they miss out
on the full picture of what war entails. For instance during the Cold War the support
simply to allow themselves to be protected.

of mothers was vital with regards to enlisting male members of the household as soldiers or how notions of

The cold war, then, is best

understood as involving not simply a contest between two superpowers, each
trying to absorb as many countries as possible into its own orbit, but also a
series of contests within each of these societies over the definitions of
masculinity and femininity that would sustain or dilute that rivalry (1993, p.g
masculinity are produced and reproduced during war time.

19). In Central America the division in labour is marked by sexism which places women as a vital source of
cheap labour in the production of crucial resources and so the state-centric views of other theories mask
these inequalities over. Taking the Israel-Palestine conflict as another example, the realist understanding of
this would also remain gender blind so that we are left with only a partial account of the conflict. The rise
in the rate of female suicide bombers, and womens contribution to the conflict directly challenge claims
that women are more peace prone then men for instance (Frances, 2005). Realist analysis renders this
area invisible. Even if we add gender to these mainstream theories it will not solve the flaws discussed
above simply because these theories must begin to think of war in terms that go beyond the balance of
power and competition between states without regard for agency. This is exactly what feminists bring to
the table when they ask where are the women? The role of power in all of this is crucial and essential.
Power; not just in the gendered constructions of state and society but also the role of power in the
discipline as a whole is also of concern to feminist scholars.

Sylvester (cited in Peterson, 1992)

claims that gender is kept of the agenda in such a way that the role of
women in international politics has not been adequately studied. This
reinforced the gender-blind analysis that creeps into the dominant theories
and which obscure more subtle forms of power that go beyond hard and
material forms. Spiegel and Waltz (cited in Peterson 1992, 161) claim that in relations between
states power must be maintained over another just as in households or community conflictseparation
from other units if that were possible, would mean less contact and thus led conflict. Feminists see this
statement as hindering clearer analysis by segregating the role of women and men without understanding
the constructions of femininity and masculinity. This is because everything feminism comes to be
associated with masculinity must always go in the opposite trajectory. If women are governed by their
emotions men must behave rationally, if women are seen as soft men must in contrast be tough.
To overcome this one-dimensional view of how power is produced Tickner (1992, 65) argues that

we

should understand power as mutual enablement rather than

domination. It is the study of both masculinity and femininity that
allows this to happen. Reflection: Feminism and its critics As with other theories, feminism is
not without its critics, Jones (1996) notes that there are limits to a feminist understanding of IR since they
are largely embedded in lived experiences of women at the expense of men and this critique ties in with
the view that gender equates to the study of women. As argued previously feminist understandings
already point out that gender implies the study of men and women. The reason for a more
comprehensive literature on women is not by chance, it is a conscious decision precisely because of the
gender blind attributes of IR and the disproportionate marginalisation of womens experiences.
Furthermore Tickner (1997, 615) argues that gender is not just about woman; it is also about men and
masculinity, a point that needs to be emphasised. In addition a further critique by Jones (1996, 416) is
that there still remains a strain of feminism that concentrates its efforts on supplementing classical
frameworks by incorporating the gender variable. For example he claims that feminist theorists such as
Enloe while critical of the way international relations is studied does not question the business of
international relations since she is looking at the hallmark concerns of the classical paradigm (ibid).
However Jones fails to appreciate the epistemological differences which render this near impossible, as
Carver et al explains The

feminist constructivism regarding gender, which Jones

values because it provides room-so he thinks-for an amalgamation with
realism, does just the opposite: it challenges much of what realists hold
epistemologically dear (1998, 290). Others, such as Keohane (1998, 197) attack feminism from a
methodological viewpoint, claiming that for feminism and the study of gender to stand as a viable theory
they must first formulate their hypothesis in ways that are testable and falsifiable-with evidence.
However isnt this just another argument at removing normative questions and the study of lived
experiences from social science? The positivist bias is evident in this statement in the aim of holding onto

Walker (cited in Peterson 1992, 180) argues that

questions of gender does not just mean the possibility of adding certain
excluded voices to the discipline of IR as it presently conceived. It is, rather,
the possibility of challenging the grounds of which the theory of international
relations has been constructed. This essay has sought to demonstrate this by looking at the
the scientific quality of IR. Conclusion

state, issues of war/security and power and analysing the differences between mainstream and feminist
understandings of these issues so central to IR. What emerges is a theory which to repeat Walker
challenges IR and forces us to shed away much of the assumptions embedded in mainstream theories.

Impact
Patriarchal institutions sustain the norm of structural
violence that marginalizes and oppresses half the
population
Hudson et. al, professor of political science at Texas A&M, 09 (Valerie M., Mary Caprioli, Bonnie
BallifSpanvill, Rose McDermott, and Chad F. Emmett, The Heart of the Matter: the Security of Women and
the Security of States, International Security 33:3, Winter 08/09, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS
Just as a proclivity toward international peace in democratic societies is based, in part, on tolerance and a

norms of genderbased violence have an inflammatory impact on domestic and international

behavior. For example, studies have shown that if domestic violence is normal in
family conflict resolution in a society, then that society is more likely to rely
on violent conflict resolution and to be involved in militarism and war than are societies with
lower levels of family violence.38 A vicious circle may result, where such state violence
may in turn lead to higher levels of gender violence .39 Indeed, lower levels of
gender inequality hinder the ability of societies to mobilize for aggression
through demoralizing women.40 JohanGaltung, a political scientist specializing in political
sociology, offers two concepts that help explain how a generalized ideological
justification for violence is formed and diffuses throughout society: structural
violence and cultural violence .41 Galtungs conceptualization of structural violence
paints a picture of pervasive and systematic exploitation that makes open
violence in the public sphere unnecessary The amateur who wants to
dominate uses guns, the professional uses social structure. 42 According to Galtung,
structural violence has at least four manifestations: exploitation based on a
division of labor wherein benefits are asymmetrically distributed; control by the exploiters
over the consciousness of the exploited, resulting in the acquiescence of the oppressed;
fragmentation, meaning that the exploited are separated from each other;
and marginalization, with the exploiters as a privileged class with their own
rules and form of interaction.43 The concordance between this list and the means by
which gender inequality is typically maintained in human societies is clear .
respect for the rights of opponents,37 so scholars might also contemplate that

Gender roles lead to highly differential possibilities for personal security, development, and prosperity,

An example of this kind of exploitation occurs when women

naturally receive less pay than men for equal work, or when domestic
violence is considered normal. The second component, manipulation of consciousness to
even in todays world.

ensure acquiescence, is maintained through socialization, gender stereotyping, and a constant threat of
domestic violenceall of which insidiously identify women as inferior. The perpetrators of female
infanticide, for example, are virtually all female. The third component, fragmentation, is easily effected
from womens circumstances of patrilocality and greater family responsibilities (and in some cases, the
practice of physical purdah), thus minimizing social access that could otherwise be used to build networks

marginalization serves to clearly distinguish men and

women, with no doubt as to the relative status of each sex. Galtung posits
that structural violence arises from cultural violen ce, that is, he day-to-day use of overt
or implicit force to obtain ones ends in social relations. Thus, while structural violence may
obviate the need for open violence in the public sphere, it is based on open or
implicit violence in the private sphere of the home . Norms of cultural violence diffuse
within religion, ideology, language, and art, among other aspects of culture. Cultural violence
makes direct and structural violence look, even feel, right or at least not wrong,
with other women. And finally,

Violent patriarchy is the primary basis of cultural violence in

human collectives: although women have become active agents with notable success in the
struggle for equality in many states, violence remains an enduring component of
relations between men and women in the private sphere the world over, providing a natural
writes Galtung.44

wellspring for social diffusion.45

Current international relations perpetuate structural

violence
Blanchard 03 (Eric, PhD in Political Science from University of Southern
California and American Council of Learned Societies Faculty Fellow, Gender,
International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory,
http://people.reed.edu/~ahm/Courses/Reed-POL-240-2012S1_IP/Syllabus/EReadings/05.1/05.1.zFurther_Blanchard2003Gender.pdf, pg.
1297-98)
Gender in International Relations, Tickner introduces an important theme of FST:
structural violence, a term borrowed from peace research (Galtung 1971),
which she uses to designate the economic and environmental insecurity of
individuals whose life expectancy was reduced, not by the direct violence of war but by domestic
and international structures of political and economic oppression (Tickner 1992,
69). Peterson claims that a feminist rethinking of security must first inquire into how
structural violence comes to be understood as natural and unproblematic and
then work to politicize and reveal the historically contingent nature of such
structures (1992a, 49). While women have long been peripheral to the decisionmaking processes of global capital, the international political economy can
render women insecure through the gendered division of labor, the
discounting of work in the home, the dictates of structural adjustment
programs, the ravages of poverty, and the violence of sexual tourism and
trafficking in womenall issues that generally do not get the attention of
orthodox practitioners of IR (see Pettman 1996). Likewise, although the care of the environment,
In

the recognition of

a transnational issue requiring collective action, is not a priority of IR theories that privilege the power and

feminist configurations of
security must take note of the need for global economic restructuring and
urge a shift from the exploitation of nature to the reproduction of nature
instrumental rationality of nation-states, Tickner contends that

(1992). Such a global restructuring might start with the recognition that environmental degradation is not
gender neutral; women are affected disproportionately by environmental insecurity, especially in
developing countries where the link between poverty, womens status (or lack thereof), imposed
development policies, and environmental degradation is a complex but intense one (Elliot 1996, 16).

AT:

Perm
Perm coopts diverse feminist practices and incorporates
them into the oppressive civilizing mission of US
imperialism
Chowdhury, Associate Professor of Women's Studies at the University of Massachusetts, 09
(EloraHalim, Locating Global Feminisms Elsewhere: Braiding US Women of Color and Transnationa;
Feminisms, Cultural Dynamics 21:51, 2009, Sage Publications)//AS
I open with the above vignette because I want to probe the braiding of democracy (free
media in the United States, an informed public in direct opposition to authoritarian regimes, and their

freedom (of women to drive and support womens oppression elsewhere

such as FGM), and benevolent global feminism (that help women who are victimized by their
cultures, their men, and their states). Imperiously demarcating the space between us
and them fi rstby establishing the USA as a free society where human rights
are respected, and second by assuming an affinity with global feminism by
declaring her concern for abused women in other cultures, our host occupied the
benevolent first world feminist positionseemingly oblivious to the US
governments role in creating or exacerbating harsh conditions for the women
with whom she so wanted to be in solidarity . In this instance, global feminism was
co-opted into a narrative justification of western liberal notions of democracy
and used in the service of reconstructing/reconsolidating its civilizing mission .
compliant subjects elsewhere),

Sitting at the university cafeteria with my American feminist colleagues and our guest from Saudi Arabia, I

was reminded of the importance of carefully examining the ways in which

feminisms are deployed to further disparate political agendas that can be
quite contradictory to feminist principals of equality, self-reflexivity, and
reciprocity. At a time of militarized war and US empire-building indeed, the enactment of global
feminisms within such seemingly innocuous spaces such as the academy can
unwittingly bolster the project of US imperialism in the global scene.

Perm coopts diverse feminist practices and incorporates

them into the oppressive civilizing mission of US
imperialism
Chowdhury, Associate Professor of Women's Studies at the University of Massachusetts, 09
(EloraHalim, Locating Global Feminisms Elsewhere: Braiding US Women of Color and Transnationa;
Feminisms, Cultural Dynamics 21:51, 2009, Sage Publications)//AS
I open with the above vignette because I want to probe the braiding of democracy (free
media in the United States, an informed public in direct opposition to authoritarian regimes, and their

freedom (of women to drive and support womens oppression elsewhere

and benevolent global feminism (that help women who are victimized by their
cultures, their men, and their states). Imperiously demarcating the space between us
and them fi rstby establishing the USA as a free society where human rights
are respected, and second by assuming an affinity with global feminism by
declaring her concern for abused women in other cultures, our host occupied the
benevolent first world feminist positionseemingly oblivious to the US
governments role in creating or exacerbating harsh conditions for the women
with whom she so wanted to be in solidarity . In this instance, global feminism was
co-opted into a narrative justification of western liberal notions of democracy
compliant subjects elsewhere),
such as FGM),

and used in the service of reconstructing/reconsolidating its civilizing mission .

Sitting at the university cafeteria with my American feminist colleagues and our guest from Saudi Arabia, I

was reminded of the importance of carefully examining the ways in which

feminisms are deployed to further disparate political agendas that can be
quite contradictory to feminist principals of equality, self-reflexivity, and
reciprocity. At a time of militarized war and US empire-building indeed, the enactment of global
feminisms within such seemingly innocuous spaces such as the academy can
unwittingly bolster the project of US imperialism in the global scene.

Framework
Western epistemology endorses male domination by
regarding it as a universal standard that slows
progression in philosophy and sciences feminist
epistemology solves by revealing its androcentricity
Jiang 5 (Xinyan Jiang, Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the
University of Redlands, 2005, Feminist Epistemology: An Introduction
http://csasc.org/2005/journal/ae13.pdf)
All feminist epistemologists have criticized traditional Western epistemology ,
by which is meant Cartesian Epistemology, or the Enlightenment or modernist epistemology that has been
dominant in modern and contemporary science. Traditional Western
epistemology focuses on the individual epistemic agent and holds that the
epistemic agent is autonomous and can be completely impartial. It holds that
knowledge claims are universal and absolute, not perspective . In other words,
according to this epistemology, knowledge claims are made from no particular time,
location, circumstance, and perspective, and therefore they are true in all
situations and from all perspectives. In short, knowledge claims are made from
nowhere and are universally valid. Such an epistemology clearly denies that
knowledge is socially and historically constructed. It dichotomizes subject and
object, subjectivity and objectivity, and nature and culture in an absolute
manner. It values rationality and abstraction and devalues emotion and the
concrete. Since the Enlightenment, it has been the dominant epistemology in Western philosophy and science. In
the West, it was almost equivalent to epistemology before feminist
epistemology emerged. For feminist epistemologists, traditional Western
epistemology is androcentric and male-biased. It fails to take women's
experience and perspectives into account. Due to the existence of male
domination, male norms have become dominant norms and been regarded as
objective and universal standards for all. Accordingly, women's ways of
thinking and knowing have been considered something inferior and invalid.
According to feminist epistemologists, such male-bias has severely hindered the advance of
philosophy and science. For example, due to devaluing femininity, the knowledge
that mothers have of children is not greatly appreciated (Anderson 1995, 50). In general,
the more a kind of knowledge is associated with femininity, the less value it
will be assigned by traditional Western epistemology . At the most general level,
impersonal knowledge is coded masculine while personal knowledge is
coded feminine. The former enjoys higher prestige than the latter. As far as specific subject matters and
methods within theoretical knowledge are concerned, the natural sciences are harder and
hence more prestigious than social sciences, which are supposed to be awash
in feminine emotionality and subjectivity. Mathematics is the most masculine
and therefore the most prestigious (see ibid. 64). At the personal level, research done by
females is usually taken less seriously than that done by males . Laboratory, field,
and natural experiments alike show that the perceived gender of the author influences
peoples judgments of the quality of research, independent of its content (ibid,
59). Psychologists M. A. Paludi and W.D. Bauer in their survey found that the same paper was evaluated

very differently when its author was perceived as male, female, or of

uncertain gender. The same paper was sent to three groups of evaluators to rank its quality under three
different author names. The paper was assigned a much higher average ranking by its evaluators when it was under the
name John T. McKay than when it was under Joan T. McKay. The papers ranking was between the evaluations given by
the above two groups when it was under J. T. McKay, a name that does not clearly identify the authors gender (see
Paludi and Bauer 1983, 287-390, and quoted in Anderson 1995, 59).

Academics are no less disposed than others to devalue womens work. For
before the Modern Language Association instituted blind name review for papers
submitted for their meetings, mens submissions were accepted at significantly higher
rates than womens. After the association adopted blind name review, womens acceptance rates rose to
equality with mens (Lefkowits 1979, 56, and quoted in Anderson 1995, 59). When a scientific discovery
is made by a woman, it may not be taken as seriously as one made by a man .
example,

The case of Barbara McClintock is a good example of that. It took more than three decades for biology academics to
recognize the significance of her discovery of genetic transposition (Anderson 1995, 60). S uch

cases show how

male bias in the dominant epistemology underlying scientific research has
slowed the progress of knowledge. Although among feminist epistemologists there are disagreements
on whether there are uniform women's ways of knowing in the global sphere, to what extent traditional Western

all feminist
epistemologists agree that traditional Western epistemology is gender-biased
and that feminist criticisms of it will significantly contribute to the
improvement of theories of knowledge.
epistemology is male-biased, and whether some ways of knowing are shared by both genders,

IR affairs are dealt between males feminism is key to

providing multiple perspectives and ending the maledominated political hierarchy
IR Online 16 (International Relations Online, 2016, International Relations
Online is owned and operated by 2U Inc. Founded in 2008 by a team of
education and technology veterans, 2U enables leading colleges and
universities to deliver their high-quality degree programs online to qualified
students anywhere. International Relations Feminism
https://internationalrelationsonline.com/feminist-international-relations/)
If you look at the political arena, you will notice that a vast majority of
politicians are male. This shapes the way politics and international relations
works as many international affairs are dealt between males. Feminism ,
however, addresses international relations from a female perspective,
encouraging gender equality. In essence, feminists in the international relations
field look at who is shaping politics in the world today, whether women are
involved in the decision-making process, and how females can change foreign
policy and other aspects of international relations. They critique the present
social norms and question the patriarchal hierarchy in the military and
economy, among other fields. Feminists in international relations also raise
their concern that women are a disadvantaged group that own one
percent of the worlds property and resources and perform 60 percent of the
[worlds] labor, as reported by gender and international relations specialist Jacqui True. Gender
studies impacts international relations in more ways than one. For example, Mark
Tessler and Ina Warriner conducted a study of four very different Middle Eastern countriesKuwait,

women and men often shared similar

attitudes toward conflict between nations and that a person of either gender
Palestine, Egypt, and Israeland found that

who included womens issues among their concerns and advocated for
gender equality, was more likely to encourage diplomacy in resolving
conflicts. The theory of feminism in international relations is important to take
note of in a world where gender equality is seeing rapid growth. Bringing
women to the forefront of political and international issues and relations
instead of continuing with the socially accepted norm of a male-dominated
political hierarchy, can encourage creative thinking, leading to improved
solutions for future conflicts.

Policy making stifles change because of gender

constraints
Schofield and Goodwin 10 (Tom and Susan, 2010, "," No
Publication, http://www.engagingmen.net/files/resources/2010/emmafulu/Public_policySchofieldGoodwin_2006.pdf)

The specificity of our approach to studying gender politics and gender

equality in public policy and institutions is well illustrated by comparison with
the predominant approach. The latter is informed by theories and methods developed mainly by
political science, especially those used in international comparative analysis of the policies and politics of
nation states. The ongoing and large-scale study, established in 1995 by a transatlantic network of
scholars (Research Network on Gender Politics and the State) to explore routes to feminist policy
formation in political institutions (Mazur 2002), exemplifies this approach. Its main purpose is to explore
whether, how and under what conditions womens policy machinery and womens movement activism in
policy making in Europe and North America are associated with achieving positive policy outcomes1..

It

does so by examining correlations of policy outcomes and actions among a

range of players, including government and stakeholder officials (Research
Network on Gender Politics and Gender Politics and Public Policy Making - 3 the State RNGPS 2005). On
the basis of these findings the RNGS researchers suggest a kind of taxonomy of the types of political
alliances among womens movement actors, womens policy agencies and other government players that
can achieve positive policy outcomes. However, the studys methodology does not permit the
researchers to explain why and how successful alliances develop to advance positive policy outcomes,

Louise Chappells (2002) study of gender politics in

Australian and Canadian political institutions is also informed by the methods
and theories of political science. She draws strongly on neo-institutionalist approaches to the
and why and how they may not.

state, examining the interplay of a number of state institutions over time and between two polities, to

According to Chappell,
it is the gendering of this interplay that creates opportunities for or
constraints on feminist action. Chappell argues that this derives from the
operation of gender norms. But it is not clear exactly how these influence political behaviour.
determine how they influence feminist political action (Chappell 2002, 4-9).

One reason is that the meaning of gender norms is not fully elaborated in theoretical terms. Sylvia Walby
(2004, 8) has suggested that the lack of theoretical explanation is an inherent characteristic of the gender

A second reason is the absence of systematic empirical

analysis of the relationship between norms and the political action
discussed. As a result, gender norms and political action are connected as a
correlation that implies a particular institutional gender dynamic (or
dynamics) by which the correlation is produced. Yet the dynamic (dynamics)
itself is not explored to explain exactly how and why particular gender
norms and political actions are linked and produced within institutions.
norms approach generally.