You are on page 1of 16

GSU 1AC

We think this topic is a flawed attempt at dealing with womens


issues. What we got was prostitution an area which demands state
control over a womans body. Even in its attempt at sexual freedom,
legalizing prostitution would represent the states continued control.
Thompson 00 (Susan E. J.D. Candidate, Capital University Law School May 2000,
Prostitution-A Choice Ignored, 2000, 21 Women's Rights L. Rep. 217, lexis)
B. Legalization The legalization of prostitution involves removing restrictions
against prostitution, but allows for various regulatory schemes such as licensing,
registration, and mandatory health [*242] checks. n456 Under this system of control,
whatever form of prostitution is legalized leaves all other forms of prostitution illegal and
subject to penalties. n457 Therefore, if the government has only permitted brothel prostitution
to be legalized, independent prostitution, escort services, and massages parlors, for example,
would be considered illegal. n458 Presently, Nevada is the only U.S. state to practice a system of
control under a model of legalization. n459 Although prostitution remains illegal in most of
Nevada, individual counties are able to decide whether to permit brothel prostitution in their
respective counties. n460 Of the seventeen counties in Nevada, four of its largest cities prohibit
the practice of prostitution, this includes Las Vegas and Reno. n461 However, brothels located
outside or near the cities of Reno and Las Vegas are the busiest and most profitable
establishments. n462 Six counties ban prostitution in the unincorporated areas, and seven
permit prostitution in their counties. n463 Nevada's system of legalization requires strict
adherence to specific regulations set by the government. Under Nevada's statute, the
government is permitted to prohibit the licensing of brothels located in counties with a
population of 400,000 or more. n464 The statute also makes it illegal to operate a brothel or
house of "ill fame," within 400 yards of a school or religious structure, such as a church. n465
Although prostitution may be legal in some counties, an individual is guilty of a criminal
misdemeanor if he or she engages in prostitution or solicitation outside a licensed brothel. n466
Proponents for the legalization of prostitution often cite the mandatory health checks as one of
the major benefits associated with a system of legalization. n467 This system of control is aimed
at preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS. Similar to the statute,
the Nevada Administrative Code has a number of regulations that prostitutes are required to
follow. n468 For example, the Code requires that any person in search of employment as a
prostitute in a licensed brothel must submit to various tests for HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, and
chlamydia. n469 Once employed, they have to agree to monthly HIV and syphilis tests and
weekly tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia. n470 The Code mandates that an employed
prostitute of a licensed brothel insist that customers use condoms before engaging in sexual
intercourse or sexual contact. n471 Furthermore, the Code requires that persons operating a
licensed brothel post health notices and report any known communicable diseases to the
necessary health authorities. n472 Under the Nevada Revised Statute, any person who continues
to engage in prostitution or solicitation after testing positive for HIV, is guilty of a class B felony,
punishable by a two-to ten-year prison sentence and/or a $ 10,000 fine. n473 As a result of the
strict health regulations, the rate of infection from AIDS and STDs for legal prostitutes in
Nevada is zero. n474 Of 41,000 tests taken of 350 legal prostitutes, only one returned positive,
and that was later found to be negative. n475 An additional benefit under the Nevada system of
legalization is the low incidence of crime committed against prostitutes. Prostitutes who work
on the streets in Nevada are more vulnerable to violence than brothel prostitutes who are
protected by management and the presence of other females. n476 Although a system of
legalization appears to be a viable alternative to criminalization, legalization is very
problematic on its own. Opponents to legalization argue that it represents the ultimate
form of control over women's bodies and sexuality. n477 While the typical "pimp-
[*243] prostitute" relationship is seemingly non-existent, the government's tight
control over prostitution, creates a situation where the government may be
considered the pimp. n478 Similar to the traditional pimp, the government
controls with whom, when, and where the prostitute engages in prostitution
through a rigid series of time, place, and manner restrictions. n479 Instead of
providing women with a degree of control and personal autonomy over their lives,
the system of legalization ensures that prostitutes have no input over their lives
and livelihood. This lack of choice and control, leaves women fully dependent on
the government for every aspect of their work. n480 Once a prostitute is licensed to work in
the legal brothel, she automatically gives up her freedom to choose who her customers are, when
to work, and how much she will receive for her services. n481 A brothel prostitute typically
works fourteen hour shifts, everyday, for a three-week period. n482 During that time, a brothel
prostitute may see at least ten to fifteen men a day. n483 Prostitutes have no control over the
clients they see so they have no right to refuse or deny a customer service, unless the customer is
aggressive and abusive. n484 Legal brothel prostitutes may generate a decent income from their
work, however, they must split their earnings with management and are expected to pay for
expenses, such as room and board, condoms, maid services, and a portion of weekly venereal
disease checkups. n485 Additionally, prostitutes' movements outside of the brothel are strictly
controlled. n486 Once licensed, the female prostitute may not live in the same area that she
works, socialize outside the brothel, or vacation in the same area. n487 On the whole, prostitutes
are forbidden to leave the brothels except to go to a doctor's appointment or the beauty salon.
n488 The mandatory health checks have been influential in reducing the rate of STDs and AIDS
in prostitution. n489 However, the mandatory health controls do little to protect the prostitute
from infected clients who are either unaware they are infected or aware and continue to visit
legal brothels. n490 Once the prostitute tests positive for a disease such as AIDS, she is forced to
give up her only means of income, with no chance of receiving disability or unemployment
insurance to compensate her for her loss. n491 Additionally, mandatory health care may present
some problems regarding the right to refuse medical treatment when prostitutes are forced to
undergo medical examinations. n492 Lastly, the legalization of prostitution through a system
of licensing and registration stigmatizes prostitutes as a group of women in need of
regulation and control. n493 Although prostitutes are no longer stigmatized as
criminals, under a system of criminalization, they are stigmatized as "bad girls."
n494 The system of legalization perpetuates the ideology of the whore/ madonna
dichotomy by emphasizing that whores are the source of diseases and licensing is
the only way to control their behavior. n495 Alternatively, the madonna is the pure, good
girl, who unlike the "other" woman, does not have to be controlled by strict regulations.
Arguably, there is a fine line between the whore/madonna which can easily be crossed by not
only selling sex, but by giving it away improperly through adultery or promiscuity. n496 This
forced stigmatization may cause some prostitutes to work illegally, for fear that
registration and licensing may make their identity known. n497 Under this scheme
of control, the prostitute is not granted the same rights of privacy afforded to the
clients who enter the brothels. n498 Clients who seek the service of a brothel
prostitute do not face registration or [*244] risk friends and family finding out about
their activities without their knowledge. n499 Had clients been forced to register before visiting
a brothel, one is left to wonder, how many, if any, would continue to frequent brothels under
such strict conditions? At first glance, the system of legalization appears to be the best
model of control, for allowing women the freedom to practice prostitution if they choose.
However, a closer examination shows that legalization does not promote freedom
or choice in prostitution, but rather eliminates all freedom associated with the
choice of prostitution. In some ways, the legalized system of control is more
exploitative and criminal than the criminalized model of prostitution control.
Under legalization, women are not given any options. Either they work within the
strict regulations that dictate their behavior and activities, or work outside of the
law and risk potential violence and arrest. Although brothel prostitutes may make a decent
living, they enjoy less freedom than the average worker at a fast-food restaurant. n500 In some
ways, the worker at a fast-food establishment may actually fare better than the brothel prostitute
because that worker is not subjected to mandatory weekly and monthly health examinations,
and is free to walk and travel where she pleases. n501 More importantly, if she loses her job or is
unable to work, unemployment, disability insurance, and other social benefits are available for
her protection. The system of legalization is a form of modern day slavery - created,
operated, and condoned by the government, in order to control women's sexuality.
n502 In essence, the legalized prostitute is the most exploited worker under a system
of capitalism. She is forced to work for the "master," with no questions asked. This
legalized system of imprisonment is carefully structured so the prostitute does all
the work and receives none of the benefits. The system of legalization forces us to
question who truly benefits from the laws of legalization?

Prostitution -- right or wrong, we remain regulated objects of the


state. These problems exist because of a larger system that we are
trying to break down. Violence against women is entrenched in
society the state has shown it cannot solve these problems.

Therefore, We reject the notion that this topic can speak for us. Assuming that the
state can help women do any type of reform is flawed.

AND - The legal definition of crime is inherently gendered and ignores the real
crime - the social injuries placed on women in their daily lives. The real crime is
the violation of our rights as women, simple human dignities that we should be
afforded. Our transformation of the term criminal attacks the systems of
exploitation that perpetuate harmful power relations - imperialism, racism,
capitalism, sexism. Our rejection of the topic is necessary to rethink the coercive
practices of the criminal justice system that are currently in place this is
IMPOSSIBLE without adopting a mindset of feminist consciousness.
Klein and Kress 14 (Dorie, Senior Research Scientist at the Public Health Institute in
Berkeley, and June, Executive Director of the Council for Court Excellence, "Any Woman's
Blues: A Critical Overview of Women, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System," Social Justice,
Vol 40, Issue 1/2, p. 162-191, March)

A. Traditional Criminology: Serving the State In order to locate the theoretical underpinnings of
our critical overview of women and crime, it is first essential to summarize and critique the role
that traditional criminology has played in service to the state. Criminologists have almost
unanimously accepted the legal definition of crime' and have centered primarily on the
individual offender, who has been regarded as abnormal, in fact as inherently pathological. The
conclusions drawn are that ill-adjusted individuals in conflict with society, in other words
"deviants," must be psychologically "rehabilitated" by the criminal justice system. This
ahistorical, individualistic approach of academic criminologists has contributed to and has been
reinforced by their close relationships with the criminal justice system in policy formulation.
These mutually reinforcing tendencies are evidenced by the kinds of research grants they receive
(for example, from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration), from the types of studies
conducted in prisons at the invitation of the staff,' and by the rise of the number of criminal
justice schools across the country that are training professional administrators. As far as the
subject of women and crime is concerned, its sparse body of literature has been written either
by men or by women without feminist consciousness. Female criminality is viewed as the result
of innate biological or psychological characteristics of women that are only marginally affected
by social and economic factors. These writers have made universal, ahistorical assumptions
about female nature in general, based on the reproductive role. Thus, sexuality becomes the key
to understanding the deviance of a woman, since this is supposedly her primary social
function.-^ Specifically, women (and women offenders) have been characterized in the
literature as devious, deceitful, and emotional (Pollak 1950), intellectually dull and passive
(Thomas 1907, 1923), atavistic (closer to animals in evolution) and immoral (Lombroso 1920),
lonely and dependent (Konopka 1966), and anxious to serve and be loved (Herskovitz, in Pollak
and Friedman 1969). Moreover, women offenders, the direct object of these studies, are treated
with condescension. The Gluecks (1934) called them a pathetic lot. Quite recently, female
deviants were described as: Increasing numbers of broken gears and bits of flying debris ...
found leaping from bridges, wandering desolate city streets, and entering banks with pistols in
their pockets. (Adler 1975,24) Women criminals have rarely been accorded even the grudging
respect shown to male criminals, who at least are seen as a threatening force with which to be
reckoned. Instead, women often have been the target of voyeuristic studies concerned only with
their sexuality.'* Further, delinquency is described as a symptom of homosexuality in girls
(Cowie, Cowie, and Slater 1968), or unsatisfactory relationships with the opposite sex (Vedder
and Somerville 1970). One author argues that, for a delinquent girl, "whatever her offense
whether shoplifting, truancy, or running away from homeit is usually accompanied by some
disturbance or unfavorable behavior in the sexual area" (Konopka 1966,4). Basing their work
on the sexual theories of motivation, few traditional criminologists recognize sexist oppression
itself as a causative factor or the need for its elimination. Their recommendations for
rehabilitation impose standards of femininity, which are in fact ruling-class standards. One
example of this is the imposition of certain conditions for parole, which we discuss later in the
article. Thus, social control, not social justice, is the underlying thread of unity in this literature.
And, more important, any attempts at reform have neither changed the balance of power within
the criminal justice system, nor have they fundamentally altered the class-biased nature of that
system. As previously mentioned, these writers have definitely had an influence on the control
of women by the criminal justice system. Studies of "violent" women prisoners and their
menstrual cycles have been federally funded, with a suggestion being the chemical regulation of
these women (see Austin and Ellis 1971 ; West 1973). That interest in the alleged new "violent"
woman is high is evidenced both by sensationalized media stories and by academics eagerly
publishing confirmations (see Newsweek 1975; Adler 1975). Yet academics did not note the
upswing of violence against women perpetrated, for example, by the state in Vietnam (see
Bergman 1974) or the continued, forced sterilization of women in this country (see Allen 1974;
Maclean 1975). Consequently, one must look not to traditional criminology for an understanding
of women and crime, but rather to the emerging movements of radical criminology and
feminism. B. Radical Criminology: Theory and Practice One of the outcomes of popular
struggles waged during the 1960s by women, students, Third World people, and various political
organizations has been an ongoing transformation of the field of criminology. Taking its early
direction from the ideas and writings of prisoners themselves, a radical analysis of crime and
criminal justice was in fact created outside of the academic community and adopted by students
and a small number of faculty. Theoretically, radical criminology utilizes a multidisciplinary
approach to examine the issues of crime and justice, emphasizing the study of political economy.
Representing a sharp break from the traditional field, radical criminology has begun to
challenge the dominant assumptions long held by academic practitioners and by workers within
the criminal justice system. One such challenge is to see the legal definition of crime. In contrast
to the traditional definition, radicals see as a starting point the notion of human rights to self-
determination, dignity, food and shelter, and freedom from exploitation. This perspective
defines crime as a violation of these rights, whereby the focus is on specific systems of
exploitation, or criminogenic systems, such as imperialism, racism, capitalism, and sexism,
because they promote inherently repressive relationships and social injury. In this orientation,
the solution to crime is predicated on a total transformation of society and its
inequitable political and economic system. Thus, in its broadest theoretical sense, radical
criminology involves a move toward a redefinition of crime and justice. Coupled with this is an
ongoing evaluation of the criminal justice system according to whether it meets people's needs.
In challenging this system, we do not deny the existence of street crime such as rape or burglary,
or consider that people who commit such crimes are totally victims of an unjust society. On the
contrary, petty criminals do exploit working people, and street crime is a pressing problem that
demands immediate attention. But a primary focus of our work is how the economic system
itself promotes the conditions for typical criminal behavior (see Platt 1974b). This requires an
analysis of the material basis of criminality, the illegal marketplace of goods and services, e.g.,
drugs and prostitution, and the connections between exploitative social relations and economic
foundations. In drawing its main attention away from individual offenders, radical criminology
concentrates on the social structure through its recognition of the criminal justice system as a
class phenomenon; that is, as an instrument of the ruling elite to maintain a social system that is
class-biased, racist, and sexist (see Balbus 1973; Wolfe 1973). Our work is guided by a
perspective that views the state as serving certain segments of the population over others. As
one coercive arm of the state, the criminal justice system protects corporate and private
property. While it brings full pressure to bear on petty offenders from the poor sectors of the
population, it virtually ignores major corporate crime and handles white-collar offenses through
"wrist-slapping" civil procedures. Thus, the legal apparatus is in effect a dual system of justice
for the rich and against the poor. In making the study of women and crime a priority, radical
and progressive criminologists have begun to confront the economic, social, and political
conditions that have a direct bearing on the incidence of crime. The history and contemporary
role of women in society is analyzed in order to account for the kinds of crimes that women
commit. By attempting to break down oppressive sexual attitudes that surround women, radical
criminologists incorporate a political view of justice. While our theoretical work emphasizes the
need to eliminate sexism and ruling class standards of femininity, our political practice
concentrates on strategies of resistance to bring about fundamental change, for example anti-
rape groups that are now growing on a national scale. This developing body of literature on
women is characterized by a high degree of feminist consciousness. Moving well beyond mere
critiques of traditional approaches, radicals and progressives have begun to develop their own
political analyses of female criminality and the institutions of criminal justice that act as agents
of control.

We are the physical target of violence - we fear it, but it is a universal condition -
this violence comes in the form of beatings, imprisonment, enslavement, rape,
prostitution, torture, and murder, but is both normalized and justified in rhetoric
deemed rational and is carried out in even minor socializing processes. We must
expand the definition of conflicts to include the perpetual terrorism that women
face in order to challenge the structures that silence us.
Ray 97 A. E. Ray The Shame of it: gender-based terrorism in the former Yugoslavia and the
failureof international human rights law to comprehend the injuries. The American University
Law Review. Vol 46.
In order to reach all of the violence perpetrated against the women of the former Yugoslavia that
is not committed by soldiers or other officials of the state, human lights law must move beyond
its artificially constructed barriers between "public" and "private" actions: A feminist
perspective on human rights would require a rethinking of the notions of
imputability and state responsibility and in this sense would challenge the most basic
assumptions of international law. If violence against women were considered by the
international legal system to be as shocking as violence against people for their political ideas,
women would have considerable support in their struggle.... The assumption that underlies
all law, including international human rights law, is that the public/private distinction is
real: human society, human lives can be separated into two distinct spheres. This
division, however, is an ideological construct rationalizing the exclusion of women
from the sources of power. 2 6 The international community must recognize that violence
against women is always political, regardless of where it occurs, because it affects
the way women view themselves and their role in the world, as well as the lives
they lead in the so-called public sphere. 2 6 ' When women are silenced within the
family, their silence is not restricted to the private realm, but rather affects their
voice in the public realm as well, often assuring their silence in any environment.
262 For women in the former Yugoslavia, as well as for all women, extension beyond the various
public/private barriers is imperative if human rights law "is to have meaning for women
brutalized in less-known theaters of war or in the by-ways of daily life." 63 Because, as currently
constructed, human rights laws can reach only individual perpetrators during times of war, one
alternative is to reconsider our understanding of what constitutes "war" and what constitutes
"peace. " " When it is universally true that no matter where in the world a woman
lives or with what culture she identifies, she is at grave risk of being beaten,
imprisoned, enslaved, raped, prostituted, physically tortured, and murdered
simply because she is a woman, the term "peace" does not describe her existence. 2
5 In addition to being persecuted for being a woman, many women also are
persecuted on ethnic, racial, religious, sexual orientation, or other grounds.
Therefore, it is crucial that our re-conceptualization of human rights is not limited to violations
based on gender." Rather, our definitions of "war" and "peace" in the context of all of
the world's persecuted groups should be questioned. Nevertheless, in every culture a
common risk factor is being a woman, and to describe the conditions of our lives
as "peace" is to deny the effect of sexual terrorism on all women. 6 7 Because we
are socialized to think of times of "war" as limited to groups of men fighting over
physical territory or land, we do not immediately consider the possibility of "war"
outside this narrow definition except in a metaphorical sense, such as in the
expression "the war against poverty." However, the physical violence and sex
discrimination perpetrated against women because we are women is hardly
metaphorical. Despite the fact that its prevalence makes the violence seem natural
or inevitable, it is profoundly political in both its purpose and its effect. Further, its
exclusion from international human rights law is no accident, but rather part of a
system politically constructed to exclude and silence women. 2 6 The appropriation
of women's sexuality and women's bodies as representative of men's ownership
over women has been central to this "politically constructed reality. 2 6 9 Women's
bodies have become the objects through which dominance and even ownership are
communicated, as well as the objects through which men's honor is attained or
taken away in many cultures.Y Thus, when a man wants to communicate that he is
more powerful than a woman, he may beat her. When a man wants to
communicate that a woman is his to use as he pleases, he may rape her or
prostitute her. The objectification of women is so universal that when one country
ruled by men (Serbia) wants to communicate to another country ruled by men
(Bosnia-Herzegovina or Croatia) that it is superior and more powerful, it rapes,
tortures, and prostitutes the "inferior" country's women. 2 71 The use of the
possessive is intentional, for communication among men through the abuse of
women is effective only to the extent that the group of men to whom the message is
sent believes they have some right of possession over the bodies of the women
used. Unless they have some claim of right to what is taken, no injury is experienced. Of course,
regardless of whether a group of men sexually terrorizing a group of women is trying to
communicate a message to another group of men, the universal sexual victimization of
women clearly communicates to all women a message of dominance and
ownership over women. As Charlotte Bunch explains, "The physical territory of [the]
political struggle [over female subordination] is women's bodies." 7 2

We refuse to let the capitalist, patriarchal status quo set the horizon
for whats possible we bridge different forms of inequality through
gender to create social transformation
Brenner, 14 (Johanna, coordinator of womens studies at Portland State University in
Portland, Oregon, has written for Monthly Review, New Left Review, Gender & Society, among
other journals, and is a longtime activist for reproductive rights, welfare rights, and socialism,
"Socialist Feminism in the 21st Century Against the Current. Mar/April 2014, Vol. 39 Issue 1;
p20-23)
IN THE 21st century, women of the working classes employed in the formal
economy, the informal economy, working in the countryside or doing unwaged labor -
have entered the global political stage in an astonishing array of movements. Sparked by
the capitalist war on the working class, the enclosures sweeping peasants and farmers off
the land or devastating their livelihoods upon it, and the consequent crisis and
intensification in patriarchal relations, these movements are creatively developing
socialist-feminist politics with much to offer the left as it gropes toward new
organizational forms and organizing strategies. In the global south, as women find
themselves displaced, employed in precarious work, heading households, struggling to
survive in informal settlements and urban slums, they are not only crucial participants
in movements for 21st century socialism, they are also building grassroots organizing
projects that challenge patriarchal forms of organizing, leadership, and movement
demands. In the global north, these projects have engaged new modes of worker
organizing that rely on mobilizing members and building community alliances.
While never perfect, of course, these different socialist-feminist projects, in north and
south, in community and workplace, at their best offer new discourses of gender
equality, new modes of organizing, and visions of participatory democracy. The
21st century has also seen an expansion and deepening of transnational feminist
networks. There are, of course, class tensions within these networks and some
networks deal with these tensions better than others. (Alvarez 2000, Moghadam 2005)
Still, the networks are crucial resources for socialist-feminist organizing, for it is
through them that feminist discourses circulate globally, are incorporated locally
and often creatively re-shaped in the process. (Sameh, 2010) We can think of
socialist feminism very broadly to include all feminists (whether or not they would
identify with the label) who see class as central, but would not reduce relations of
power and privilege organized around particular identities (gender, sexuality,
race/ethnicity, nationality) to class oppression. Revolutionary socialist feminism
is unwilling to allow capitalism to set the horizon for what can be envisioned or
struggled for. Socialist-feminists start where most feminists begin: the emancipation
of women must come from women ourselves, but cannot be achieved by ourselves.
From this starting point, socialist-feminists are especially interested in building inclusive
movements organized by and for working class, indigenous, and rural women. Women's self-
organization can be parochial or coalitional that is, it can either reproduce
existing social divisions among women or reach beyond them. The political vision
through which socialist-feminists organize aims to develop activism and leadership,
education and awareness, demands and discourses, and an everyday politics that
recognizes and works to overcome these deep divisions. In this process socialist
feminists look to developing a "both/and" politics that bridges what might be won
in the here and now to a longer-term project of social transformation.
Our method isnt just a method but rather a starting point, to re-
create what it means to rebel. We are no longer passive spectators
sitting back and participating in a prescribed spectacle.

Ehrlich, 77 (Carol, "Socialism, Anarchism, and Feminism"


http://www.anarcha.org/sallydarity/CarolEhrlich.htm)

It is difficult to consume people who put up a fight, who resist the cannibalizing of
their bodies, their minds, their daily lives. A few people manage to resist, but most
dont resist effectively, because they cant. It is hard to locate our tormentor,
because it is so pervasive, so familiar. We have known it all our lives. It is our
culture. Situationists characterize our culture as a spectacle. The spectacle treats
us all as passive spectators of what we are told are our lives. And the culture-as-
spectaele covers everything: We are born into it, socialised by it, go to school in it, work
and relax and relate to other people in it. Even when we rebel against it, the rebellion is
often defined by the spectacle. Would anyone care to estimate the number of sensitive,
alienated adolescent males who a generation ago modelled their behavior on James Dean in
Rebel Without a Cause? Im talking about a movie, whose capitalist producers and whose star
made a great deal of money from this Spectacular. Rebellious acts, then tend to be acts of
opposition to the spectacle, but seldom are so different that they transcend the
spectacle. Women have a set of behaviors that show dissatisfaction by being the
opposite of what is expected. At the same time these acts are cliches of rebellion,
and thus are almost prescribed safety valves that dont alter the theater of our
lives. What is a rebellious woman supposed to do? We can all name the behaviors they
appear in every newspaper, on prime time television, on the best-seller list, in popular
magazines and, of course, in everyday life. In a setting that values perfectionist housekeeping,
she can be a slob; in a subculture that values large families, she can refuse to have children.
Other predictable insurgencies? She can defy the sexual double standard for married
women by having an affair (or several); she can drink; or use what is termed locker
room language; or have a nervous breakd own; or if she is an adolescent she can
act out (a revealing phrase!) by running away from home and having sex with a lot
of men. Any of these things may make an individual womans life more tolerable
(often, they make it less so); and all of them are guaranteed to make conservatives rant
that society is crumbling. But these kinds of scripted insurrections havent made it
crumble yet, and, by themselves, they arent likely to. Anything less than a direct
attack upon all the conditions of our lives is not enough. When women talk about
changing destructive sex role socialisation of females, they pick one of three
possible solutions: (a) girls should be socialised more or less like boys to be independent,
competitive, aggressive, and so forth. In short, it is a mans world, so a woman who wants to fit
in has to be one of the boys. (b) We should glorify the female role, and realise that what we
have called weakness is really strength. We should be proud that we are maternal, nurturant,
sensitive, emotional, and so on. (c) The only healthy person is an androgynous person: We must
eradicate the artificial division of humanity into masculine and feminine, and help both
sexes become a mix of the best traits of each. Within these three models, personal
solutions to problems of sexist oppression cover a wide range: Stay single; live
communally (with both men and women, or with women only). Dont have children; dont
have male children; have any kind of children you want, but get parent and
worker-controlled child care. Get a job; get a better job; push for affirmative
action. Be an informed consumer; file a lawsuit; learn karate; take assertiveness
training. Develop the lesbian within you. Develop your proletarian identity. All of
these make sense in particular situations, for particular women. But all of them
are partial solutions to much broader problems, and none of them necessarily
require seeing the world in a qualitatively different way. So, we move from the
particular to more general solutions. Destroy capitalism. End patriarchy. Smash
heterosexism. All are obviously essential tasks in the building of a new and truly
human world. Marxists, other socialists, social anarchists, feminists all would
agree. But what the socialist, and even some feminists, leave out is this: We must
smash all forms of domination. Thats not just a slogan, and it is the hardest task of all. It
means that we have to see through the spectacle, destroy the stage sets, know that
there are other ways of doing things. It means that we have to do more than react in
programmed rebellions we must act. And our actions will be collectively taken,
while each person acts autonomously. Does that seem contradictory? It isnt but it will
be very difficult to do. The individual cannot change anything very much; for that
reason, we have to work together. But that work must be without leaders as we
know them, and without delegating any control aver what we do and what we want
to build. Can the socialists do that? Or the matriarchs? Or the spirituality-trippers? You know
the answer to that. Work with them when it makes sense to do so, but give up nothing. Concede
nothing to them, or to anyone else.

We have to have this discussion here and now. Women have been
ignored by hundreds of topics and several have quit after having
unpleasant experiences in a male-dominated environment. Last
years NDT saw only three women get speaker awards, ZERO women
in the finals of the NDT, judges or debaters, and the semi-finals with
NO female debaters and one female judge out of ten. This can be a
productive forum if you allow it to be. Debate is an important site of
knowledge production and critique.
Mohanty 03 [Chandra Talpade, Prof of Women's Studies at Hamilton College,
Core Faculty at Union Institute and U of Cincinnati, Feminism Without Borders,
194-195]
In any case, "scholarship" - feminist, Marxist, postcolonial, or Third World--is not the only site
for the production of knowledge about Third World women/peoples. The very same questions
(as those suggested in relation to scholarship) can be raised in relation to our teaching and
learning practices in the classroom, as well as the discursive and managerial practices of U.S.
colleges and universities. Feminists writing about race and racism have had a lot to say about
scholarship, but perhaps our pedagogical and institutional practices and their relation to
scholarship have not been examined with quite the same care and attention. Radical educators
have long argued that the academy and the classroom itself are not mere sites of instruction.
They are also political and cultural sites that represent accommodations and contestations over
knowledge by differently empowered social constituencies. Thus teachers and students produce,
reinforce, recreate, resist, and transform ideas about race, gender, and difference in the
classroom. Also, the academic institutions in which we are located create similar paradigms,
cannons, and voices that embody and transcribe race and gender. It is this frame of institutional
and pedagogical practice that I examine in this chapter. Specifically, I analyze the operation and
management of discourses of race and difference in two educational sites: the women's studies
classroom and the workshops on "diversity" for upper-level (largely white) administrators. The
links between these two educational sites lie in the (often active) creation of discourses of
"difference." In other words, I suggest that educational practices as they are shaped and
reshaped at these sites cannot be analyzed as merely transmitting already codified ideas of
difference. These practices often produce, codify, and even rewrite histories of race and
colonialism in the name of difference. Chapter 7 discussed the corporatization of the academy
and the production of privatized citizenship. Here I begin the analysis from a different place,
with a brief discussion of the academy as the site of political struggle and radical transformation.
Knowledge and Location in the U.S. Academy A number of educators, Paulo Freire among them,
have argued that education represents both a struggle for meaning and a struggle over power
relations. Thus, education becomes a central terrain where power and politics operate out of the
lived culture of individuals and groups situated in asymmetrical social and political spaces. This
way of understanding the academy entails a critique of education as the mere accumulation of
disciplinary knowledges that can be exchanged on the world market for upward mobility. There
are much larger questions at stake in the academy these days, not the least of which are
questions of self- and collective knowledge of marginal peoples and the recovery of alternative,
oppositional histories of domination and struggle. Here, disciplinary parameters matter less
than questions of power, history, and self-identity. For knowledge, the very act of knowing, is
related to the power of self-definition. This definition of knowledge is central to the pedagogical
projects of fields such as women's studies, black studies, and ethnic studies. By their very
location in the academy, fields such as women's studies are grounded in definitions of
difference, difference that attempts to resist incorporation and appropriation by providing a
space for historically silenced peoples to construct knowledge. These knowledges have always
been fundamentally oppositional, while running the risk of accommodation and assimilation
and consequent depoliticization in the academy. It is only in the late twentieth century, on the
heels of domestic and global oppositional political movements, that the boundaries dividing
knowledge into its traditional disciplines have been shaken loose, and new, often heretical,
knowledges have emerged, modifying the structures of knowledge and power as we have
inherited them. In other words, new analytic spaces have been opened up in the academy,
spaces that make possible thinking of knowledge as praxis, of knowledge as embodying the very
seeds of transformation and change. The appropriation of these analytic spaces and the
challenge of radical educational practice are thus to involve the development of critical
knowledges (what women's, black, and ethnic studies attempt) and, simultaneously, to critique
knowledge itself.
Even when we look at women from a larger political perspective, their
participation in remains insignificant. It is imperative to review these
constructs and decode the gendered nature of democracy. In debate
and in the United States Federal Government, women are unable to
play a role to radically change politics; rather they play political roles
on males terms.

Bari, 05 (Farzana, a widely-respected human rights activist and university


professor at the Quaid-e-Azam University. Dr. Bari's career includes being the
Director, Manager, Women's Rights Activist and Head of the Gender Studies
Department at QAU, She is an authority on women's rights and has been actively
involved in raising awareness about crimes against women, particularly
concerning honor killings and the Hudood Ordinance. Her expertise and
experience highlights the role of gender in Pakistani leadership. United Nations -
Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW) - Enhancing Participation of
Women in Development through an Enabling Environment for Achieving Gender
Equality and the Advancement of Women. "Women's Political Participation:
Issues and Challenges" http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/enabling-
environment2005/docs/EGM-WPD-EE-2005-EP.12%20%20draft%20F.pdf)

Women constitute slightly more than half of the world population. Their
contribution to the social and economic development of societies is also more than
ha lf as compared to that of men by virtue of their dual roles in the productive and
reproductive spheres. Yet their participation in formal political structures and
processes, where decisions regarding the use of societal resources generated by both men and
women are made, remains insignificant. Presently, womens representation in
legislatures around the world is 15 percent. Despite the pronounced commitment
of the international community to gender equality and to the bridging the gender
gap in the formal political arena, reinforced by the Convention on Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Platform of Action, there are
only twelve countries where women hold 33% or more seats in the parliaments
(UNDP Report, 2005). This paper attempts to investigate the conceptual and material bases of
womens historic exclusion from the formal arena of politics; analyze strategies adopted around
the world to promote womens political participation/representation; identify internal and
external conditions and factors that facilitate or hinder the creation of an enabling environment
for womens political empowerment; and finally draw policy recommendations for the national
and international actors. The development context of womens political participation at the
community and national levels will be reviewed for nuanced understanding of the nature of
womens participation and their share in development processes and outcomes. With an
increasing recognition among international community of womens historic
exclusion from structures of power, a global commitment has been made to
redress gender imbalance in politics. Womens enhanced participation in
governance structures is viewed as the key to redress gender inequalities in
societies. The global debate on the promotion of womens political
participation/representation has been surrounded by intrinsic and instrumentalist argument.
The former argues for equal participation of women in politics from the human rights
perspective. Women constitute half of the world population and therefore, it is only fair that
they should have equal participation and representation in world democracies. Instrumentalist
argument pushed for womens greater participation on the essentialist ground that men and
women are different. Women have different vision and concepts of politics owning to their sex
and their gender roles as mothers. Therefore, it is assumed that women in politics will bring a
special caring focus and female values to politics. There is an extensive research literature
produced in support of the varied rationale or theoretical approaches to womens
inclusion in politics. However, without debating the merit and demerit of various
approaches, this paper is grounded in the broad agreement that proponents of varied
approaches have arrived at - women must be included in politics. The challenge facing all
advocates of gender equality in politics today is the wide gap between shared values reflected in
the national and international policies and practices. Before identifying the key strategies
for the promotion of womens political participation and the vital elements in the
enabling environment for womens political empowerment, we need to strive for a deeper
understanding of the structural imperatives of a society in which womens political
participation is instituted. Womens historic exclusion from political structures
and processes is the result of multiple structural, functional and personal factors
that vary in different social contexts across countries. However, beyond these
specificities of national and local contexts, there is a generic issue in womens political
participation that relates to the wider context of national and international
politics, liberal democracy and development. It is, therefore, imperative to critically
review these constructs and decode the gendered nature of Democracy as well as
Development, which poses limitations on womens effective political participation.
The elements of enabling environment for womens participation in politics and
development cannot be discussed and identified without putting the current
development and political paradigms under scrutiny. Development today as Rounaq
Jahan (1999) maintains has brought tremendous benefits to people all around the world who
have gained in terms of education, health and income. But at the same time development leaves
behind 2.5 billion people who live on less than $2 dollars a day. There are glaring disparities
among and within countries. Forty percent of world population accounts for 5% of global
income while 10% richest account for 54 percent (UNDP, 2005). Presently, the mainstream
development paradigms based on capitalist relations of production thrive on
opportunities created by gender relations for power and profit (Connell, 1987:104).
There is an intrinsic link between womens domestic labor with capital
accumulation. Leacock further elaborate the same point as the inequalities between
men and women could not be understood in isolation from polarizing tendencies
of the capitalist mode of production which places the peripheral countries of the
Third World in a relationship of dependency with the metropolitan centers of the
First World. Within an egalitarian world order, so called development could not
release women from oppressive social, economic and political institutions; it
merely defines new conditions of constraints (Leacock, 1977:320). It is imperative
for gender equality advocates to focus on the gendered nature of development and
challenge the capitalist paradigm of international development that creates and
recreates gender disparities, while at the same time working towards creating an
enabling environment for womens participation in development. Womens mere
participation in mainstream development cannot automatically lead to their advancement and
gender equality unless the contradiction in the development claim for equality and justice and
the practice is eliminated. The level and nature of participation is equally important to
determine whether women are able to share development gains. Another contextual
issue in womens political participation relates to the nature of politics in general and the liberal
democracy in particular. Democracy has historically served men better than women.
As a political system from the ancient Greece to the modern times of the 21st century, it has built
on the public-private dichotomy and excluded women from citizenship. Women have been
kept outside the public domain of politics as most of the political thinkers and
philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, John Lock, Thomas Hobbes and Hegel
considered women fit only for domestic roles in the private sphere and maintained
that there was no place for women in politics because of their suitability in caring roles as
mothers and wives. The public-private divide remains as the foundation of the
various forms of world democracies (Phillips, 1998, Rai, 2000). This is one of the reasons
that the normative political theory considered private sphere as non-political and did not make
any effort to explore the political nature of the private life. The ancient and modern democracies
failed to recognize women as citizens. Therefore, they sidelined them and their concerns in its
theory and practice (Bathla, 1998:39). It was only the liberal political philosophy of the
19th century that promoted the idea of free and rational individual which was
used by suffragists to demand for the right for vote. However, as Rai maintains the
conceptual basis of liberal theory is inherently gendered in ways, which
perpetuates patterns of patriarchy and ignores gender subordination in both
polity and society (Rai 2000:2). Feminist theorists also challenged the notion of abstract
individual in liberal theory and argued it is not a gender-neutral category. This is why despite
women had the right to vote they were not able to impact public policy and could not
bring private sphere in the preview of the public. Even western democracies left
them dislocated on many fronts. When women enter politics within this patriarchal
context of modern democracies, they are unable to play a role to radically change
the sexual politics rather they largely play political roles on males terms. The
fundamental assumption in liberal democracies needs to be changed in order to
create genuine political space for women within.
Our alternative is to adopt the statements of Red Rose and Black
Maria, or the Black Rose Anarcho-Feminists:

"WE CONSIDER ANARCHO-FEMINISM TO BE THE ULTIMATE AND


necessary radical stance at this time in world history, far more radical
than any form of Marxism. We believe that a Women's Revolutionary
Movement must not mimic, but destroy, all vestiges of the male-
dominated power structure, the State itself - with its whole ancient
and dismal apparatus of jails, armies, and armed robbery (taxation);
with all its murder; with all of its grotesque and repressive legislation
and military attempts, internal and external, to interfere with
people's private lives and freely-chosen co-operative ventures. The
world obviously cannot survive many more decades of rule by gangs
of armed males calling themselves governments. The situation is
insane, ridiculous and even suicidal, Whatever its varying forms of
justifications, the armed State is what is threatening all of our lives at
present. The State, by its inherent nature, is really incapable of
reform. True socialism, peace and plenty for all, can be achieved only
by people themselves, not by representatives ready and able to turn
guns on all who do not comply with State directives. As to how we
proceed against the pathological State structure, perhaps the best
word is to outgrow rather than overthrow, This process entails,
among other things, a tremendous thrust of education and
communication among all peoples. The intelligence of womankind
has at last been brought to bear on such oppressive male inventions
as the church and the legal family; it must now be brought to re-
evaluate the ultimate strong- hold of male domination, the State."

We refuse to have our success in this activity defined by our man-ness; the ballot is
the determination of the judge that as women we can be successful outside of these
frameworks.
Peterson 91 [professor of political science at the University of Arizona, 1992 (V. Spike,
Gendered States, ed: Peterson, p. 8)]

In general, the deconstructive project documents the exfent and tenacity of androcentric bias
and the cultural codification of men as "knowers." It reveals women's exclusion from or
trivialization within masculinist accounts and, especially, women's "absence" there as agents of
social change. But even more significant, "adding women" to existing frameworks
exposes taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in those frameworks. Across
disciplines, feminists discover the contradictions of "adding woman" to
constructions that are literally defined by their "man-ness": the public sphere,
rationality, economic power, autonomy, political identity, objectivity. The systematic
inclusion of women--our bodies, activities, knowledge--challenges categorical givens,
disciplinary divisions, and theoretical franmeworks. It became increasingly clear that it
was not possible simply to include women in those theories where they had previously been
excluded, for this exclusion forms a fundamental structuring principle and key presumption of
patriarchal discourse. It was not simply the range and scope of objects that required
transformation: more profoundly, and threateningly, the very questions posed and the methods
used to answer them needed to be seriously questioned. The political, ontological and
epistemological commitments underlying patriarchal discourses, as well as their theoretical
contents required re-evaluation.46 The reconstructive project marks the shift "from recovering
ourselves to critically examining the world from the perspective of this recovery. . . a move from
margin to center."47 Not simply seeking access to and participating within (but from the
margins of) androcentric paradigms, feminist reconstruction explores the theoretical
implications of revealing systemic masculinist bias and systematically adding women. Not
surprisingly, the shift from "women as knowable" to "women as knowers" locates feminism at
the heart of contemporary debates over what constitutes science and the power of "claims to
know." This is difficult terrain to map, so I start from a vantage pointthat I hope is reasonably
familiar.