Fem K Model - Somewhat Good

CNDI 2010 Feminism Kritik
Shackelford/Lazarevic
Feminism Kritik
Feminism Kritik.............................................................................................................................................................................1
Feminism Kritik 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................2
***2NC BLOCKS***...................................................................................................................................................................7
2NC Link IR ..............................................................................................................................................................................7
2NC Link War............................................................................................................................................................................
2NC Im!a"t Ca#"$#$s....................................................................................................................................................................%
2NC &#ternati'e...........................................................................................................................................................................1(
&2) *erm......................................................................................................................................................................................11
&2) Ce+e t,e *-#iti"a# .................................................................................................................................................................12
&2) Ce+e t,e *-#iti"a#..................................................................................................................................................................13
***Links***................................................................................................................................................................................14
Links.IR....................................................................................................................................................................................14
Links.State ...............................................................................................................................................................................15
Links.Se"$rit/...........................................................................................................................................................................16
Links.Se"$rit/...........................................................................................................................................................................17
Links.Crisis Base+ *-#iti"s.......................................................................................................................................................1
Links.C$#t$ra# 0e1em-n/........................................................................................................................................................1%
Links.S"ien"e............................................................................................................................................................................2(
Links.S"ien"e............................................................................................................................................................................21
Links.2e",n-#-1/.....................................................................................................................................................................22
Links.Rea#ism...........................................................................................................................................................................23
Links.Rea#ism...........................................................................................................................................................................24
Links.3eterren"e......................................................................................................................................................................25
Links.4i#itarism.......................................................................................................................................................................26
Links.I+entit/ *-#iti"s...............................................................................................................................................................27
***Im!a"ts***............................................................................................................................................................................2
Im!a"ts.*atriar",/....................................................................................................................................................................2
Im!a"ts.*atriar",/....................................................................................................................................................................2%
Im!a"ts.4i#itarism....................................................................................................................................................................3(
Im!a"ts.4i#itarism....................................................................................................................................................................32
***&#ternati'e S-#'en"/***.......................................................................................................................................................33
&#t S-#'en"/.Fem *ers!e"ti'es................................................................................................................................................33
&#t S-#'en"/.Str$"t$ra# 5i-#en"e.............................................................................................................................................34
&#t S-#'en"/.Str$"t$ra# 5i-#en"e.............................................................................................................................................35
&#t S-#'en"/.Criti"ism.............................................................................................................................................................36
&#t S-#'en"/.Crisis Base+ *-#iti"s...........................................................................................................................................37
&#t S-#'en"/.*atriar",/............................................................................................................................................................3
&#t S-#'en"/.*atriar",/............................................................................................................................................................3%
***Frame6-rk***.......................................................................................................................................................................4(
Frame6-rk...................................................................................................................................................................................4(
***&77irmati'e***......................................................................................................................................................................41
8S9 F94 IR B&3 C&R3S FRO4 SO820 KOR9& FIL9.....................................................................................................41
&77.Ne-:Li;era#ism S-#'es.......................................................................................................................................................42
&77 9ssentia#ism ......................................................................................................................................................................43
&77.Re'-#$ti-ns 7ai#..................................................................................................................................................................44
&77.*erm...................................................................................................................................................................................45
&77 5i"timi<ati-n =--+............................................................................................................................................................46
1
Feminism Kritik 1NC
A. Links
1. The affs understanding of international relations is profoundly genderedit situates the state
as the enter of po!er relations and o"#etifies e$erything outside the "linders of prediti$e
seurity disoursethis alls into %uestion their entire politial strategy
&ui' ()
[Tricia Ruiz, CSU Hayward, Feminist Theory and International Relations: The Feminist Challenge to Realism and
i!eralism", Soundings #ournal, $%%&, htt':((honors)csustan)edu(*ournals(Soundings)'d+,
How do +eminists use gender and 'atriarchy to descri!e the +ield o+ international relations -IR./ 01erall, +eminist theory says
that most o+ the 2ey 'layers in IR , such as di'lomats, 'olicyma2ers, heads o+ go1ernment, and academic
'ro+essionals, ha1e !een, and still are, males who come +rom 'atriarchal social and 'olitical
!ac2grounds) Thus, discussions within IR remain largely constrained !y those who lac2 consideration o+
women3s roles in world 'olitics -!ecause they ha1e not !een trained to 1alue and include the 'ers'ecti1e o+ women.)
Should IR 'er'etuate the e4clusion o+ women +rom its disci'line, along with their 'otential contri!utions
and additional 1iew'oints, IR will remain a 'rime e4am'le o+ 'atriarchy, in !oth its 'ractice and
accom'lishments ) Indeed, IR is +re5uently re+erred to as the last !astion o+ the social sciences,"
indicating how rigid it remains in reconsidering itsel+ through the 6gender lens3) Feminists also a''ly the
terms 6gender3 and 6'atriarchy3 when analyzing how situations ha1e !een sha'ed to e4clude women +rom the international
'olitical arena) For e4am'le, 7ric 8) 9lanchard re+ers to a 6catch:$$3 situation, in which a candidate see2ing 'olitical o++ice
will highly de'end on 'ast military ser1ice as 5uali+ication +or the 'osition, 'utting women at a disad1antage since they
generally ha1e less military e4'erience) This signi+icantly limits a woman3s chances to attain a national go1ernment 'osition
directly in1ol1ed with international issues o+ de+ense and security); From this e4am'le alone, we can understand how the
areas o+ domestic 'olitics, the military, and e1en the to'ic o+ education -which is directly related to this e4am'le., are issues
with res'ect to which +eminists would argue that gender and 'atriarchy do not allow women e5ual access to 'ower 'ositions
in world 'olitics) <s with many theories, +eminist theory" re+lects a wide range o+ 'ers'ecti1es generating many internal
de!ates concerning how it should !e re'resented) <s =iana Thor!urn notes, there can ne1er !e a truly singular 1oice o+
+eminist +oreign 'olicy sim'ly !ecause o+ the di1ersity o+ 1iews within +eminism itsel+)"& Howe1er, a !rie+ loo2 at some
rele1ant +acets o+ the disci'line can !e seen through orraine Codes3 summary o+ two salient areas within +eminist IR theory,
stand'oint +eminism and radical +eminism)> Stand'oint theory considers how the gendered construction o+
2nowledge )))[hel's to, understand traditional to'ics in international relations" and is alerting us to the
idea that gender may !e structuring how we thin2 in the international conte4t)"? <uthor 8artin @ri++iths
classi+ies +eminist scholar #) <nn Tic2ner as a stand'oint +eminist)A 9e+ore e1en addressing e4isting IR theory, @ri++iths +irst
argues that the 'ur'ose and de+inition o+ 6theory3 is in itsel+ male:centered, !ecause it is o''ressingly normati1e rather than
con*ectural and analytic)"B Sim'ly 'ut, the 'rocesses o+ +orming and learning theory is constructed around on
automatically:acce'ted ideas o+ what is standard and normal, rather than +irst challenging the 6norm3 and
5uestioning i+ the 6standard3 is o!*ecti1e enough) In this case, 6theory3 lac2s +emale 'ers'ecti1e !ecause it is not
o!*ecti1ely sought at the onset o+ +ormulating ideas) Tic2ner argues that IR is gendered to marginalize women3s
1oices," and stresses that women ha1e 2nowledge, 'ers'ecti1es and e4'eriences that should !e !rought
to !ear on the study o+ international relations)" For e4am'le, Tic2ner would argue that security , a main to'ic in
IR, should not only !e understood as de+ending the state +rom attac2," !ut should also consider that
security +or women might !e di++erent !ecause women are more li2ely to !e attac2ed !y men they 2now, rather than
strangers +rom other states)"C% In other words, in contrast to traditional IR 1iews that 1iew security as 'rotecting
the state +rom other states, +eminists argue the to'ic o+ security should address acts o+ ra'e and 1iolence,
not only +rom +oreign 'er'etrators, !ut +rom their own +ellow citizens as well) Feminists would also add that
occurrences o+ ra'e increase during times o+ war, and is e1en used as a method o+ ethnic cleansing among the ri1alries within
their state,CC yet would ne1er enter into ty'ical IR discussions that +ocus solely on stateto: state interaction, sim'ly !ecause
IR discussions traditionally remain +ocused on states as the 2ey actors) Thus, the to'ic o+ security shows how gender
consideration, e4cluded +rom the 1ery !eginning o+ the discussion, results in 'olicyma2ing that would !e
su!se5uently e4clusi1e o+, and li2ely detrimental to , women )
2
Feminism Kritik 1NC
*. The affs preoupation !ith military presene is part of a larger pro#et of risis+"ased politis.
,ar is not an e$ent "ut rather a ontinual fore that auses $iolene.
Cuomo -. -Chris #) Hy'atia, Dar is not *ust an e1ent: Re+lections on the signi+icance o+ e1eryday Eiolence",
9loomington: Fall CBB>) Eol) CC, Iss) ;F 'g) G%.
Hhiloso'hical attention to war has ty'ically a''eared in the +orm o+ *usti+ications +or entering into war,
and o1er a''ro'riate acti1ities within war) The s'atial meta'hors used to re+er to war as a se'arate, !ounded s'here
indicate assum'tions that war is a realm o+ human acti1ity 1astly remo1ed +rom normal li+e, or a sort o+
ha''ening that is a''ro'riately concei1ed a'art +rom e1eryday e1ents in 'eace+ul times) Iot sur'risingly, most
discussions o+ the 'olitical and ethical dimensions o+ war discuss war solely as an e1ent :: an occurrence,
or collection o+ occurrences, ha1ing clear !eginnings and endings that are ty'ically mar2ed !y +ormal, institutional
declarations) <s ha''enings, wars and military acti1ities can !e seen as moti1ated !y identi+ia!le, i+ com'le4, intentions,
and directly enacted !y indi1idual and collecti1e decision:ma2ers and agents o+ states) 9ut many o+ the 5uestions
a!out war that are o+ interest to +eminist s :: including how large:scale, state:s'onsored 1iolence a++ects women and
mem!ers o+ other o''ressed grou'sF how military 1iolence sha'es gendered, raced, and nationalistic 'olitical realities and
moral imaginationsF what such 1iolence consists o+ and why it 'ersistsF how it is related to other o''ressi1e and 1iolent
institutions and hegemonies :: cannot !e ade5uately 'ursued !y +ocusing on e1ents) These issues are not merely a
matter o+ good or !ad intentions and identi+ia!le decisions) In J@ender and KHostmodernL Dar,J Ro!in Schott introduces
some o+ the ways in which war is currently !est seen not as an e1ent !ut as a 'resence -Schott CBB&.) Schott
argues that 'ostmodern understandings o+ 'ersons, states, and 'olitics, as well as the high:tech nature o+
much contem'orary war+are and the 're'onderance o+ ci1il and nationalist wars, render an e1ent!ased
conce'tion o+ war inade5uate, es'ecially inso+ar as gender is ta2en into account) In this essay, I will e4'and
u'on her argument !y showing that accounts o+ war that only +ocus on e1ents are im'o1erished in a num!er o+ ways, and
there+ore +eminist consideration o+ the 'olitical, ethical, and ontological dimensions o+ war and the
'ossi!ilities +or resistance demand a much more com'licated a''roach) I ta2e SchottLs characterization o+ war
as 'resence as a 'oint o+ de'arture, though I am not committed to the idea that the constancy o+ militarism, the +act o+ its
omni'resence in human e4'erience, and the 'aucity o+ an e1ent:!ased account o+ war are e4clusi1e to contem'orary
'ostmodern or 'ostcolonial circumstances)-C. T heory that does not in1estigate or e1en notice the omni'resence
o+ militarism cannot re'resent or address the de'th and s'eci+icity o+ the e1eryday e++ects o+ militarism
on women, on 'eo'le li1ing in occu'ied territories, on mem!ers o+ military institutions, and on the en1ironment) These
e++ects are rele1ant to +eminists in a num!er o+ ways !ecause military 'ractices and institutions hel' construct
gendered and national identity, and !ecause they *usti+y the destruction o+ natural nonhuman entities and
communities during 'eacetime) ac2 o+ attention to these as'ects o+ the !usiness o+ ma2ing or 're1enting military
1iolence in an e4tremely technologized world results in theory that cannot accommodate the connections among the
constant 'resence o+ militarism, declared wars, and other closely related social 'henomena, such as nationalistic
glori+ications o+ motherhood, media 1iolence, and current ideological gra1itations to military solutions +or social 'ro!lems)
3
Feminism Kritik 1NC
/. 0mpats This patriarhy !ill result in e1tintion and is the root ause of all impats.
Nhanenge *((2
-#ytte, 8asters M U South <+rica, <cce'ted Thesis Ha'er +or =e1elo'ment Studies, 7C0F78IIS8: T0D<R=S
IIT7@R<TII@ TH7 C0IC7RIS 0F D087I, H00R H70H7 <I= I<TUR7 IIT0 =7E70H87IT,
uir)unisa)ac)za(!itstream(C%&%%(&?%(C(dissertation)'d+.
The androcentric 'remises also ha1e 'olitical conse5uences) They 'rotect the ideological !asis o+
e4'loitati1e relationshi's) 8ilitarism, colonialism, racism, se4ism, ca'italism and other 'athological
LismsL o+ modernity get legitimacy +rom the assum'tion that 'ower relations and hierarchy are ine1ita!ly
a 'art o+ human society, due to manLs inherent nature) 9ecause when man2ind !y nature is autonomous,
com'etiti1e and 1iolent -i)e) masculine. then coercion and hierarchical structures are necessary to manage con+licts and
maintain social order) In this way, the coo'erati1e relationshi's such as those +ound among some women and tri!al cultures,
are !y a dualised de+inition unrealistic and uto'ian) -9ir2eland CBB&: &B.) This means that 'ower relations are generated !y
uni1ersal scienti+ic truths a!out human nature, rather than !y 'olitical and social de!ate) The conse5uence is that 'eo'le
cannot challenge the !asis o+ the 'ower structure !ecause they !elie1e it is the scienti+ic truth, so it cannot !e otherwise) In
this way, militarism is *usti+ied as !eing una1oida!le, regardless o+ its 'atent irrationality) i2ewise, i+ the
scienti+ic JtruthJ were that humans would always com'ete +or a greater share o+ resources, then the rational res'onse to the
en1ironmental crisis would seem to !e Jdog:eat:dogJ sur1i1alism) This creates a sel+:+ul+illing 'ro'hecy in which
nature and community sim'ly cannot sur1i1e ) -9ir2eland CBB&: &B.) This ty'e o+ social and 'olitical 'ower structure
is 2e't in 'lace !y social 'olicies) It is !ased on the assum'tion that i+ the scienti+ic method is a''lied to 'u!lic 'olicy then
social 'lanning can !e done +ree +rom normati1e 1alues) Howe1er, according to Ha!ermas -Reitzes CBBG: ;%. the scienti+ic
method only conceal 're:e4isting, unre+lected social interests and 're:scienti+ic decisions) Conse5uently, also social scientists
a''ly the scienti+ic characteristics o+ o!*ecti1ity, 1alue:+reedom, rationality and 5uanti+ia!ility to social li+e) In this way, they
assume they can un1eil uni1ersal laws a!out social relations, which will lead to true 2nowledge) 9ased on this, correct social
'olicies can !e +ormulated) Thus, social 'rocesses are e4cluded, while scienti+ic o!*ecti1e +acts are included) Society is
assumed a static entity, where no changes are 'ossi!le) 9y 'romoting a 'ermanent character, social science
legitimizes the e4isting social order, while o!scuring the relations o+ domination and su!ordination,
which is 2ee'ing the e4isting 'ower relations inaccessi!le to analysis) The +rozen order also ma2es it
im'ossi!le to de1elo' alternati1e e4'lanations a!out social reality) It 're1ents a historical and 'olitical understanding o+
reality and denies the 'ossi!ility +or social trans+ormation !y human agency) The 're1ailing condition is seen as an
una1oida!le +act) This im'lies that human !eings are 'assi1e and that domination is a natural +orce, +or which no one is
res'onsi!le) This 'ermits the state +reely to im'lement laws and 'olicies, which are controlling and coerci1e) These are seen
as !eing correct, !ecause they are !ased on scienti+ic +acts made !y scienti+ic e4'erts) 0ne result is that the state,
without consulting the 'u!lic, engages in a 'athological 'ursuit o+ economic growth)
NContinuedN
Technology can !e used to dominate societies or to enhance them) Thus !oth science and technology could ha1e de1elo'ed in
a di++erent direction) 9ut due to 'atriarchal 1alues in+iltrated in science the ty'e o+ technology de1elo'ed is
meant to dominate, o''ress, e4'loit and 2ill ) 0ne reason is that 'atriarchal societies identi+y masculinity with
con5uest) Thus any technical inno1ation will continue to !e a tool +or more e++ecti1e o''ression and e4'loitation) The highest
'riority seems to !e gi1en to technology that destroys li+e) 8odern societies are dominated !y masculine
institutions and 'atriarchal ideologies) Their technologies 're1ailed in <uschwitz, =resden, Hiroshima,
Iagasa2i, Eietnam, Iran, Ira5, <+ghanistan and in many other 'arts o+ the world) Hatriarchal 'ower has
!rought us acid rain, glo!al warming, military states, 'o1erty and countless cases o+ su++ering ) De ha1e
seen men whose 'ower has caused them to lose all sense o+ reality, decency and imagination, and we
must +ear such 'ower) The ultimate result o+ unchec2ed 'atriarchy will !e ecological catastro'he and
nuclear holocaust)

Feminism Kritik 1NC
Alternati$e Te1t ,e should su"stantially inrease our physial and3or intelletual presene in
feminist international relations ritiism and redeploy all efforts to!ard a re#etion of the
affirmati$e.
4. &e#et the affirmati$es gendered !orld$ie! our feminist methodologial ritiism dispro$es
the $alidity and the desira"ility of the 1AC.
Tikner *((1
[<nn, 'ro+essor at the School o+ International Relations USC) 9)<) in History, Uni1ersity o+ ondon) 8)<) in IR, Oale) Hh=
+rom 9randeis Uni1ersity, @endering Dorld Holitics: Issues and <''roaches in the Host:Cold Dar 7ra, PU7STI<,
Dhen we treat indi1iduals as the o!*ects o+ security, we o'en u' the 'ossi!ility o+ tal2ing a!out a
transcendent human community with common glo!al concerns and allow engagement with the !roadest
glo!al threats) ;C The theme o+ emanci'ation is one that runs through much o+ the criticalsecurity studies literature)
7manci'atory critical security can !e de+ined as +reeing 'eo'le as indi1iduals and grou's +rom the social, 'hysical, economic,
and 'olitical constraints that 're1ent them +rom carrying out what they would +reely choose to do) ;$ < 'ostrealist,
'ost'ositi1ist emanci'atory notion o+ security o++ers the 'romise o+ ma4imizing the security and im'ro1ing the li1es o+ the
whole o+ human2ind: it is a security studies o+ inclusion rather than e4clusion) ;G
Oet imagining security di1ested o+ its statist connotations is 'ro!lematicF the institutions o+ state 'ower are not withering
away) <s R) 9) #) Dal2er has claimed, the state is a 'olitical category in a way that the world or humanity is not) ;; The
security o+ states dominates our understanding o+ what security can !e !ecause other +orms o+ 'olitical
community ha1e !een rendered unthin2a!le) Oet, as Dal2er goes on to say, gi1en the dangers o+ nuclear
wea'ons, we are no longer a!le to sur1i1e in a world 'redicated on an e4treme logic o+ state
so1ereignty, nor one where war is an o'tion +or system change) There+ore , we must re1ise our
understanding o+ the relationshi' !etween uni1ersality and 'articularity u'on which a statist conce't o+
security has !een constructed) Security must !e analyzed in terms o+ how contem'orary insecurities are
!eing created and !y a sensiti1ity to the way in which 'eo'le are res'onding to insecurities !y
rewor2ing their understanding o+ how their own 'redicament +its into !roader structures o+ 1iolence and
o''ression) ;& Feminists Qwith their !ottom:u'" a''roach to security, an ontology o+ social relations, and an
emanci'atory agendaQare !eginning to underta2e such reanalyses) Critical:security studies challenges realism on !oth
ontological and e'istemological grounds) 8any o+ its adherents argue +or a !roader de+inition o+ security, lin2ed to
*ustice and emanci'ationF a conce't o+ security that starts with the indi1idual allows +or a glo!al de+inition o+ security that
mo1es !eyond hierarchical !inary distinctions !etween order and anarchy and inside and outside) <lthough not all critical:
security scholars are willing to dis'ense with state:centric analysis, all agree that an e4amination o+ statesL identities is crucial
+or understanding their security:see2ing !eha1ior) 8ost +eminist scholarshi' on security also em'loys a di++erent ontology
and e'istemology +rom con1entional security studies) Reluctant to !e associated with either side o+ the realist(idealist de!ate,
+or reasons outlined in cha'ter C, and generally s2e'tical o+ rationalist, scienti+ic claims to uni1ersality and o!*ecti1ity, most
+eminist scholarshi' on security is com'ati!le with the critical side o+ the third de!ate) Puestioning the role o+ states as
ade5uate security 'ro1iders, many +eminists ha1e ado'ted a multidimensional, multile1el a''roach, similar to some o+ the
e++orts to !roaden the de+inition o+ security descri!ed a!o1e) FeministsL commitment to the emanci'atory goal o+
ending womenLs su!ordination is consistent with a !road de+inition o+ security t hat ta2es the indi1idual,
situated in !roader social structures, as its starting 'oint) Feminists see2 to understand how the security
o+ indi1iduals and grou's is com'romised !y 1iolence, !oth 'hysical and structural, at all le1els)
Feminists generally share the 1iew o+ other critical scholars that culture and identity and inter'reti1e !ottom u'" modes o+
analysis are crucial +or understanding security issues and that emanci'atory 1isions o+ security must get !eyond
statist +ramewor2s) They di++er, howe1er, in that they ado't gender as a central category o+ analysis +or understanding
how une5ual social structures, 'articularly gender hierarchies, negati1ely im'act the security o+ indi1iduals and grou's)
!
Feminism Kritik 1NC
Challenging the myth that wars are +ought to 'rotect women, children, and others stereoty'ically 1iewed
as 1ulnera!le," +eminists 'oint to the high le1el o+ ci1ilian casualties in contem'orary wars) Feminist
scholarshi' has !een 'articularly concerned with what goes on during wars, es'ecially the im'act o+ war on women and
ci1ilians more generally) Dhereas con1entional security studies has tended to loo2 at causes and conse5uences
o+ wars +rom a to':down, or structural, 'ers'ecti1e, +eminists ha1e generally ta2en a !ottom:u' a''roach, analyzing
the im'act o+ war at the microle1el) 9y so doing, as well as ado'ting gender as a category o+ analysis, +eminists
!elie1e they can tell us something new a!out the causes o+ war that is missing +rom !oth con1entional
and critical 'ers'ecti1es) 9y crossing what many +eminists !elie1e to !e mutually constituti1e le1els o+ analysis, we get
a !etter understanding o+ the interrelationshi' !etween all +orms o+ 1iolence and the e4tent to which
un*ust social relations, including gender hierarchies, contri!ute to insecurity , !roadly de+ined)
Claiming that the security:see2ing !eha1ior o+ states is descri!ed in gendered terms, +eminists ha1e 'ointed to the
masculinity o+ strategic discourse and how this may im'act on understanding o+ and 'rescri'tions +or securityF it may also
hel' to e4'lain why womenLs 1oices ha1e so o+ten !een seen as inauthentic in matters o+ national security) Feminists ha1e
e4amined how states legitimate their security:see2ing !eha1ior through a''eals to ty'es o+ hegemonic" masculinity) They
are also in1estigating the e4tent to which state and national identities, which can lead to con+lict, are !ased on gendered
constructions) The 1alorization o+ war through its identi+ication with a heroic 2ind o+ masculinity de'ends
on a +eminized, de1alued notion o+ 'eace seen as unattaina!le and unrealistic) Since +eminists !elie1e
that gender is a 1aria!le social construction, they claim that there is nothing ine1ita!le a!out these
gendered distinctionsF thus, their analyses o+ten include the emanci'atory goal o+ 'ostulating a di++erent
de+inition o+ security less de'endent on !inary and une5ual gender hierarchies)
"
555*NC /L6CK7555
*NC Link 0&
81tend 1NC link &90: () that 0nternational relations are patriarhal and refuse to "e $ie!ed
through a gender lens. This e$idene is s!eet "eause not only is &ui' a !ell kno!n feminist 0&
thinker; "ut it also gi$es diret e1amples of ho! deeply rooted in patriarhal ideas 0nternational
relations has al!ays "een. ,inning this argument means that the Affirmati$e<s entire plan; "y
!orking through a go$ernment and through international relations; is patriarhal; and should "e
re#eted.
Traditional international relation theories ha$e failed us the plan is an e1tension of a militaristi
mindset that fouses on seurity at the e1pensi$e of more personal forms of suffering. Any
produti$e in$estigation into this years topi must "egin !ith an interrogation of this fore
through a gendered lens.
Tikner -* -#) <nne Tic2ner, <ssociate Hro+essor o+ Holitical Science at the College o+ the Holy Cross, @7I=7R II
IIT7RI<TI0I< R7<TI0IS, CBB$, htt's:((wwwc)cc)colum!ia)edu(sec(dlc(ciao(!oo2(tic2ner(tic2nerC$)html.
The dramatic e1ents o+ the late CBA%s and early CBB%s !rought to light many o+ the shortcomings in
realist e4'lanations noted !y critics +or some time ) Dhereas the world wars o+ the +irst hal+ o+ the
twentieth century in1ol1ed the transgression o+ great 'owers across international !oundaries, most o+ the
con+licts o+ the second hal+ ha1e ta2en 'lace inside or across the !oundaries o+ wea2 states) <lthough they
ha1e +re5uently in1ol1ed at least one o+ the great 'owers, many o+ these con+licts ha1e not !een +ought to 'rotect
international !oundaries !ut o1er ethnic or religious issues, or issues o+ national identity and national
li!eration) The militarization o+ the South, with wea'ons sold or gi1en !y the Iorth, has resulted in a situation where!y the
state is o+ten 'ercei1ed, not as a 'rotector against outside dangers, !ut as the ultimate threat to the security o+ its ci1ilian
'o'ulation) The 'recarious armed 'eace that characterized the relationshi' !etween the two su'er'owers during the Cold
Dar owed whate1er sta!ility it achie1ed not to military strength !ut to the threat o+ nuclear o!literation o+ winners and losers
ali2e: nuclear wea'ons and other modern military technologies continue to 'ose the threat o+ mass destruction) These new
threats to security demand new solutions 5uite at odds with the 'ower 'olitics 'rescri'tions o+ traditional
international relations theor y ) <s we +ace the 'ros'ect that, !y the year $%%%, A% 'ercent o+ the worldLs 'o'ulation will
li1e in the South, we in the Dest can no longer a++ord to 'ri1ilege a tradition o+ scholarshi' that +ocuses on the concerns and
am!itions o+ the great 'owers) Faced with a stu!!orn ga' in li1ing standards !etween the rich and the 'oor that some
o!ser1ers dou!t can e1er !e o1ercome, realist 'rescri'tion s o+ sel+:hel' are ina''ro'riate F the health o+ the glo!al
economy de'ends on the health o+ all its mem!ers) 7n1ironmental degradation, a relati1ely new item on the agenda o+
international relations, threatens rich and 'oor ali2e and a''ears intransigent to state:centered solutions) <long with the
traditional issues o+ war and 'eace, the disci'line o+ international relations is increasingly challenged !y
the necessity o+ analyzing the realities o+ economic and ecological interde'endence and +inding ways o+
mitigating their negati1e conse5uences) De must also +ace the reality o+ how easily these wider security
issues, which threaten the sur1i1al o+ the earth and all its inha!itants, disa''ear +rom the agenda when
military crises escalate) <s Sarah 9rown suggests, a genuinely emanci'atory +eminist international relations
will ta2e gender di++erence as its starting 'oint !ut it will not ta2e it as gi1en) Dhile attem'ting to
e4'lain how gender has !een constructed and maintained in international relations, we must also see
how it can !e remo1ed) < world that is more secure +or us all cannot !e achie1ed until the o''ressi1e
gender hierarchies that o'erate to +rame the way in which we thin2 a!out and engage in international
'olitics are dismantled)
#
*NC Link ,ar
The affirmati$es depition of !ar and peae as definite is misleadingmilitarism is on going and
per$ades the e$ery day life of its $itims; e$en during =peae time.>
7hepherd *((?
@Laura A. 7hepherd; 4epartment of Bolitial 7iene and 0nternational 7tudies; 9ni$ersity of /irmingham;
=Cender; Diolene and Clo"al BolitisE Contemporary 4e"ates in Feminist 7eurity 7tudies;>
httpE33!!!F.intersiene.!iley.om3gi+"in3fullte1t31**F(**)*3GTHL7TA&T
<s discussed a!o1e, ideas a!out masculinity and +emininity, dignity and sacri+ice may not only !e 1iolent in
themsel1es , !ut are also the 'roduct('roducti1e o+ 'hysical 1iolences ) Dith this in mind, the +eminist
argument that L'eacetimeL is analytically misleading is a 1alid one) 0+ interest are the Lin:!etween daysL and the
ways in which la!eling 'eriods o+ war or 'eace as such can di1ert attention away +rom the myriad
1iolences that in+orm and rein+orce social !eha1iour)[D,ar can surely ne1er !e said to start and end at a clearly
de+ined moment) Rather, it seems 'art o+ a continuum o+ con+lict, e4'ressed now in armed +orce, now in economic
sanctions or 'olitical 'ressure) < time o+ su''osed 'eace may come later to !e called Lthe 're:war 'eriodL) =uring the +ighting
o+ a war, unseen !y the +oot soldiers under +ire, 'eace 'rocesses are o+ten already at wor2) < time o+ 'ostwar reconstruction,
later, may !e re:designated as an inter !ellumR a mere 'ause !etween wars -Coc2!urn and Sar2o1, cited in 7l #ac2, $%%G, ')
B.) Feminist security studies interrogates the 'auses !etween wars, and the 'olitical 'rocesses R and
'ractices o+ 'ower R that demarcate times as such) In doing so, not only is the remit o+ recognisa!le
1iolence -1iolence worthy o+ study. e4'anded , !ut so too are the 'arameters o+ what counts as IR) 71eryday
1iolences and acts o+ e1eryday resistance -La +ashion show, a tour, a small dis'lay o+ childrenLs !oo2sL in 7nloe, $%%?,
'') CC?R$%. are the stu++ o+ relations international and, thus, o+ a com'rehensi1e understanding o+ security) In the
+ollowing section I outline the ways in which ta2ing these claims seriously allows us to engage critically
with the re'resentations o+ international relations that in+orm our research, with 'otentially 'ro+ound
im'lications)
$
*NC 0mpat Calulus

The Kritik out!eighs the plan for three reasonsE
1. Hagnitude+ Traditional 0nternational &elations neglets e$eryday $iolene !hih has
destroyed more li$es and killed more people than all !ars om"ined
*. The impats of the plan are "ased on preisely the fla!ed patriarhal $ie!point !e riti%ue
F. Batriarhy is the root ause of all systemi; utilitarian; and deontologial impats "eause it
is disassoiation that underlies all $iolene and oppression. Gierarhal dihotomies "eome
institutionali'ed and inorporated into e1isting strutural ine%ualities.
Batriarhy is the root ause of all impats nulear !ar; en$ironmental destrution; and domesti
$iolene. Challenging patriarhy key to pre$ent e1tintion.
,arren and Cady -. -Taren and =uane, <ssistant Hro+s, 8acalester Uni1ersity and Hamline Uni1ersity, 9ringing
'eace home: +eminism, 1iolence, and nature, ') C$:CG.
0'erationalized, the e1idence o+ 'atriarchy as a dys+unctional system is +ound in the !eha1iors to which it gi1es rise, -c. the
unmanagea!ility, -d. which results) For e4am'le, in the United States, current estimates are that one out o+ e1ery three or +our
women will !e ra'ed !y someone she 2nowsF glo!ally, ra'e, se4ual harassment, s'ouse:!eating, and sado:masochistic
'ornogra'hy are e4am'les o+ !eha1iors 'ractices, sanctioned, or tolerated within 'atriarchy) In the realm o+
en1ironmentally destructi1e !eha1iors, stri':mining, +actory +arming, and 'ollution o+ the air, water, and soil are
instances o+ !eha1iors maintained and sanctioned within 'atriarchy) They, too, rest on the +aulty !elie+s that it is o2ay
to ra'e the earth," that it is man3s @od:gi1en right" to ha1e dominion -that is, domination. o1er the earth, that nature has
only instrumental 1alue, that en1ironmental destruction is the acce'ta!le 'rice we 'ay +or 'rogress)" <nd the
'resum'tion o+ warism, that war is a natural, righteous , and ordinary way to im'ose dominion on a 'eo'le or
nation, goes hand in hand with 'atriarchy and leads to dys+unctional !eha1iors o+ nations and ultimately to
international unmanagea!ility) 8uch o+ the current unmanagea!ility" o+ contem'orary li+e in 'atriarchal societies, -d., is
then 1iewed as a conse5uence o+ a 'atriarchal 'reoccu'ation with acti1ities , e1ents, and e4'eriences that re+lect
historically male:gender:identi+ied !elie+s, 1alues, attitudes, and assum'tions) Included among these real:li+e
conse5uences are 'recisely those concerns with nuclear 'roli+eration, war, en1ironmental destruction, and
1iolence towards women, which many +eminists see as the logical outgrowth o+ 'atriarchal thin2ing) In +act, it is o+ten
only through o!ser1ing these dys+unctional !eha1iorsQthe sym'toms o+ dys+unctionalityQthat one can truly see
that and how 'atriarchy ser1es to maintain and 'er'etuate them) Dhen 'atriarchy is understood as a
dys+unctional system, this unmanagea!ility" can !e seen +or what it isQas a 'redicta!le and thus logical conse5uence o+
'atriarchy) The theme that glo!al en1ironmental crises, war, and 1iolence generally are 'redicta!le and logical conse5uences
o+ se4ism and 'atriarchal culture is 'er1asi1e in eco+eminist literature) 7co+eminist Charlene S'retna2, +or instance, argues
that a militarism and war+are are continual +eatures o+ a 'atriarchal society !ecause they re+lect and instill 'atriarchal 1alues
and +ul+ill needs o+ such a system) <c2nowledging the conte4t o+ 'atriarchal conce'tualizations that +eed
militarism is a +irst ste' toward reducing their im'act and 'reser1ing li+e on 7arth )" Stated in terms o+ the
+oregoing model o+ 'atriarchy as a dys+unctional social system, the claims !y S'retna2 and other +eminists ta2e on a clearer
meaning: Hatriarchal conce'tual +ramewor2s legitimate im'aired thin2ing -a!out women, national and regional
con+lict, the en1ironment. which is mani+ested in !eha1iors which, i+ continued, will ma2e li+e on earth di++icult, i+
not im'ossi!le ) It is a star2 message, !ut it is 'lausi!le) Its 'lausi!ility lies in understanding the conce'tual roots o+ 1arious
woman:nature:'eace connections in regional, national, and glo!al conte4ts)

%
*NC Alternati$e
81tend the 1NC Tikner (1 e$ideneadopting a feminist perspeti$e on international relations is
key to understanding the e$eryday !ars and $iolene that harateri'e the status %uo. ,e must
transend traditional statist seuriti'ation methods "y inorporating gender into our
onsiderations of !orld politis. 6nly our approah an sol$egendered analyses deonstrut the
realist seuriti'ation that !e ritii'e. 6ur ard aounts for years of on$entional seuriti'ation
and speifies that our method is the only one that an emanipate the !orld from patriarhal
su"ordination.
Brefer Tiknershes a %ualified Brofessor of 0nternational &elations at 97C and has !ritten
many "ooks on the topi.
AN4;
6nly a gendered ritiism of traditional 0& theory an effeti$ely hallenge the $iolene per$ading
e$eryday life.
7hepherd *((? [aura #) She'herd, =e'artment o+ Holitical Science and International Studies, Uni1ersity o+ 9irmingham,
@ender, Eiolence and @lo!al Holitics: Contem'orary =e!ates in Feminist Security Studies,"
htt':((wwwG)interscience)wiley)com(cgi:!in(+ullte4t(C$$G%$$&$(HT8ST<RT
<ll o+ the te4ts under discussion in this essay argue that it is im'erati1e to e4'lore and e4'ose gendered 'ower
relations and, +urther, that doing so not only ena!les a rigorous criti5ue o+ realism in IR !ut also reminds
us as scholars o+ the need +or such a criti5ue) The criti5ues o+ IR o++ered !y +eminist scholars are
grounded in a re*ection o+ neo:realism(realism as a dominant intellectual +ramewor2 +or academics in the
disci'line and 'olicy ma2ers ali2e) <s 7nloe reminds us, Lthe go1ernment:centred, militarized 1ersion o+
national security [deri1ed +rom a realist +ramewor2, remains the dominant mode o+ 'olicy thin2ingL
-7nloe, $%%?, ') ;G.) Situating gender as a central category o+ analysis encourages us to Lthin2 outside
the Jstate security !o4JL -') ;?. and to remem!er that Lthe Jindi1idualsJ o+ glo!al 'olitics do not wor2 alone, li1e alone or
'olitic alone R they do so in interde'endent relationshi's with othersL -S*o!erg and @entry, $%%A, ') $%%. that are
inherently gendered) 0ne o+ the 2ey analytical contri!utions o+ all three te4ts is the way in which they
all challenge what it means to !e LdoingL IR, !y recognising 1arious +orms o+ 1iolence, interrogating the
'u!lic('ri1ate di1ide and demanding that attention is 'aid to the tem'oral and 'hysical s'aces in:
!etween war and 'eace )
10
A*E Berm
Berm failsritiism of state "ased approahes must persist.
7hepherd *((? [aura #) She'herd, =e'artment o+ Holitical Science and International Studies, Uni1ersity o+
9irmingham, @ender, Eiolence and @lo!al Holitics: Contem'orary =e!ates in Feminist Security Studies,"
htt':((wwwG)interscience)wiley)com(cgi:!in(+ullte4t(C$$G%$$&$(HT8ST<RT
I ha1e also argued that critical engagement with con1entional, state:!ased a''roaches to -national. security
must 'ersist as the academic discourses we write are com'licit in the construction o+ the glo!al as we
understand it) Further, Li+ all e4'erience is gendered, analysis o+ gendered identities is an im'erati1e
starting 'oint in the study o+ 'olitical identities and 'racticeL -Heterson, CBBB, ') G?.) To this end, I conclude !y
suggesting that we ta2e seriously 7nloeLs +inal comment: LTrac2ing militarization and +ostering demilitarization
will call +or coo'erati1e in1estigations, multi'le s2ills and the a''reciation o+ di1erse 'ers'ecti1esL -$%%?,
') C>;.)
Berm failsno net "enefit all aff truth laims are suspet. Iou ant perm a method Kritik.
Beterson -* [E) S'i2e Heterson, @endered States: Feminist -re.1isions o+ International Relations Theory", CBB$,
htt':((www)5uestia)com(read(BACAB?$%/titleU@enderedV$%StatesVGaV$%FeministV$%V$AReV$BEisionsV$%o+
V$%InternationalV$%RelationsV$%TheoryW,
DomenLs e4'erience systematically di++ers +rom the male e4'erience u'on which 2nowledge claims
ha1e !een grounded) Thus the e4'erience on which the 're1ailing claims to social and natural 2nowledge
are +ounded is, +irst o+ all, only 'artial human e4'erience only 'artially understood: namely, masculine
e4'erience as understood !y men) Howe1er, when this e4'erience is 'resumed to !e gender:+reeQwhen
the male e4'erience is ta2en to !e the human e4'erienceQthe resulting theories, conce'ts,
methodologies, in5uiry goals and 2nowledge:claims distort human social li+e and human thought)
Bolitial ation re+entrenhes patriarhy.
Nhanenge *((2 -#ytte, 8asters M U South <+rica, <cce'ted Thesis Ha'er +or =e1elo'ment Studies, 7C0F78IIS8:
T0D<R=S IIT7@R<TII@ TH7 C0IC7RIS 0F D087I, H00R H70H7 <I= I<TUR7 IIT0 =7E70H87IT,
uir)unisa)ac)za(!itstream(C%&%%(&?%(C(dissertation)'d+.
The androcentric 'remises also ha1e 'olitical conse5uences) They 'rotect the ideological !asis o+
e4'loitati1e relationshi's) 8ilitarism, colonialism, racism, se4ism, ca'italism and other 'athological
LismsL o+ modernity get legitimacy +rom the assum'tion that 'ower relations and hierarchy are ine1ita!ly
a 'art o+ human society, due to manLs inherent nature) 9ecause when man2ind !y nature is autonomous,
com'etiti1e and 1iolent -i)e) masculine. then coercion and hierarchical structures are necessary to
manage con+licts and maintain social order) In this way, the coo'erati1e relationshi's such as those +ound among
some women and tri!al cultures, are !y a dualised de+inition unrealistic and uto'ian) -9ir2eland CBB&: &B.) This means that
'ower relations are generated !y uni1ersal scienti+ic truths a!out human nature, rather than !y 'olitical and social de!ate)
The conse5uence is that 'eo'le cannot challenge the !asis o+ the 'ower structure !ecause they !elie1e it is the scienti+ic
truth, so it cannot !e otherwise) In this way, militarism is *usti+ied as !eing una1oida!le, regardless o+ its
'atent irrationality) i2ewise, i+ the scienti+ic JtruthJ were that humans would always com'ete +or a greater share o+
resources, then the rational res'onse to the en1ironmental crisis would seem to !e Jdog:eat:dogJ sur1i1alism) This creates
a sel+:+ul+illing 'ro'hecy in which nature and community sim'ly cannot sur1i1e) -9ir2eland CBB&: &B. This
ty'e o+ social and 'olitical 'ower structure is 2e't in 'lace !y social 'olicies) It is !ased on the assum'tion
that i+ the scienti+ic method is a''lied to 'u!lic 'olicy then social 'lanning can !e done +ree +rom normati1e 1alues)
Howe1er, according to Ha!ermas -Reitzes CBBG: ;%. the scienti+ic method only conceal 're:e4isting, unre+lected social
interests and 're:scienti+ic decisions)
11
A*E Cede the Bolitial
Turn 6ur ritial and poststrutural stane is the only effeti$e politial strategy. The politial
has already "een eded to the right"roadening the sope of politis is key to effeti$e
engagement.
Crondin *((J [=a1id, master o+ 'ol sci and Hh= o+ 'olitical studies M U o+ 0ttowa -Re.Driting the Iational Security
State": How and Dhy Realists -Re.9uilt the-ir. Cold Dar,"
htt':((www)er)u5am)ca(no!el(ieim(I8@('d+(rewritingXnationalXsecurityXstate)'d+,
< 'oststructuralist a''roach to international relations reassesses the nature o+ the 'olitical) Indeed, it calls
+or the re'oliticization o+ 'ractices o+ world 'olitics that ha1e !een treated as i+ they were not 'olitical) For
instance, limiting the ontological elements in one3s in5uiry to states or great 'owers is a 'olitical choice) <s #enny 7d2ins
'uts it, we need to !ring the 'olitical !ac2 in" -7d2ins, CBBA: 4ii.) For most analysts o+ International Relations, the
conce'tion o+ the 'olitical" is narrowly restricted to 'olitics as 'racticed !y 'oliticians) Howe1er, +rom a 'oststructuralist
1iew'oint, the 'olitical" ac5uires a !roader meaning, es'ecially since 'ractice is not what most theorists are descri!ing as
'ractice) Hoststructuralism sees theoretical discourse not only as discourse, !ut also as 'olitical 'ractice) Theory there+ore
!ecomes 'ractice) The 'olitical s'ace o+ 'oststructuralism is not that o+ e4clusionF it is the 'olitical s'ace o+
'ostmodernity, a dichotomous one, where one thing always signi+ies at least one thing and another -Finlayson and Ealentine,
$%%$: C;.) Hoststructuralism thus gi1es 'rimacy to the 'olitical, since it acts on us, while we act in its name, and
leads us to identi+y and di++erentiate oursel1es +rom others) This 'olitical act is ne1er com'lete and
cele!rates undecida!ility, whereas decisions, when ta2en, e4'ress the 'olitical moment) It is a critical
attitude which encourages dissidence +rom traditional a''roaches -<shley and Dal2er, CBB%a and CBB%!.) It
does not re'resent one single 'hiloso'hical a''roach or 'ers'ecti1e, nor is it an alternati1e 'aradigm -T1athail, CBB>: C?$.)
It is a non'lace, a !order line +alling !etween international and domestic 'olitics -<shley, CBAB.) The 'oststructuralist
analyst 5uestions the !orderlines and dichotomies o+ modernist discourses, such as inside(outside, the constitution o+ the
Sel+(0ther, and so on) In the act o+ de+inition, di++erence R there!y the discourse o+ otherness R is highlighted, since one
always de+ines an o!*ect with regard to what it is not -Tna+o, $%%;.) <s Simon =al!y asserts, It in1ol1es the social
construction o+ some other 'erson, grou', culture, race, nationality or 'olitical system as di++erent +rom 6our3 'erson, grou',
etc) S'eci+ying di++erence is a linguistic, e'istemological and, most im'ortantly, a 'olitical actF it constructs a s'ace +or the
other distanced and in+erior +rom the 1antage 'oint o+ the 'erson s'eci+ying the di++erence" -=al!y, cited in T1athail, CBB>:
C?B.) Indeed, 'oststructuralism o++ers no de+initi1e answers, !ut leads to new 5uestions and new une4'lored grounds) This
ma2es the commitment to the incom'lete nature o+ the 'olitical and o+ 'olitical analysis so central to 'oststructuralism
-Finlayson and Ealentine, $%%$: C&.) <s #im @eorge writes, It is 'ostmodern resistance in the sense that while it is directly
-and sometimes 1iolently. engaged with modernity, it see2s to go !eyond the re'ressi1e, closed as'ects o+ modernist glo!al
e4istence) It is, there+ore, not a resistance o+ traditional grand:scale emanci'ation or con1entional radicalism im!ued with
authority o+ one or another so1ereign 'resence) Rather, in o''osing the large:scale !rutality and ine5uity in human society,
it is a resistance acti1e also at the e1eryday, com: munity, neigh!ourhood, and inter'ersonal le1els, where it con+ronts those
'rocesses that systematically e4clude 'eo'le +rom ma2ing decisions a!out who they are and what they can !e" -@eorge,
CBB;: $C&, em'hasis in original.) In this light, 'oststructural 'ractices are used critically to in1estigate how the
su!*ect o+ international relations is constituted in and through the discourses and te4ts o+ glo!al
'olitics) Treating theory as discourse o'ens u' the 'ossi!ility o+ historicizing it) It is a myth that theory can !e a!stracted
+rom its socio:historical conte4t, +rom reality, so to s'ea2, as neorealists and neoclassical realists !elie1e) It is a 'olitical
'ractice which needs to !e conte4tualized and stri''ed o+ its 'ur'ortedly neutral status) It must !e
understood with res'ect to its role in 'reser1ing and re'roducing the structures and 'ower relations 'resent in all language
+orms) =ominant theories are, in this 1iew, dominant discourses that sha'e our 1iew o+ the world -the su!*ect". and our
ways o+ understanding it)

12
A*E Cede the Bolitial
And; the politial has already "een ededits try or die for the alternati$e.
Crondin *((J [=a1id, master o+ 'ol sci and Hh= o+ 'olitical studies M U o+ 0ttowa -Re.Driting the Iational Security
State": How and Dhy Realists -Re.9uilt the-ir. Cold Dar,"
htt':((www)er)u5am)ca(no!el(ieim(I8@('d+(rewritingXnationalXsecurityXstate)'d+,
<s <merican historian o+ U)S) +oreign relations 8ichael Hogan o!ser1es in his study on the rise o+ the national security state
during the Truman administration, the national security ideology +ramed the Cold Dar discourse in a system
o+ sym!olic re'resentation that de+ined <merica3s national identity !y re+erence to the un:<merican
6other,3 usually the So1iet Union, Iazi @ermany, or some other totalitarian 'ower" -Hogan, CBBA: C?.) Such a !inary
system made it di++icult +or any domestic dissent +rom U)S) 'olicy to emerge R it would ha1e amounted
to an act o+ disloyalty" -Hogan, CBBA: CA.)C&Dhile Hogan distinguishes ad1ocates +rom critics o+ the <merican national
security state, his 1iew ta2es +or granted that there is a gi1en and +i4ed <merican 'olitical culture that di++ers +rom the
new" national security ideology) It 'osits an <merican way", 'roduced !y its cultural, 'olitical, and historical e4'erience)
<lthough he stresses that di++erences !etween the two sides o+ the discourse are su'er+icial, 'ertaining solely to the means,
rather than the ends o+ the national security state, Hogan sees the national security state as a +inished and legitimate state: an
<merican state suited to the Cold Dar conte4t o+ 'ermanent war, while sto''ing short o+ a garrison state: <lthough
go1ernment would grow larger, ta4es would go u', and !udget de+icits would !ecome a matter o+ routine, none o+ these and
other trans+ormations would add u' to the crushing regime sym!olized in the meta'hor o+ the garrison state) The outcome
instead would !e an <merican national security state that was sha'ed as much !y the country3s democratic 'olitical culture
as it was !y the 'ercei1ed military im'erati1es o+ the Cold Dar -Hogan, CBBA: $$.) I disagree with this essentialist 1iew o+
the state identity o+ the United States) The United States does not need to !e a national security state) I+ it was
and is still constructed as such !y many realist discourses, it is !ecause these discourses ser1e some
'olitical 'ur'ose) 8oreo1er, in 2ee'ing with my 'oststructuralist inclinations, I maintain that identity need not !e,
and indeed ne1er is, +i4ed) In a scheme in which to say is to do", that is, +rom a 'ers'ecti1e that acce'ts the 'er+ormati1ity
o+ language, culture !ecomes a relational site where identity 'olitics ha''ens rather than !eing a su!stanti1e 'henomenon)
In this sense, culture is not sim'ly a social conte4t +raming +oreign 'olicy decision:ma2ing) Culture is a
signi+ying 'art o+ the conditions o+ 'ossi!ility +or social !eing , [N, the way in which culturalist arguments
themsel1es secure the identity o+ su!*ects in whose name they s'ea2" -Cam'!ell, CBBA:$$C.) The Cold Dar national
security culture re'resented in realist discourses was constituti1e o+ the <merican national security state) There was certainly
a con+lation o+ theory and 'olicy in the Cold Dar military:intellectual com'le4, which were o!ser1ers o+, and acti1e
'artici'ants in, de+ining the meaning o+ the Cold Dar) They contri!uted to 'ortray the enemy that !oth re+lected and +ueled
'redominant ideological strains within the <merican !ody 'olitic) <s scholarly 'artners in the national security state, they
were instrumental in de+ining and disseminating a Cold Dar culture" -Ru!in, $%%C: C&.) This national security culture was
a com'le4 s'ace where 1arious re'resentations and re'resentati1es o+ the national security state com'ete to draw the
!oundaries and dominate the mur2ier margins o+ international relations" -=er =erian, CBB$: ;C.) The same Cold Dar
security culture has !een maintained !y 'olitical 'ractice -on the 'art o+ realist analysts and 'olitical leaders. through realist
discourses in the 'ost:B(CC era and once again re'roduces the idea o+ a national security state) This -im'licit. state
identi+ication is neither accidental nor inconse5uential) From a 'oststructuralist 1antage 'oint, the identi+ication 'rocess o+
the state and the nation is always a negati1e 'rocess +or it is achie1ed !y e4clusion, 1iolence, and margina: lization) Thus, a
deconstruction o+ 'ractices that constitute and consolidate state identity is necessary: the writing o+ the state
must !e re1ealed through the analysis o+ the discourses that constitute it) The state and the discourses that -re.constitute it
thus +rame its 1ery identity and im'ose a +ictitious national unity" on societyF it is +rom this +icti1e and ar!itrary creation o+
the modernist dichotomous discourses o+ inside(outside that the discourses -re.constructing the state emerge) It is in the
creation o+ a Sel+ and an 0ther in which the state uses it mono'olistic 'ower o+ legitimate 1iolence R a
'ower socially constructed, +ollowing 8a4 De!er3s wor2 on the ethic o+ res'onsi!ility R to construct a threatening
0ther di++erentiated +rom the uni+ied" Sel+, the national society -the nation.)C> It is through this 1ery 'ractice
o+ normati1e statecra+t,C? which 'roduces threatening 0thers, that the international s'here comes into !eing)
=a1id Cam'!ell adds that it is !y constantly articulating danger through +oreign 'olicy that the state3s 1ery
conditions o+ e4istence are generated)
13
555Links555
Links0&
0nternational &elations is onstrited "y the patriarhal mindset
&ui' ()
@Triia &ui'; C79 Gay!ard; =Feminist Theory and 0nternational &elationsE The Feminist Challenge to &ealism and
Li"eralism>; 7oundings Aournal; *((); httpE33honors.sustan.edu3#ournals37oundings.pdfK
01erall, +eminist theory says that most o+ the 2ey 'layers in IR, such as di'lomats, 'olicyma2ers, heads o+
go1ernment, and academic 'ro+essionals, ha1e !een, and still are, males who come +rom 'atriarchal social and
'olitical !ac2grounds) Thus, discussions within IR remain largely constrained !y those who lac2
consideration o+ women3s roles in world 'olitics -!ecause they ha1e not !een trained to 1alue and include the
'ers'ecti1e o+ women.) Should IR 'er'etuate the e4clusion o+ women +rom its disci'line, along with their 'otential
contri!utions and additional 1iew'oints, IR will remain a 'rime e4am'le o+ 'atriarchy, in !oth its 'ractice and
accom'lishments) Indeed, IR is +re5uently re+erred to as the last !astion o+ the social sciences, " G indicating how
rigid it remains in reconsidering itsel+ through the 6gender lens3) Feminists also a''ly the terms 6gender3 and 6'atriarchy3
when analyzing how situations ha1e !een sha'ed to e4clude women +rom the international 'olitical arena) For e4am'le, 7ric
8) 9lanchard re+ers to a 6catch:$$3 situation, in which a candidate see2ing 'olitical o++ice will highly de'end on 'ast military
ser1ice as 5uali+ication +or the 'osition, 'utting women at a disad1antage since they generally ha1e less military e4'erience)
This signi+icantly limits a woman3s chances to attain a national go1ernment 'osition directly in1ol1ed with international
issues o+ de+ense and security); From this e4am'le alone, we can understand how the areas o+ domestic 'olitics, the
military, and e1en the to'ic o+ education -which is directly related to this e4am'le., are issues with res'ect to which
+eminists would argue that gender and 'atriarchy do not allow women e5ual access to 'ower 'ositions in
world 'olitics)
1
Links7tate
Current 0nternational &elations Theory looks only to 7tate To 7tate 0nterations; 81luding
Consideration of ,omen from 4eisions
Triia &ui' L()
In other words, in contrast to traditional IR 1iews that 1iew security as 'rotecting the state +rom other states, +eminists argue
the to'ic o+ security should address acts o+ ra'e and 1iolence, not only +rom +oreign 'er'etrators, !ut
+rom their own +ellow citizens as well) Feminists would also add that occurrences o+ ra'e increase during
times o+ war, and is e1en used as a method o+ ethnic cleansing among the ri1alries within their state,CC yet would ne1er
enter into ty'ical IR discussions that +ocus solely on state to:state interaction, sim'ly !ecause IR
discussions traditionally remain +ocused on states as the 2ey actors) Thus, the to'ic o+ security shows how
gender consideration, e4cluded +rom the 1ery !eginning o+ the discussion, results in 'olicyma2ing that would
!e su!se5uently e4clusi1e o+, and li2ely detrimental to, women) Hrior to discussing any IR to'ic, stand'oint +eminist
IR theory would +irst challenge those 'artici'ating in the discussion, and those de+ining the 2ey terms and issues, !y critically
as2ing them i+ the normati1e 'ers'ecti1es and wor2ing 1oca!ulary are !road enough to e++ecti1ely accommodate issues
a++ecting women
0n the 7tate; Hales ha$e Full Bo!er 6$er ,omen; !hih is /uilt 0nto La!s And Boliies
Thorn"urn; 4iana *((( @Feminism meets international relationsK
< +ourth way o+ considering the !eginnings o+ +eminist international relations is as a matter o+ natural 'rogression::that
+eminist incursions into international relations are merely the +inal crum!ling o+ this last !astion o+ the social sciences)
International relations theory, itsel+ a relati1ely new disci'line, com'rises 1arious as'ects o+ social science theory that ha1e
!een interrogated !y +eminist a''roaches since the early CB?%s) Oet only in the late CBA%s did it !ecome su!*ect to +eminist
in5uiry) This is most li2ely !ecause o+ the dominance o+ men and a male 'ers'ecti1e in the +ield) A Ta2e, +or e4am'le, the
role o+ the state, a 'rinci'al actor in international relations) The state is one o+ the most im'ortant su!*ects o+
+eminist study, where it has long !een argued that the +oundations o+ the state are !ased on a 'atriarchal
and gendered se4ual di1ision o+ la!or that su!ordinates women)
B
<s Tathleen Staudt 'hrased it: JDomen had
little or no hand in the 'rocess o+ state +ormation and consolidation) Oet male control o1er women::
s'eci+ically, o1er their la!or, se4uality, and re'roduction::was central to laws and 'olicies that go1erned
the gender realm)J
1!
Links7eurity
7eurity is more than #ust state $s. state aggressionit onsists of e$eryday ats of $iolene as
!ell. ,omens $oies are key.
&ui' ()
Tic2ner argues that IR is gendered to marginalize women3s 1oices," and stresses that women ha1e
2nowledge, 'ers'ecti1es and e4'eriences that should !e !rought to !ear on the study o+ international
relations)" For e4am'le, Tic2ner would argue that security, a main to'ic in IR, should not only !e understood as
de+ending the state +rom attac2," !ut should also consider that security +or women might !e di++erent
!ecause women are more li2ely to !e attac2ed !y men they 2now, rather than strangers +rom other states)"C% In other words,
in contrast to traditional IR 1iews that 1iew security as 'rotecting the state +rom other states, +eminists
argue the to'ic o+ security should address acts o+ ra'e and 1iolence, not only +rom +oreign 'er'etrators, !ut +rom
their own +ellow citizens as well ) Feminists would also add that occurrences o+ ra'e increase during times o+ war, and is
e1en used as a method o+ ethnic cleansing among the ri1alries within their state,CC yet would ne1er enter into ty'ical IR
discussions that +ocus solely on state to: state interaction, sim'ly !ecause IR discussions traditionally remain +ocused on
states as the 2ey actors) Thus, the to'ic o+ security shows how gender consideration, e4cluded +rom the 1ery
!eginning o+ the discussion, results in 'olicyma2ing that would !e su!se5uently e4clusi1e o+, and li2ely
detrimental to, women) Hrior to discussing any IR to'ic, stand'oint +eminist IR theory would +irst challenge those
'artici'ating in the discussion, and those de+ining the 2ey terms and issues, !y critically as2ing them i+ the normati1e
'ers'ecti1es and wor2ing 1oca!ulary are !road enough to e++ecti1ely accommodate issues a++ecting women)
1"
Links7eurity
The affirmati$es preoupation !ith international seurity is #ust a !ay to #ustify o$erlooking the
strutural $iolene against !omen.
7hepherd *((?
In Human Insecurity, Ro!erts 'oses the 5uestion, LDhat is 1iolence/L -$%%A, ') C?.) This is a 5uestion rarely as2ed in
international relations) Eiolence is war: large:scale, state:dominated, much studied, war) Howe1er, the three
te4ts under re1iew here all o++er more nuanced theories o+ 1iolence that +ocus analytical attention on com'le4 constructions
o+ agency -institutional and international., structure, and the glo!al conte4t that is 'roduct and 'roducti1e o+ such 1iolence)
Through an intricate and !eauti+ully accessi!le analysis o+ modernity RLthat 'ot o+ gold at the end o+ the glo!al rain!owL
-7nloe, $%%?, ') >;. R 7nloe encourages her readers to see2 the connections !etween glo!alisation and
militarisation, arguing that at the heart o+ this ne4us lie im'ortant 5uestions a!out 1iolence and security)
Ro!erts notes a !road dissatis+action with the conce't o+ Lhuman securityL -$%%A, '') C;R?., o++ering instead
his in1estigati1e lens o+ Lhuman insecurityL, de+ined as La1oida!le ci1ilian deaths, occurring glo!ally,
caused !y social, 'olitical and economic institutions and structures, !uilt and o'erated !y humans and
which could +easi!ly !e changedL -') $A.) Hlacing the human at the centre o+ concerns a!out security
immediately challenges a con1entional state:!ased a''roach to security, as 7nloe e4'lains) In a con1incing
account o+ the hard:+ought e4'ansion o+ the conce't o+ security, ma''ed on to strategic and organisational gains made !y
1arious +eminist organisations, 7nloe reminds us that
i+ we ta2e seriously the li1es o+ women R their understandings o+ security R as well as on:the:ground
wor2ings o+ masculinity and +emininity, we will !e a!le to 'roduce more meaning+ul and more relia!le
analyses o+ LsecurityLR 'ersonal, national and glo!al -7nloe, $%%?, ') ;?.)
The affirmati$es o"session !ith seurity legitimi'es state patriarhy and $iolene.
7hepherd *((?
<s well as concei1ing o+ gender as a set o+ discourses, and 1iolence as a means o+ re'roducing and rein+orcing the rele1ant
discursi1e limits, it is 'ossi!le to see security as a set o+ discourses, as I ha1e argued more +ully elsewhere -She'herd, $%%?F
$%%AF see also She'herd and Deldes, $%%?.) Rather than 'ursuing the study o+ security as i+ it were something
that can !e achie1ed either in a!solute, 'artial or relati1e terms, engaging with security as discourse
ena!les the analysis o+ how these discourses +unction to re'roduce, through 1arious strategies, the
domain o+ the international with which IR is sel+:consciously concerned) #ust as 1iolences that are gendering
re'roduce gendered su!*ects, on this 1iew states, acting as authoritati1e entities, 'er+orm 1iolences, !ut
1iolences, in the name o+ security, also 'er+orm states) These 'rocesses occur simultaneously, and across the
whole s'ectrum o+ social li+e: an instance o+ ra'e in war is at once gendering o+ the indi1iduals in1ol1ed and o+ the social
collecti1ities R states, communities, regions R they +eel they re'resent -see 9racewell, $%%%.F !uilding a +ence in the name o+
security that se'arates 'eo'le +rom their land and e4tended +amilies 'er+orms 'articular 2inds o+ 1iolence -at chec2'oints,
during 'atrols. and 'er+orms 'articular su!*ect identities -o+ the state authority, o+ the indi1iduals a++ected., all o+ which are
gendered)

1#
LinksCrisis /ased Bolitis
The !ar peae dihotomy onstruted "y realist theorist ignores the human su"#et.
7hepherd *((?
<ccording to con1entional accounts o+ international relations -IR., scholars +ocus on war -'redominantly as a means to
'ro1iding the so1ereign state with security. and the e4istence o+ warLs corollary is a +oundational assum'tion
that goes largely un5uestioned) Heace must e4ist, +or international relations are not characterised !y
'er'etual con+lict) Howe1er, 'eace is im'licitly de+ined, in dichotomous terms, !y the a!sence o+ 1iolent
con+lict, as Lnot:warL) 0+ more analytical interest is con+lict, which is always a 'ossi!ility and which,
moreo1er, occurs !etween states) International relations as a disci'line, narrowly concei1ed, is largely
unconcerned with acti1ities that occur within the state) 8inimally, +eminist and other critical a''roaches
to IR see2 to correct such disci'linary myo'ia) Dhile classical realism theorises the 'olitical actor RHans
8orgenthauLs L'olitical manL -CB?G, '') C&R>. R in order to construct the state as actor, the now dominant neo:realism
a!stracts the human su!*ect +rom its disci'linary musings, leading to the in+amous L!lac2 !o4L model o+ the state) 7arly
+eminist scholarshi' challenged this assum'tion as well, arguing that indi1iduals, as human su!*ects in all their
messy com'le4ity, are an integral 'art o+ international relations -see She'herd, $%%?, '') $;%RC.) <ttention to
the human su!*ect in I(international R(relations R or, as Christine Syl1ester 'hrases it, Lrelations internationalL, to
em'hasise the em!edded nature o+ all 2inds o+ relations in the international s'here, including 'ower
relations and gender relations -Syl1ester, CBB;, ') >F see also 7nloe, CBB>. R allows critical scholars to loo2
!eyond the disci'linary o!session with war) Further, it allows us to in1estigate one o+ the sim'lest
insights o+ +eminist IR, which is also one o+ the most de1astating: the war('eace dichotomy is gendered,
misleading and 'otentially 'athological)
1$
LinksCultural Gegemony
The affirmati$es preoupation !ith military thinking reflets a ulture of militarism that infets
all poliy outomes.
8nloe. *k
@Cynthia 8nloeM professor in the 4epartment of 0nternational 4e$elopment; Community; and 8n$ironment at Clark
9ni$ersityM =Hasulinity As Foreign Boliy 0ssue>M 6to"er; *(((M aessedE Aune *(1(K
8any o!ser1ers ha1e remar2ed on the 'eculiar <merican contem'orary 'olitical culture that e5uates military
e4'erience and(or military e4'ertise with 'olitical leadershi') It is this cultural inclination that has made
it 1ery ris2y +or any <merican 'u!lic +igure to a''ear less manly" than a uni+ormed senior military
male o++icer) It is a cultureQtoo o+ten unchallenged !y ordinary 1otersQthat has gi1en indi1iduals with alleged
military 2nowledge a dis'ro'ortionate ad1antage in +oreign 'olicy de!ates)
Such a masculinized and militarized culture 'ressures ner1ous ci1ilian candidates into a''earing
tough" on military issues) The thought o+ not em!racing a 'arade o+ militarized 'olicy 'ositionsQthat
increase the de+ense !udget, ma2e I<T0 the 'rimary institution +or !uilding a new 7uro'ean security, e4'and
#unior R0TC 'rograms in high schools, insure <merican male soldiers3 access to 'rostitutes o1erseas,
in1est in desta!ilizing antimissile technology, maintain cri''ling !ut 'olitically ine++ectual economic sanctions and !om!ing
raids against Ira5, acce't the Hentagon3s +lawed 'olicy o+ don3t as2, don3t tell, don3t 'ursue," and +inance a
military:dri1en antidrug 'olicyQwould lea1e most <merican 'u!lic o++icials -women and men. +eeling
uncom+orta!ly 1ulnera!le in the 'olitical culture that assigns high 1alue to masculinized toughness) The
result: a 'olitical com'etition to a''ear tough" has 'roduced U)S) +oreign 'olicies that se1erely limit
the <merican ca'acity to 'lay a use+ul role in creating a more genuinely secure international community)
That is, <merica3s con1entional, masculinized 'olitical culture ma2es it unli2ely that Dashington
'olicyma2ers will either come to gri's with a realistic analysis o+ 'otential glo!al threats or act to
strengthen those multilateral institutions most e++ecti1e in 're1enting and ending con+licts)
< +eminist analysis turns the 'olitical s'otlight on the con1entional notion o+ manliness as a ma*or +actor
sha'ing U)S) +oreign 'olicy choices) It demonstrates that 'o'ular gender 'resum'tions are not *ust the
stu++ o+ sociology te4ts) 71ery o++icial who has tried not to a''ear so+t" 2nows this) For e4am'le, early in
his administration, 9ill Clinton made 2nown his a!horrence o+ landmines and his determination to !an them) 9ut !y CBBA, he
had ca1ed in to military 'ressure and stated, instead, that the U)S) would not sign the widely endorsed international landmines
treaty until the =e+ense =e'artment came u' with an alternati1e)"
1%
Links7iene
7iene and the go$ernment are $iolent and oeri$e. They destroy $alue to life and reprodue
patriarhy.
Nhanenge *((2
NAytte; Hasters O 9 7outh Afria; Aepted Thesis Baper for 4e$elopment 7tudies; =8C6F8H0N7HE T6,A&47
0NT8C&AT0NC TG8 C6NC8&N7 6F ,6H8N; B66& B86BL8 AN4 NAT9&8 0NT6 48D8L6BH8NT;
uir.unisa.a.'a3"itstream31()((3)2(313dissertation.pdfP
Conse5uently, also social scientists a''ly the scienti+ic characteristics o+ o!*ecti1ity, 1alue:+reedom, rationality
and 5uanti+ia!ility to social li+e) In this way, they assume they can un1eil uni1ersal laws a!out social relations, which
will lead to true 2nowledge) 9ased on this, correct social 'olicies can !e +ormulated) Thus, social
'rocesses are e4cluded, while scienti+ic o!*ecti1e +acts are included) Society is assumed a static entity,
where no changes are 'ossi!le) 9y 'romoting a 'ermanent character, social science legitimizes the e4isting
social order, while o!scuring the relations o+ domination and su!ordination, which is 2ee'ing the
e4isting 'ower relations inaccessi!le to analysis) The +rozen order also ma2es it im'ossi!le to de1elo' alternati1e
e4'lanations a!out social reality) It 're1ents a historical and 'olitical understanding o+ reality and denies the 'ossi!ility +or
social trans+ormation !y human agency) The 're1ailing condition is seen as an una1oida!le +act) This im'lies that human
!eings are 'assi1e and that domination is a natural +orce, +or which no one is res'onsi!le) This 'ermits the state +reely
to im'lement laws and 'olicies, which are controlling and coerci1e) These are seen as !eing correct,
!ecause they are !ased on scienti+ic +acts made !y scienti+ic e4'erts) 0ne result is that the state, without
consulting the 'u!lic, engages in a 'athological 'ursuit o+ economic growth) @o1ernments su''ort the ca'italist ideology,
which !ene+its the elite only, while it is destroying nature and increasing 'o1erty +or women and lower classes) The 'riority
on ca'italism also determines other social 'olicies) There are conse5uently no considerations +or a 'ossi!le con+lict
!etween the aims o+ the go1ernment +or social control and economic e++iciency and the wel+are needs o+ 1arious social
grou's) Dithout ha1ing an alternati1e to the e4isting order, 'eo'le !ecome dis:em'owered) Ultimately,
the reaction is 'u!lic a'athy, which legitimates authorati1e go1ernments) Thus, social science is an ideology,
which is a++irming the 're1ailing social, 'olitical and economic order) -Reitzes CBBG: G>:GB, ;C:;$.) In reality, it is a
contradiction to a''ly the scienti+ic method to social 'olicy ma2ing) <ny social 'olicy change will alter social relations and
a++ect the relati1e wel+are o+ classes o+ 'eo'le, which ma2es social decision ma2ing normati1e) Social 'olicy is related to
'olitics, which is an e4tension o+ ethics) Since 1alues and +acts are di++erent categories, one cannot a''ly indis'uta!le
em'irical +acts to social 1alues) It is there+ore im'ossi!le to legitimize 'olitical decisions with re+erence to scienti+ic
2nowledge) Social decision:ma2ing is a 'olitical 'rocess) Dhen science is a''lied to 'olitical and normati1e 5uestions, it
!ecomes an ideology, which su''orts the dominant interests) Thus, the state re'roduces conditions +or domination)
In case the contradictions !ecome too 'ronounced, and the 'ower o+ the state is challenged, then the ideology
!ecomes 1iolent) The conse5uence is totalitarianism) It is a situation where the state sets limits to what
is 'ermissi!le to thin2 and teach, i+ necessary !y coercion) Conclusi1ely social science mani'ulates reality to
ser1e the 1ested interests o+ s'eci+ic social grou's) The result is a dominant and 1iolent ideology mas2ed as
science) -Reitzes CBBG: G$, G;, ;$:;&.) Shi1a also +inds that scienti+ic 2nowledge is directed towards 1iolence
and economic 'ro+its: A%V o+ scienti+ic research is de1oted to the war industry) Dar is aimed at 1iolence against the
'ercei1ed enemy and ci1ilians, sometimes a countryLs own 'o'ulation) <lso in 'eace+ul domains does science relate to
1iolence) It e4'loits nature +or ma4imization o+ 'ro+it) Science can only include the 5uanti+ia!le, 'ro+it generating
'ro'erties o+ a resource system) Thus 'ro'erties which are not 'ro+ita!le, !ut which are 5ualitati1e and sta!ilise ecological
'rocesses, are ignored and destroyed) The +ocus on 'ower and control +or 'ro+it means that science misses out on much o+
what is im'ortant +or nature and 'eo'le) Thus, science and technology choose nuclear energy, e4'erimenting on animals
and s'reading deadly 'esticide, while they are o1erloo2ing the lest 'ro+ita!le, !ut sustaina!le organic +arming and solar
energy) Conse5uently, science +ocuses on 1iolence and 'ro+it, which destructs human and natural well:
!eing) -Shi1a CBAB: $GF =es #ardins $%%C: $&&.)
20
Links7iene
7iene is patriarhal and a !ay for men to e1ert $iolene and domination
Nhanenge *((2
Science is conse5uently +ounded on androcentric 'remises and their associated 1alues) The androcentric 'remises
'ercei1e a uni1ersal masculine model o+ man) The dualised +eminist issues are o!*ecti+ied and only 1alued to the
e4tent that they are use+ul to man) 8an is seen as !eing autonomous +rom !oth nature and society) He is a rational
indi1idual stri1ing +or +reedom and inde'endence +rom social and natural constraints) This 'icture is generalized as
!eing an im'licit goal o+ humanity as a whole ) In +act, what men do not e4'erience is o+ten regarded as
somewhat unim'ortant, distant or unreal) The measurement o+ masculinity is 'ower) =e'endency and
'owerlessness are 'ercei1ed as in+eriority and calls +or une5ual treatment) -9ir2eland CBB&: &B.) Thus the androcentric
1alues leads 'ower+ul man to see2 'ower o1er women, others and nature, which due to their lac2 o+ 'ower
deser1e an une5ual treatment) This ma2es science 1iolent) Dhen women, emotions and nature are constructed as
the 0ther in scienti+ic discourse, it recon+irms the masculine 'osition as !eing rational, su'erior and the
standard) Rationality and theoretical reason is in this way used as an instrument +or male domination o1er
women and all others) It is a tool to eliminate and ridicule di++erences) Howe1er, when one lac2s the a!ility to see the
'ositi1e in di1ersity, and instead systematically de'reciate di++erences, trying to ma2e all one, it leads to +undamentalism)
Forcing through a single rational and masculine de+inition o+ reality !ecomes in this way 1iolent) Thus, there is
a close lin2 !etween masculinity, rationality and 1iolence in mechanical science) These o''ressi1e +eatures
inhere there+ore also in the 1arious scienti+ic disci'lines and in its technology) -9raidotti et al CBB;: G$, G;F =es #ardins
$%%C: $&&.)
21
LinksTehnology
Current tehnology is patriarhal and destroying our !orld. ,e need to ha$e a grassroots
feminist mo$ement to sol$e
Nhanenge *((2
<lready a+ter the First Dorld Dar did the 9ritish 'hiloso'her, ci1il:rights acti1ist and Io!el Hrize: winner 9ertrand Russel
-CA?$:CB?%. contem'late on the e++ects o+ modern science and its technology) In his !oo2 +rom CB$G called JThe Hros'ects
o+ Industrial Ci1ilizationJ Russel concluded that the a''lication o+ science has !een Jin the main immeasura!ly harm+ulJ, and
it would only cease to !e so Jwhen men ha1e a less strenuous outloo2 on li+eJ) Russell +ound that science has !een used
+or three 'ur'oses: to increase the total 'roduction o+ commoditiesF to ma2e wars more destructi1eF and
to su!stitute tri1ial amusement +or those that had some artistic or hygiene 1alues) The increase o+
'roduction had its im'ortance C%% years ago) Iow it is more im'ortant to direct 'roduction wisely)
Instead, science increased 'roduction and created en1ironmental degenerationF it made wars more
destructi1e which increased glo!al 1iolence and human su++eringF and it tri1ialized cultural acti1ities,
hence destroying the 5uality o+ li+e) -Ullrich CBBG: $?>:$??.) &)$C)G) Technology 1alues 1iolence o1er 'eace
and harmony J8odern man does not e4'erience himsel+ as a 'art o+ nature, !ut as an outside +orce destined to dominate
and con5uer it) He e1en tal2s o+ a !attle with nature, +orgetting that, i+ he won the !attle, he would +ind himsel+ on the losing
side)J F) 7) Schumacher, CB?G) -Schumacher CBBG: G.) J8ore, +urther, 5uic2er, richer and there is no
alternati1eJ are the watchwords in modern hi:tech society) It is a +orward stam'ede: I+ there is crime, the
solution is more 'olice, !etter e5ui''ed) I+ there are en1ironmental 'ro!lems, +aster economic growth to 'ay +or anti:
'ollution techni5ues is 'rescri!ed) I+ there is lac2 o+ natural resources, we turn to synthetics) I+ +ossil +uels run out, we turn
to nuclear energy) There are no 'ro!lems technology cannot sol1e) 9ut the 'ro!lem is that its solutions are !ased
on 1alues destined to control and con5uer the world) Scienti+ic and technological solutions that 'oison
nature, degrade social structures and generate war are inherently 1iolent) They ma2e the rich richer,
while they create 'o1erty and destroy li+e) 9igger technology means !igger concentration o+ economic 'ower,
which e4erts greater 1iolence against society and nature) -Schumacher CBBG: $%, C$>, C$A, CG%.) Technology can !e
used to dominate societies or to enhance them) Thus !oth science and technology could ha1e de1elo'ed
in a di++erent direction) 9ut due to 'atriarchal 1alues in+iltrated in science the ty'e o+ technology
de1elo'ed is meant to dominate, o''ress, e4'loit and 2ill) 0ne reason is that 'atriarchal societies identi+y
masculinity with con5uest) Thus any technical inno1ation will continue to !e a tool +or more e++ecti1e o''ression and
e4'loitation) The highest 'riority seems to !e gi1en to technology that destroys li+e) 8odern societies are dominated !y
masculine institutions and 'atriarchal ideologies) Their technologies 're1ailed in <uschwitz, =resden, Hiroshima, Iagasa2i,
Eietnam, Iran, Ira5, <+ghanistan and in many other 'arts o+ the world) Hatriarchal 'ower has !rought us acid rain, glo!al
warming, military states, 'o1erty and countless cases o+ su++ering) De ha1e seen men whose 'ower has caused them to lose
all sense o+ reality, decency and imagination, and we must +ear such 'ower) The ultimate result o+ unchec2ed 'atriarchy will
!e ecological catastro'he and nuclear holocaust) Such actions are denial o+ wisdom) It is wor2ing against natural harmony
and destroying the !asis o+ e4istence) 9ut as long as ordinary 'eo'le lea1e 5uestions o+ technology to the
Je4'ertsJ we will continue the +orward stam'ede) <s long as economics +ocus on technology and !oth are the
+ocus o+ 'olitics, we can lea1e none o+ them to e4'erts) 0rdinary 'eo'le are o+ten more ca'a!le o+ ta2ing a
wider and more humanistic 1iew than these e4'erts) -Telly CBB%: CC$:CC;F 7isler CBB%: G$: GGF Schumacher
CBBG: $%, C$>, C$A, CG%.)
22
Links&ealism
&ealist approahes to international relations ignores the oppression of !omen at the personal
le$el.
7hepherd *((?
<s to the 5uestion o+ when 1iolence is worthy o+ study, all three te4ts im'licitly or e4'licitly draw on the 'o'ular
+eminist 'hrase: Lthe 'ersonal is 'oliticalL) This slogan neatly enca'sulates the +eminist criti5ue o+ a su''osed
+oundational di1ide !etween the 'ri1ate and the 'u!lic realms o+ social li+e) In arguing that the 'ersonal is 'olitical, +eminist
theory re+uses to acce't that there are instances o+ human !eha1iour or situations in social li+e that can or
should !e !rac2eted +rom study) <t its sim'lest, this criti5ue led to the recognition o+ Ldomestic 1iolenceL as a
'olitical, rather than a 'ersonal issue -see, +or e4am'le 8oore, $%%GF Ooungs, $%%G., +orming the +oundation +or
critical studies o+ gendered 1iolence in times o+ war and in times o+ 'eace that would otherwise ha1e
!een ignored) Crucially, 7nloe e4tended the !oundaries o+ criti5ue to include the international, im!uing the 'hrase with
new analytical 1itality when she suggested, +irst, that the 'hrase itsel+ is 'alindromic -that is, that the 'olitical is also
'ersonal, ine4trica!ly intertwined with the e1eryday. and, second, that the 'ersonal is international *ust as the
international is 'ersonal)
LThe international is 'ersonalL im'lies that go1ernments de'end u'on certain 2inds o+ allegedly 'ri1ate
relationshi's in order to conduct their +oreign a++airs) ))) To o'erate in the international arena,
go1ernments see2 other go1ernmentsL recognition o+ their so1ereigntyF !ut they also de'end on ideas
a!out masculinised dignity and +eminised sacri+ice to sustain that sense o+ autonomous nationhood
-7nloe, $%%%, '') CB>R?.)
These ideas a!out dignity and sacri+ice are not neatly contained within the tem'oral !oundaries o+ any
gi1en war, nor are they incidental to the 'ractice o+ war+are) Further, there is o+ course also the 5uestion
o+ who gets to de+ine or declare war, or 'eace) Dhile some o+ the 1iolent women whose actions are analysed !y
S*o!erg and @entry 'er+orm their 1iolences in wartime -+or e4am'le, ynndie 7ngland, who recei1ed the most attention +rom
glo!al media o+ the women in1ol1ed in 'risoner a!use at <!u @hrai!F see S*o!erg and @entry, $%%A, '') >?R?%., others are
+ighting wars that are not sanctioned !y the international community -such as the Chechen women ['') B?RCCC, and +emale
Halestinian suicide !om!ers ['') CC$R;%,.)
23
Links&ealism
&ealism dimishes the role of the indi$idual and e1ludeds feminist pereption
&ui' ()
In relation to realism, +eminist theory is clear: realism is the antithesis to achie1ing gender e5uality, !oth in
discussion and 'ractice, and e1en in its tools o+ war and security, 'atriarchy remains the central theme)
States are the actors and the indi1idual is o+ little im'ortance) Dhen the indi1idual is deem'hasized,
there is e1en less ac2nowledgement o+ a +emale indi1idual, which e++ecti1ely e4cludes +eminist
discussion) In contrast to realism, li!eralist theory em'hasizes the role o+ the indi1idual o1er that o+ the state) Instead o+
seeing anarchy and a struggle +or 'ower" as a de+ining +eature o+ world 'olitics, these thin2ers em'hasize an international
struggle +or consensus" as central to e4'laining international relations)C? i!eralist tools include +ree trade, education, and
international institutions to 'rotect and 'romote the economic and ci1il interests o+ the indi1idual)
Traditional masulinity and realist international relations depit an arhai !orld !here
ountries $iolently ompete for supremay.
Beterson -*
@D. 7pike Beterson; =Cendered 7tatesE Feminist NreP$isions of 0nternational &elations Theory>; 1--*;
httpE33!!!.%uestia.om3read3-?1?-2*(QtitleRCenderedS*(7tatesSFaS*(FeministS*(S*?&eS*-DisionsS*(of
S*(0nternationalS*(&elationsS*(TheoryTK
0ne line o+ +eminist thought lin2s the li!eral 1aluing o+ indi1idual autonomy to a 'sychic dri1e to autonomy im'lanted in the
male 'syche !y early socialization) Iancy Chodorow, most nota!ly, theorizes that the tradition o+ +emale child:raising ma2es
se'aration +rom the mother or mother> surrogate harder +or !oys than +or girls as !oys must esta!lish themsel1es as
de+initi1ely di++erent +rom the women who raise them) In the 'rocess they !ecome dee'ly concerned with se'arateness,
otherness, clear !ounds !etween one 'erson and anotherQautonomy, in short) ; Trans'osed to international relations,
masculine conce'ts o+ autonomy 'roduce a 1iew o+ se'arate so1ereign states as em!odying a unitary
interest in con+rontation with other states and as 'ro'erly engaging in com'etition and sel+:interested
change)
In other words, li!eralism, !y ma2ing indi1idual autonomy its highest 1alue, !y relying on contract as its
'rimary 'rocess, and !y not recognizing unchosen, grou':!ased systemic ine5ualities among mem!ers
o+ a society, sets in motion, 'er'etuates, and legitimizes a social =arwinist order within states and
among states) <nd it is 'ossi!le that the im'etus -or an im'ortant 'art o+ it. !ehind this order is a child:rearing dynamic
that culti1ates 'ersonal autonomy as a dominating element o+ masculinity, lending a crucial emotional 'ush to a 'olitics o+
se'aration) Thus, +or its +eminist critics, the li!eral state is 1irtually +i4ed in a 'osture o+ com'etition and
inci'ient 1iolence) Dith autonomy at its heart, its !eha1ior must !e mar2ed !y !oundedness, sus'icion,
hostility, and e++orts to control whate1er +orces might threaten the so1ereign sel+)
2
Links4eterrene
4eterrene is patriarhal and oeri$e
Chon ?2
NCarol Cohn; &esearher and Teaher at Gar$ard Hedial 7igns ;1-?2 ;U7e1 and 4eath in a !orld of 4efense
0ntelletualsU; Center for Bsyholoial 7tudies in the nulear age at Gar$ard 9ni$ersity Hedial Center;
httpE33!!!.#stor.org3sta"le3pdfplus3F12J*(-.pdfP
<nother stri2ing meta'hor o+ 'atriarchal 'ower came early in the summer 'rogram, when one o+ the +aculty
was gi1ing a lecture on deterrence) To gi1e us a concrete e4am'le +rom outside the world o+ military strategy, he
descri!ed ha1ing a se1enteen:year:old son o+ whose TE: watching ha!its he disa''ro1es) He deals with the
situation !y threatening to !rea2 his sonLs arm i+ he turns on the TE again) JThatLs deterrenceYJ he said
trium'hantly) Dhat is so stri2ing a!out this analogy is that at +irst it seems so ina''ro'riate) <+ter all, we ha1e !een
taught to !elie1e that nuclear deterrence is a relation !etween two countries o+ more or less e5ual
strength, in which one is only a!le to deter the other +rom doing it great harm !y threatening to do the
same in return) 9ut in this case, the 'artners are une5ual, and the stronger one is using his su'erior +orce
not to 'rotect himsel+ or others +rom gra1e in*ury !ut to coerce) 9ut i+ the analogy seems to !e a +lawed e4'ression o+
deterrence as we ha1e !een taught to 1iew it, it is nonetheless e4tremely re1ealing a!out U)S) nuclear deterrence
as an o'erational, rather than rhetorical or declaratory 'olicy) Dhat it suggests is the s'eciousness o+ the
de+ensi1e rhetoric that surrounds deterrence:o+ the idea that we +ace an im'laca!le enemy and that we
stoc2'ile nuclear wea'ons only in an attem't to de+end oursel1es) Instead, what we see is the dri1e to su'erior
'ower as a means to e4ercise oneLs will and a readiness to threaten the dis'ro'ortionate use o+ +orce in
order to achie1e oneLs own ends) There is no 5uestion here o+ recognizing com'eting !ut legitimate needs, no desire to
negotiate, dis: cuss, or com'romise, and most im'ortant, no necessity +or that recognition or desire, since the +ather
carries the !igger stic2
The United States +re5uently a''eared in discussions a!out international 'olitics as J+ather,J sometimes
coerci1e, sometimes !ene1olent, !ut always 2nowing !est) The single time that any mention was made
o+ countries other than the United States, our I<T0 allies, or the USSR was in a lecture on nuclear 'roli+eration)
The 'oint was made that younger countries sim'ly could not !e trusted to 2now what was good +or them, nor were they yet
+ully res'onsi!le, so nuclear wea'ons in their hands would !e much more dangerous than in ours) The meta'hor used
was that o+ 'arents needing to set limits +or their children)
2!
LinksHilitarism
The aff attempts to make their politis of masulinity appear natural "y militari'ing the pro"lem;
thus artifiially re%uiring a militari'ed response.
8nloe. *k
@Cynthia 8nloeM professor in the 4epartment of 0nternational 4e$elopment; Community; and 8n$ironment at Clark
9ni$ersityM =Hasulinity As Foreign Boliy 0ssue>M 6to"er; *(((M aessedE Aune *(1(K
Feminist 5uestioning also 'roduces a more realistic accounting o+ the conse5uences o+ macho 'olicies)
=es'ite slight increases in the num!er o+ women in 'olicy 'ositions, U)S) militarized 'olicies in the 'ost:cold war
era ha1e ser1ed to strengthen the 'ri1ileged 'ositions o+ men in decision ma2ing, !oth in the United States
and in other countries) For instance, the U)S) go1ernment is currently 'romoting I<T0 as the central
!astion o+ Destern security) <lthough it is true that there are now women soldiers in all I<T0 go1ernments3 armed
+orces -the Italians were the most recent to enlist women., I<T0 remains a masculinized 'olitical organization)
The alliance3s 'olicies are hammered out !y a 1irtually all:male elite in which the roles o+ masculinity
are silently acce'ted, when they should !e o'enly 5uestioned) Thus, to the e4tent that the U)S) succeeds
in 'ressing I<T0 to wield more 'olitical in+luence than the 7uro'ean Harliament -where women ha1e
won an increasing 'ro'ortion o+ seats., not only <merican women !ut also 7uro'ean women will !e
shunted to the wings o+ the 'olitical stage)
Consider what +eminist analysis re1eals a!out the conse5uences o+ militarizing antidrug 'olicy) The
<merican go1ernment3s new !illion:dollar:'lus aid 'ac2age to the Colom!ian military will, as its critics
ha1e noted [See FHIF !rie+ Colom!ia in Crisis," 1 &, n &,, +urther intensi+y the ci1il war and human rights a!uses) 9ut less
discussed is the +act that this 'olicy will ser1e to marginalize women o+ all classes in Colom!ia3s 'olitical
li+e) ThisQthe o!session o+ <merica3s 'oliticians and senior a''ointees with not a''earing so+t" on
drugsQmilitarizes drug 're1ention e++orts and, in so doing, disem'owers women !oth in the U)S) and in
the drug 'roducing countries) DomenQ!oth as grassroots ur!an acti1ists in <merican cities and as
mo!ilizers o+ a !road, cross:class 'eace mo1ement in Colom!iaQha1e o++ered alternati1e analyses and
solutions to the 'ro!lems o+ drug addiction and drug trade) Howe1er, their 1alua!le ideas are drowned
out !y the sounds o+ helico'ter engines and 8:C> ri+les)
This e4am'le illustrates a more general 'henomenon) Dhen any 'olicy a''roach is militarized, one o+ the +irst
things that ha''ens is that women3s 1oices are silenced) De +ind that when the U)S) touts any military
institution as the !est ho'e +or sta!ility, security, and de1elo'ment, the result is dee'ly gendered: the
'olitics o+ masculinity are made to seem natural," the male gras' on 'olitical in+luence is tightened, and
most women3s access to real 'olitical in+luence shrin2s dramatically)
2"
Links0dentity Bolitis
&ealist approahes to seurity ine$ita"ly failit plaes indi$iduals seond and preludes
onsideration of identity politis.
Tikner *((1
@Ann; professor at the 7hool of 0nternational &elations 97C. /.A. in Gistory; 9ni$ersity of London. H.A. in 0&; Iale.
Bh4 from /randeis 9ni$ersity; =Cendering ,orld BolitisE 0ssues and Approahes in the Bost+Cold ,ar 8ra;
V987T0AK
Iew issues and new de+initions o+ security ha1e !een accom'anied !y calls +or new ways o+ understanding security)
Challenging DaltLs 1iew o+ the history o+ the +ield as a gradual e1olution toward an o!*ecti1e, scienti+ic disci'line that
ultimately yields a +orm o+ 2nowledge !eyond time and history, Teith Trause and 8ichael Dilliams ha1e claimed that Dalt
has created an e'istemic hierarchy that allows con1entional security studies to set itsel+ u' as the authoritati1e *udge o+
alternati1e claimsF G; this leads to a dismissal o+ alternati1e e'istemologies in terms o+ their not !eing scienti+ic)" Critics
claim that issues they consider im'ortant +or understanding security cannot !e raised within a 'ositi1ist:rationalist
e'istemology or an ontology !ased on instrumentally rational actors in a state:centric world) In addition to constraining what
can !e said a!out security, a realist:rationalist a''roach 'recludes consideration o+ an ethical or emanci'atory
'olitics) For e4am'le, Trause and Dilliams contest realismLs claim that states and anarchy are essential and
un'ro!lematic +acts o+ world 'olitics) They suggest that this world1iew is grounded in an understanding o+
human su!*ects as sel+containedQas instrumentally rational actors con+ronting an o!*ecti1e e4ternal
reality) This methodologically indi1idualist 'remise renders 5uestions a!out identity and interest
+ormation as unim'ortant) G& These and other critics claim that issues o+ identity and interest demand more inter'reti1e
modes o+ analysis) For this reason, critical scholars see the necessity o+ shi+ting +rom a +ocus on a!stract indi1idualism to a
stress on culture and identity and the roles o+ norms and ideas) Such criticisms are !eing 1oiced !y scholars 1ariously
identi+ied as constructi1ists, critical theorists, and 'ostmodernists) Dhile not all o+ them re*ect realismLs state:centric
+ramewor2, all challenge its assum'tions a!out states as unitary actors whose identities are unim'ortant +or understanding
their security !eha1ior) <lthough certain o+ these scholars see incommensura!ility !etween rationalist and inter'reti1e
e'istemologies, others are attem'ting to !ridge this ga' !y staying within realismLs state:centric world1iew while 5uestioning
its rationalist e'istemology) Ronald #e''erson, <le4ander Dendt, and Heter Tatzenstein ha1e argued +or what they call
sociological institutionalism"Q a 1iew that ad1ocates an identity:!ased a''roach, !ut one that stays within the traditional
security agenda, a +ocus on states, and e4'lanatory social science) Dhere this a''roach di++ers +rom rationalism is in its
in1estigation o+ how norms, institutions, and other cultural +eatures o+ domestic and international en1ironments a++ect statesL
security interests and 'olicies) Claiming that realist ontology and its rationalist e'istemology are interde'endent, more radical
1ersions o+ critical:security studies re*ect these !ridging attem'ts) Their calls +or !roadening the security agenda are made
within the conte4t o+ !oth a re*ection o+ rationalism and a search +or emanci'atory theories that can get !eyond realismLs
s2e'ticism a!out 'rogressi1e change and the 'ossi!ility o+ an ethical international 'olitics) Hoststructuralists claim that when
2nowledge a!out security is constructed in terms o+ the !inary meta'hysics o+ Destern culture, such as inside(outside,
us(them, and community(anarchy, security can !e understood only within the con+ines o+ domestic community whose identity
is constructed in antithesis to e4ternal threat) GB This denies the 'ossi!ility o+ tal2ing a!out an international community or an
amelioration o+ the security dilemma since it is only within the s'ace o+ 'olitical community that 5uestions a!out ethics can
!e raised) In other words, the !inary distinctions o+ national:security discourse limit what can !e said and how it can !e
discussed) Thus, critical:security studies is not only a!out !roadening the agenda Q !ecause, as mentioned earlier,
this is 'ossi!le with a realist +ramewor2) <ccording to Ten 9ooth, critical:security is +undamentally di++erent +rom
realism !ecause its agenda deri1es +rom a radically di++erent 'olitical theory and methodology that
5uestion !oth realismLs constrained 1iew o+ the 'olitical and its commitment to 'ositi1ism) Critical:
security studies re*ects con1entional security theoryLs de+inition o+ 'olitics !ased on the centrality o+ the
state and its so1ereignty ) <rguing that the state is o+ten 'art o+ the 'ro!lem o+ insecurity rather than the
solution, 9ooth claims that we should e4amine security +rom a !ottom:u' 'ers'ecti1e that !egins with
indi1idualsF howe1er, critical:security studies should not ignore the state or the military dimensions
o+ world 'olitics: Dhat is !eing challenged is not the material mani+estations o+ the world o+ traditional realism, !ut its
moral and 'ractical status, including its naturalization o+ historically created theories, its ideology o+ necessity and limited
'ossi!ility, and its 'ro'agandist common sense a!out this !eing the !est o+ all worlds)" ;%
2#
5550mpats555
0mpatsBatriarhy
Batriarhy makes all impats inesapa"le.
Tikner -*
NA. Ann Tikner; Brofessor of 0nternational &elations and 4iretor of the Center for 0nternational 7tudies at the
9ni$ersity of 7outhern California; 1--*. Cender in 0nternational &elations; p. J-+)*P
Hower:oriented statesmen ha1e a 1ested interest 1is:Z:1is their domestic su''orters in 'ainting a 'icture
o+ the world around them as threateningly anarchicF anarchic international systems are re'roduced !y
indi1iduals who !elie1e no alternati1es e4ist) Recognizing the gendered construction o+ this three:tiered world
'icture, +eminist 'ers'ecti1es on national security o++er alternati1e conce'tions) <ssuming that these categories are mutually
constituti1e and mutually rein+orcing o+ each other, we should heed Haul Fussell3s claim, in the e'igra'h to this cha'ter, that
our conce'tion o+ the 'ossi!ilities o+ indi1idual manhood must !e rede+ined in theory and 'ractice !e+ore war at the
international systemic le1el can !e regarded as a1oida!le) These gendered de'ictions o+ 'olitical man, the state, and the
international system generate a national security discourse that 'ri1ileges con+lict and war and silences other ways o+
thin2ing a!out securityF mo1ing away +rom 1alorizing human characteristics that are associated with the ris2ing o+ li+e,
toward an a++irmation o+ li+e:gi1ing 5ualities, allows us to en1isage alternati1e conce'tions o+ national security) Iational
Security Reconsidered) Certain critics o+ realism ha1e !egun to as2 whether we can continue to rely on war as the ultimate
instrument +or the achie1ement o+ national security) In a world where nuclear con+lict could result in the destruction o+
winners and losers ali2e -as well as the natural en1ironment., realist 'rescri'tions to ma4imize 'ower could actually !e
counter'roducti1e) In the a!sence o+ a 1ia!le de+ense, nuclear wea'ons ma2e !oundary 'rotection im'ossi!leF thus the
distinctions !etween domestic and international, soldiers and ci1ilians, and 'rotectors and 'rotected are !rea2ing down)>C In
CBA$ the Inde'endent Commission on =isarmament and Security Issues warned that, a+ter thirty:se1en years, nuclear
deterrence was !ecoming +ragile !ecause o+ a decreased sensiti1ity to dangers, the 'ossi!ility o+ accidents in crisis situations,
and new technologies that may !e increasing the 'ossi!ility o+ limited nuclear war)>$ In the nuclear age, the +act that the
security o+ states de'ends on the insecurity o+ their citizens has stretched the traditional conce't o+ national security to its
limit) Critics o+ realism argue that a more glo!al 1ision o+ security is necessary) The e4tent to which realism has !een a!le to
*usti+y its distinction !etween domestic order and international anarchy de'ends on its +ocus on the ma*or actors in the
international system) Internally, most Destern states ha1e !een relati1ely 'eace+ul since Dorld Dar II, i+ 'eace is narrowly
de+ined as the a!sence o+ military con+lict) Thin2ing a!out security +rom a glo!al 'ers'ecti1e must ta2e into account that B%
'ercent o+ the military con+licts o+ the CB?%s and CBA%s too2 'lace in the Third DorldF many were domestic, some
international and some, 'articularly when the great 'owers were in1ol1ed, !lurred the distinction !etween the two)>G
Security threats ha1e traditionally !een de+ined as threats to national !oundaries, !ut since the end o+ the 'rocess o+
decolonialization, relati1ely +ew cross:!order wars and changes in international !oundaries ha1e occurred, in s'ite o+ the
large num!er o+ military con+licts) For 'eo'le in the Third Dorld, as well as in 7astern 7uro'e and, more recently, in the
states o+ the +ormer So1iet Union, security threats ha1e o+ten !een internal) Re'ression !y regimes reacting against ethnic
minorities or 'o'ular discontent creates a situation in which states can !ecome threats to, rather than 'ro1iders o+, security)
The militarization o+ much o+ the Third Dorld, o+ten with wea'ons su''lied !y great 'owers whose interests +re5uently
coincide with 2ee'ing un'o'ular regimes in 'ower, has led to the legitimation o+ states +re5uently de'ending on their
recognition !y the international community rather:than !y their domestic 'o'ulations) The Halme Re'ort notes that a growing
militarization o+ the Third Dorld has drained resources that might otherwise !e used +or economic de1elo'ment) Dhen we
consider security +rom the 'ers'ecti1e o+ the indi1idual, we +ind that new thin2ing is !eginning to 'ro1ide us with de+initions
o+ security that are less state:centered and less militaristic) 9ut little attention has !een 'aid either to gender issues or to
women3s 'articular needs with res'ect to security or to their contri!utions toward its achie1ement) Feminist re+ormulations o+
the meaning o+ security are needed to draw attention to the e4tent to which gender hierarchies themsel1es are a source o+
domination and thus an o!stacle to a truly com'rehensi1e de+inition o+ security) I shall now turn to the issue o+ how women
might de+ine national security and to an analysis o+ security +rom a +eminist 'ers'ecti1e)
2$
0mpatsBatriarhy
Batriarhy is the root ause of !ar and is leading us to e1tintion
&eardon -F
@/etty A. &eardon; 4iretor of the Beae 8duation Brogram at Teahers College Colum"ia 9ni$ersity; 1--F;
,omen and BeaeE Feminist Disions of Clo"al 7eurityK
In an article entitled Iaming the Cultural Forces That Hush Us toward Dar" -CBAG., Charlene S'retna2 +ocused on some o+
the +undamental cultural +actors that dee'ly in+luence ways o+ thin2ing a!out security) She argues that 'atriarchy
encourages militarist tendencies) Since a ma*or war now could easily !ring on massi1e annihilation o+ almost
unthin2a!le 'ro'ortions, why are discussions in our national +orums addressing the madness o+ the nuclear arms race limited
to matters o+ hardware and statistics/ < more com'rehensi1e analysis is !adly needed ) ) ) < clearly 1isi!le element in
the escalating tensions among militarized nations i s the macho 'osturing and the 'atriarchal ideal o+
dominance, not 'arity, which moti1ates de+ense ministers and go1ernment leaders to strut their stu++"
as we watch with increasing horror) 8ost men in our 'atriarchal culture are still acting out old 'atterns that are
radically ina''ro'riate +or the nuclear age) To 'ro1e dominance and control, to distance one3s character +rom
that o+ women, to sur1i1e the toughest 1iolent initiation, to shed the sacred !lood o+ the hero, to colla!orate with
death in order to hold it at !ayQall o+ these 'atriarchal 'ressures on men ha1e traditionally reached resolution
in ritual +ashion on the !attle+ield) 9ut there is no longer any !attle+ield) =oes anyone seriously !elie1e that i+ a
nuclear 'ower were losing a crucial, large:scale con1entional war it would re+rain +rom using its multi'le:warhead nuclear
missiles !ecause o+ some di'lomatic agreement/ The military theater o+ a nuclear e4change today would e4tend,
instantly or e1entually, to all li1ing things, all the air, all the soil, all the water) I+ we !elie1e that war is a
necessary e1il," that 'atriarchal assum'tions are sim'ly human nature," then we are loc2ed into a lie, 'aralyzed) The
ultimate result o+ unchec2ed terminal 'atriarchy will !e nuclear holocaust) The causes o+ recurrent war+are are
not !iological) Ieither are they solely economic) They are also a result o+ 'atriarchal ways o+ thin2ing, which
historically ha1e generated considera!le 'ressure +or standing armies to !e used) -S'retna2 CBAG.
2%
0mpatsHilitarism
Hilitarism leads to e1tintionM only intersetional feminist mo$ements sol$e
4r. Bollard (F
N0rina Bollard; Bh.4. 4ept /iologial 7ienes; Ha%uarie 9ni$ersity; Choose /et!een Cooperation and AnnihilationE
A Hental Happing Bro#et To!ards a more Cenerously 4ireted Altruism; 7ydney Australia; *((F; 8u"ios Aournal of
Asian and 0nternational /ioethis 1F JJ+J?. httpE33!!!*.uneso"kk.org3eu"ios38A1F*3e#1F*f.htmP
The hostile actions o+ war are a deli!erate attem't to destroy the ecology that sustains li+e and is, thus, a''ro'riately
categorized as LecocideL) Ho'ular +orms o+ ecocide are scorched:earth cam'aigns aided and a!etted !y !om!ing and military
ground swee's in order to com'letely de+orest, de'o'ulate and destroy the en1ironment) Since such !rutal actions cause
long:term and o+ten irre1ersi!le damage to ecosystems, militaristic insurgencies and counterinsurgencies are 1iolations o+
right conduct at many le1els, !oth within human communities, along !oundaries o+ social and cultural di++erence, and within
our !roader !iotic communities) International militarism and the de'loyment o+ scarce resources on
so'histicated, or not so so'histicated, wea'onry ca'a!le o+ escalating 1iolence can no longer !e tolerated
des'ite awareness that war+are is the ine1ita!le conse5uence o+ a multitude o+ humans +orced !y 'o1erty, mismanagement,
greed and 'o'ulation 'ressures, into o1ere4'loiting their natural resources) It is easy to see the cycle o+ how the resulting
ecological 'o1erty then !ecomes a 'rimary cause o+ +urther aggression) 0nce war is esta!lished, the economy then
!ecomes 'redatory !y consuming its scarce resources to +urther the con+lict, tra''ing its inha!itants in an increasing cycle
o+ war:related de!t and +urther e4'anding 'o1erty) The one o!1ious uni+ying characteristic o+ all institutionalized and +ree:
wheeling con+licts is the lac2 o+ res'ect +or human and en1ironmental rights) Dar 1iolates +undamental human decency
es'ecially when horri+ic atrocities are 'er'etrated under the !anner o+ +alse *ustice and moc2 righteousness) I+ we do not
soon cur! our high rates o+ ecologically unsustaina!le consum'tion de+ended through an ecologically
disastrous militarism we, as a s'ecies, are destined +or e4tinction) 9y 'ointlessly destroying the
en1ironment without ac2nowledgment or reci'rocity is a losing e1olutionary strategy) et us remind
oursel1es again that a mature s'ecies ta2es res'onsi!ility +or the ecological, social, and 'ersonal rami+ications o+ all our
actions) In order +or our di++erences to !ecome enriching, we must a''reciate and claim our intrinsic 1alue
within Iature and cele!rate our di++erence with the larger di1ersity o+ li+e) In this conte4t initiati1es li2e Hro+essor =arryl
8acerLs east:west dialogue is critical -see 7u!ios 7thics InstituteLs we!site.) Im'ortantly, recognizing and 1aluing other
e4'ressions o+ human di1ersity that contri!utes constructi1ely to the richness o+ the human and
ecological +a!ric, whether cultural, social, religious or s'iritual, can only stand us in good stead in o1ercoming
our 'resent en1ironmental dilemma) The s'iritual im'ulse towards meaning and 1alue in +riendshi's has to !e
e4tended towards the whole o+ creation) 0nly this can s'ell the di++erence !etween a +riendly en1ironment and no
en1ironment +or our descendants) International militarism in the +orm o+ war and 're'arations +or war is the greatest
ongoing threat and o!stacle to sustaina!ility and sur1i1al into the +uture) The rate o+ ecologically damaging
change o+ the earth under human in+luences has accelerated to the 'oint that humanity +aces the 'ossi!ility o+
causing its own e4tinction and se1erely damaging the whole !ios'here) 9y a''ro'riating and +ighting
o1er all a1aila!le resources +or oursel1es, we are witnessing the last des'erate struggle +or sur1i1al o+
the uni5ue Puaternary +auna and +lora de1elo'ed o1er the last two million years o+ geological time, +rom
the Hleistocene to the 'resen t) The Puaternary 'eriod was characterized !y the +lourishing o+ an astonishing di1ersity o+
li+e, including the a''earance o+ Homo sa'iens) There+ore, war+are is a costly losing coo'erati1e 1enture : 'oisoning our
neigh!our and wasting common commodities are not matters o+ 'ri1acy or +ree mar2eteering or national so1ereigntyF they
are serious ethical o++ences against others that demand 'u!lic regulations and 'rohi!itions) The 5uestion o+ *ustice also means
that resol1ing the 'ro!lem o+ 'o1erty is a critical 'art o+ any res'onsi!le solution to the 'ro!lem o+ 'ollution, as the 'oor in
!oth de1elo'ed and de1elo'ing nations ty'ically are the most ad1ersely a++ected and ha1e the least o'tions to a1oid the to4ic
e++ects o+ 'ollution) < !asic ethical issue in1ol1ed here is res'onsi!ility to +uture generations, !oth human and
other 2ind, that are endangered !y human o1er:a''ro'riation) 7co*ustice im'lies the need to change our way o+ thin2ing !y
challenging inherited 1alues and assum'tions, 'articularly those that ha1e su''orted ecologically damaging 'ractices) De
ha1e to relearn acce'ta!le limits o+ !eha1ior, !ut since we are the cutting edge o+ IatureLs e4'eriment in consciousness and
thought+ulness, we can wor2 out what needs to !e done) De could +ollow @aiaLs ethic !y acce'ting that the well!eing o+ each
li+e +orm de'ends on the interde'endent well!eing o+ the whole) The challenge is to de1elo' a di1ersity o+ ada'ti1e
30
interrelationshi's at all le1els o+ li+e, including sym!iotic microorganisms) Scienti+ic research is gi1ing us the 2nowledge
that, at e1ery le1el, the !iology o+ the ecosystem is sha'ed !y long:term intimate associations with larger organisms such as
animals and 'lants, and that their com'le4ity is +urther re+lected in their interactions with microorganisms) Ealuing natural
!iodi1ersity in 'urely economic or monetary terms is an insult to the 9ios'hereF as is sic2ening militaristic !eha1ior which
should !e outlawed) To esta!lish a wor2a!le ethical consensus society must !e willing to alter its 1iew in the +ace o+ new
in+ormation) It is a sim'le +act that nothing remains the same) 71olution is ine1ita!le whether it !e slow growth and change
through natural e1olutionary 'rocesses, or ra'id through our inter1ention and technological a''lications de'loyed either
'ositi1ely or negati1ely) 7motional maturity tells us how to choose to !e res'onsi!le while e4cuses 2ee' us
stuc2 in the 'resent 5uagmire : we can choose to !e a lost cause or we can choose to ada't and !ecome
em'owered) In a world where the unit o+ e1olution is the grou', !iodi1ersity and coo'eration is the e1olutionary strategy
+or success) #ust as !iodi1ersity 'ro1ides ecological sta!ility so di1ersity o+ human ideas 'ro1ides national
sta!ility
31
0mpatsHilitarism
Batriarhy auses Hilitarism; "ut feminist go$ernments an reate a !orld of peae
Cok; -*
NAaklyn Cok; proffesor of soiology at 9ni$ersity of ,it!atersrand; 7outh Afrian 4efene
&e$ie!; 0ssue No. .; 1--* ;httpE33!!!.iss.org.'a3B9/73A7&37A4&.3Cok.htmlP
8ilitarism in1ol1es more than arms !earing and the 'ractice o+ war) It has !een de+ined as La set o+
attitudes and social 'ractices which regards war and the 're'aration o+ war as a normal and desira!le
social acti1ity ) This is a !roader de+inition than is common among scholars) It 5uali+ies 'eo'le other than #ohn Dayne as
militarists) 9ut in an age when war threatens our sur1i1al it is as well to understand any !eha1ior, howe1er
mild in a''earance, which ma2es war seem either natural or desira!le) L -8ann, CBA?: G&. The role o+
women in military has !een largely o!scured and mysti+ied !y two com'eting 'ers'ecti1es : those o+ se4ism and
+eminism) 9oth analyses e4clude women +rom war on the grounds that they are !earers o+ Ls'ecial 5ualitiesL) Se4ism e4cludes
women +rom the ran2s o+ the military on the grounds o+ their 'hysical in+eriority and unsuita!ility +or +ighting) <s the wea2er
se4 women must !e L'rotectedL and Lde+endedL) 0ne 1ariant o+ +eminism similarly e4cludes women !ut on o''osite grounds :
that o+ their innate nurturing 5ualities, their creati1ity and 'aci+ism) <nother 1ariant o+ +eminism e4cludes women on the
grounds that men ha1e a mono'oly on 'ower) The outcome o+ these 'ers'ecti1es is that war is understood as a totally
male a++air and the military as a 'atriarchal institution +rom which women are e4cluded and !y whom
women are o+ten 1ictimized) The military is 1iewed as the last !astion o+ male 'ower:war as itLs last
'reser1e Coc2 continues -B$ ". 8ilitary training is a crucial agency o+ this socialisation) 8en are
socialised into a conce'tion o+ masculinity that is 1iolent) L8ilitary training is socialisation into masculinity
carried to e4tremes)L -Ro!erts, CBA;: CB?.) The notion o+ Lcom!atL is the +ulcrum o+ this 'rocess) LCom!atL is the
2ey dimension in the de1elo'ment o+ the masculinity[militarism ne4us) Com!at is 'resented as
+undamental to the de1elo'ment o+ manhood and male su'eriority) -8nloe, CBAG. 0nly in com!at lies the
ultimate test o+ a manLs masculinity) The image o+ manhood inculcated through com!at training hinges on aggression and
dominanceF it in1ol1es an emotional disconnection and an im'acted se4uality) -7isenhart, CBAG. Through com!at the
man a++irms his role as 'rotector, and de+ender) In this sense the e4clusion o+ women +rom com!at roles
is essential +or maintaining the ideological structure o+ 'atriarchy) Coc2 concludes-B$J J., Similarly Reardon
has argued that militarism in general is e4'ressi1e o+ a masculine ideology ) There+ore, i+ women were
included in the 'olicy ma2ing 'rocess, +eminine notions o+ de+ense and national security could !ring
a!out a more 'eace+ul and less militarized world) <lso it is suggested that the 'resence o+ women in com!at units
!lurs and decreases the harshness o+ military li+e) It 'erha's lessens the !rutalization o+ young men thrown into an all male
society +or months on end) 0ne could thus argue +or women soldiers as an agency o+ degendering the military and loosening
the militarism(masculinity connection) The +unction o+ the military and com!at as a masculine 'ro1ing ground will !e eroded
i+ women are +ully integrated into the military)
32
555Alternati$e 7ol$eny555
Alt 7ol$enyFem Berspeti$es
0nluding feminine perspeti$es is key to destroying the harmful portrayal of !omen in the status
%uo.
Beterson -*
<ttem'ts to recti+y this systematic e4clusion o+ women constitute a second JmomentJ in the deconstructi1e 'ro*ect:
correcting androcentric +alsehoods !y adding women and their e4'erience to e4isting +ramewor2s) This inclusion o+
women signi+icantly e4'ands the range o+ 2nowledge !y Jas2ing new 5uestions and generating new
data)J Focusing on womenLs li1es entails considering new sources and re:e1aluating the selecti1ity o+
traditional onesF diaries, 5uilt ma2ing, careta2ing, domestic acti1ities, and e1eryday 'ractices more generally ta2e on new
signi+icance) =ocumenting u!i5uitous androcentrism and its occlusion o+ gender hierarchy tends to render
women as 1ictimsQas relati1ely 'owerless within male:dominated systems) In contrast, Jadding
womenJ disru'ts e4isting +ramewor2s as the ma''ing o+ J+emale worldsJ re1eals the signi+icance !oth
o+ womenLs e4'erience and o+ women themsel1es as actors in accommodation with and resistance to
structures o+ domination) Io longer Jin1isi!le,J e1eryday 'ractices and womenLs acti1itiesQes'ecially when
di++erentiated !y class, ethnicity, nationality, age, se4ual orientation, or 'hysical a!ilityQ illuminate the com'le4ity and
contradictions attending gender and other social hierarchies)
33
Alt 7ol$eny7trutural Diolene
Feminist analysis is key to understanding and inluding pre$iously ignored instanes of =e$eryday
$iolene> into international relations theory.
7hepherd *((?
@Laura A. 7hepherd; 4epartment of Bolitial 7iene and 0nternational 7tudies; 9ni$ersity of /irmingham; =Cender;
Diolene and Clo"al BolitisE Contemporary 4e"ates in Feminist 7eurity 7tudies;>
In addition to 5uestioning what 1iolence is, how it is re'resented and with what e++ects, +eminist security studies
scholarshi' also as2s which 1iolences are considered worthy o+ study and when these 1iolences occur)
74'anding the conce't o+ 1iolence that under'ins +eminist analysis, as outlined a!o1e, allows us to ta2e
seriously what <rthur Tleinman -$%%%. re+ers to as Lthe 1iolences o+ e1eryday li+eL) 9eyond a narrow +ocus on
war and state:!ased 1iolence lies a 'lethora o+ e1eryday 1iolences that +eminist security studies see2s to
address) In the +ield o+ security studies the !roadening and dee'ening o+ the conce't o+ security, such
that it is no longer assumed to a''ly only to the so1ereign state, has demonstrated the multi'le
insecurities e4'erienced !y indi1iduals and social collecti1es -9ooth, $%%&, '') C;R&.) The de1elo'ment o+ the
conce't o+ Lhuman securityL largely too2 'lace within the 'arameters o+ a wider disci'linary de!ate o1er the a''ro'riate
re+erent o!*ect +or security studies -the indi1idual, society, the state. and the ty'es o+ threat to the re+erent o!*ect that would
!e recognised) In a mo1e similar to Ten 9oothLs -CBBC. re+ormulation o+ security as emanci'ation, Ro!ertsL 5uest +or
indi1idual em'owerment see2s to o1ercome the L\lite:legitimized dise5uili!riumL that results in the mani+est insecurity o+ the
ma*ority o+ the worldLs 'o'ulation -Ro!erts, $%%A, ') CA&.) <s might !e e4'ected, the 1iolences Ro!erts identi+ies are
innumera!le) In addition to the 'hysical 1iolences o+ Lin+anticide, maternal mortality, intimate -JdomesticJ,
JhonourJ and JdowryJ. 2illings and lethal +emale genital mutilationF and a1oida!le deaths in children under
+i1eL -Ro!erts, $%%A, ') GC., his analysis attac2s the institutional structures o+ the dominant international
+inancial institutions -'') CC?RG&. and the andrarchal and neoli!eral discourses that sustain them -'') CG>R
&A.)
In short, Ro!ertsL [the, answer to the 5uestion o+ which 1iolences matter in glo!al 'olitics is 5uite sim'le:
all o+ them) Howe1er, while studies o+ human security, he argues, see2 to 'ro1ide the human with security,
his re+ormulated analytic ta2es as its starting 'oint human insecurityF that is, he starts with the threat-s.
to the so1ereign su!*ect rather than the su!*ectLs ontological condition) Ro!erts suggests that this circum1ents
the disci'linary de+initional 'ro!lem with human security R identi+ied !y Roland Haris -$%%C., 7dward Iewman -$%%CF $%%;.
and others R !ut I cannot see how this is the case, gi1en that the answer to the 5uestion Lwhat is it that humans do to ma2e the
world a more dangerous and dys+unctional 'lace/L -Ro!erts, $%%A, ') $A. is also 5uite sim'le: we li1e in it) Thus Ro!ertsL
analytic seems to su++er the same lac2 o+ de+initional clarity R and there+ore 'olicy rele1ance R that he ascri!es to more
con1entional a''roachesF it is no easier to identi+y, 5uanti+y and ultimately reduce the threats e4'erienced !y coe4isting
human su!*ects than it is to 'ro1ide those human su!*ects with security, i+ security can +irst !e de+ined as +reedom +rom +ear
or want) I do not es'ouse some construction o+ human nature -i+ such a thing were to e4ist. that assumes essential sel+ishness
and a 'ro'ensity +or 1iolence, nor do I assume that security is a zero:sum game, in that one 'ersonLs security must always !e
at the e4'ense o+ anotherLs, !ut I recognise that e1en the most well:intentioned security 'olicy can ha1e
un+oreseen and sometimes disastrous e++ects) Sometimes, moreo1er, as S*o!erg and @entry demonstrate, the
decision to 'er+orm acts o+ 'olitical 1iolence that are a source o+ insecurity +or the intended 1ictims can
!e understood i+ not condoned)
3
Alt 7ol$eny7trutural Diolene
Looking at international relations though a feminist perspeti$e allo!s for a "etter understanding
of the "lindness surrounding e$ery day $iolene
7hepherd *((?
9y drawing her readersL attention to the ways in which discourses o+ gender -ideas a!out how L'ro'erL men and women should
!eha1e. +unction, 7nloe reminds us that adhering to ideals o+ masculinity and +emininity is !oth 'roducti1e o+
1iolence and is a 1iolence in itsel+, a 1iolence against the em'owered human su!*ect) LIdeas matterL, she
concludes, ideas a!out modernity, security, 1iolence, threat, trust) L7ach o+ these ideas is +raught with
!latant and su!tle 'resum'tions a!out masculinity and +emininity) Ideas a!out !oth masculinity and
+emininity matter) This ma2es a +eminist curiosity a necessityL -7nloe, $%%?, ') C>C.) Dhile con1entional
studies o+ IR and security may !e willing to concede that ideas matter -see Finnemore and Si22in2, $%%C.,
'aying close attention to the wor2 that gender does allows +or a +uller understanding o+ why it is that
'articular 1iolences +all outside the traditional 'arameters o+ study)
3!
Alt 7ol$enyCritiism
Critial approahes to orthodo1 0& is key to akno!ledging the rele$ane of feminist
understandings to po!er
7hepherd *((?
Feminist security studies should not sim'ly !e seen as Lwomen doing securityL, or as Ladding women to
IR(security studiesL, im'ortant as these contri!utions are) Through their theorising, the authors discussed here
recon+igure what LcountsL as IR, challenging orthodo4 notions o+ who can LdoL IR and what LdoingL IR
means) The 'ractices o+ 'ower needed to maintain dominant con+igurations o+ international relations are e4'osed, and
criti5uing the 'roducti1e 'ower o+ realism as a discourse is one way in which the authors do this) S*o!erg and
@entry 'ic2 u' on a recent theoretical shi+t in <nglo:<merican IR, +rom system:le1el analysis to a recognition that
indi1iduals matter) Howe1er, as they rightly 'oint out, the indi1iduals who are seen to matter are not gendered relational
!eings, !ut rather reminiscent o+ Ho!!esL construction o+ the autonomous rational actor) L[T,he narrowness o+ the grou' that
[such an a''roach, includes limits its e++ecti1eness as an inter'reti1e +ramewor2 and re'roduces the gender, class and race
!iases in system:le1el international relationshi' scholarshi'L -S*o!erg and @entry $%%A, ') $%%, em'hasis added.) Dithout
'aying ade5uate attention to the construction o+ indi1iduals as gendered !eings, or to the re'roduction o+ widely held ideas
a!out masculine and +eminine !eha1iours, S*o!erg and @entry remind us that we will ultimately +ail Lto see and deconstruct
the increasingly su!tle, com'le4 and disguised ways in which gender 'er1ades international relations and glo!al 'oliticsL
-$%%A, ') $$&.)
In a similar 1ein, Ro!erts notes that Lhuman security is marginalised or re*ected as inauthentic [!ecause, it is not a re+lection
o+ realismLs -male. agendas and 'rioritiesL -$%%A, ') C>B.) The Lagendas and 'rioritiesL identi+ied !y Ro!erts and
ac2nowledged !y S*o!erg and @entry as !eing 'roducti1e o+ 'articular !iases in scholarshi' are not sim'ly LacademicL
matters, in the 'e*orati1e sense o+ the term) <s Ro!erts argues, LHower relationshi's o+ ine5uality ha''en !ecause they are
!uilt that way !y human determinism o+ security and what is re5uired to maintain security -') C?C.) Realism, as academic
discourse and as 'olicy guideline, has material e++ects) <lthough his analysis em'loys an uncon1entional de+inition o+ the
term Lsocial constructionL -seemingly interchangea!le with Lhuman agencyL. and rests on a no1el inter'retation o+ the three
+oundational assum'tions o+ realism -Ro!erts, $%%A, '') C>BR??., the central 'oint that Ro!erts see2s to ma2e in his
conclusion is 1alid: Lit is a challenge to those who deny relationshi's !etween gender and securityF !etween human agency
-social construction. and lethal outcomeL -') CAG.)
In sum, all three te4ts draw their readers to an inesca'a!le, and R +or the con1entional study o+ IR R a de1astating conclusion:
the dominance o+ neo:realism(realism and the state:!ased study o+ security that deri1es +rom this is
'otentially 'athological, in that it is in 'art 'roducti1e o+ the 1iolences it see2s to ameliorate) I suggest that
critical engagement with orthodo4 IR theory is necessary +or the intellectual growth o+ the disci'line,
and considera!le insight can !e gained !y ac2nowledging the rele1ance o+ +eminist understandings o+
gender, 'ower and theory) The young woman !uying a T:shirt +rom a multinational clothing cor'oration with her +irst
'ay che5ue, the grou' o+ young men 'lanning a stag wee2end in <msterdam, a grou' o+ students attending a demonstration
against the !om!ing o+ <+ghanistan R studying these signi+icant actions currently +alls outside the !oundaries o+ doing
security studies in mainstream IR and I !elie1e these !oundaries need contesting) <s 8arysia Salews2i argues:
International 'olitics is what we ma2e it to !e ))) De need to rethin2 the disci'line in ways that will
distur! the e4isting !oundaries o+ !oth that which we claim to !e rele1ant in international 'olitics and
what we assume to !e legitimate ways o+ constructing 2nowledge a!out the world -Salews2i CBB>, ') G&$,
em'hasis in original.)
3"
Alt 7ol$enyCrisis /ased Bolitis
Critiism is key to un+$eiling the faade of peae.
7hepherd *((?
In this essay, I address each o+ these concerns in turn, de1elo'ing a criti5ue o+ the war('eace dichotomy that is
+oundational to con1entional a''roaches to IR through a re1iew o+ three recent 'u!lications in the +ield o+ +eminist
security studies) These te4ts are Cynthia 7nloeLs -$%%?. @lo!alization and 8ilitarism, =a1id Ro!ertsL -$%%A. Human
Insecurity, and 8others, 8onsters, Dhores: DomenLs Eiolence in @lo!al Holitics !y aura S*o!erg and Caron @entry
-$%%A.) =rawing on the insights o+ these !oo2s, I as2 +irst how 1iolence is understood in glo!al 'olitics, with
s'eci+ic re+erence to the gendered disci'linary !lindnesses that +re5uently characterise mainstream
a''roaches) Second, I demonstrate how a +ocus on war and 'eace can neglect to ta2e into account the 'olitics
o+ e1eryday 1iolence: the 1iolences o+ the in:!etween times that international 'olitics recognises neither
as LwarL nor L'eaceL and the 1iolences inherent to times o+ 'eace that are o1erloo2ed in the study o+ war)
Finally, I argue that +eminist security studies o++ers an im'ortant correcti1e to the +oundational assum'tions
o+ IR, which themsel1es can 'er'etuate the 1ery instances o+ 1iolence that they see2 to redress) I+ we
acce't the core insights o+ +eminist security studies R the centrality o+ the human su!*ect, the im'ortance
o+ 'articular con+igurations o+ masculinity and +emininity, and the gendered conce'tual +ramewor2 that
under'ins the disci'line o+ IR R we are encouraged to en1isage a rather di++erent 'olitics o+ the glo!al)
3#
Alt 7ol$enyBatriarhy
The Alt sol$es+ Feminism an o$erome Batriarhy and thus all forms of domination
Nhanenge *((2
To rid the world o+ nuclear wea'ons, 'o1erty, racism, se4ism and other isms o+ domination
discriminations must end) <s long as white males hold all the social, 'olitical and economic 'ower,
women, 'eo'le o+ colour, 'oor 'eo'le, children and nature will continue to !e dominated while 'o1erty
and the military mentality will continue una!ated) To sol1e the crises o+ 'o1erty, 1iolence and natural
destruction 1ery di++erent technologies are needed) Disdom demands that science and technology
orientate themsel1es towards the organic, the gentle, the non:1iolent and the !eauti+ul) Heace and harmony
sim'ly cannot !e !uilt on the rec2lessness and 1iolence o+ science and technology) Charlene S'retna2 -8ur'hy CBB?: &C.
+inds that the 'ur'ose o+ culti1ating ecological wisdom is an antidote to the +ree:+loating an4iety that modern societyLs !lind
+aith in technology and 'rogress along with militarism has created) The whole culture is +ree:+loating +rom the lac2 o+
grounding in the natural world, the lac2 o+ sense o+ !elonging and the lac2 o+ healthy relationshi' !etween males and
+emales o+ the s'ecies) De are entangled in the 'atriarchal goal o+ dominating nature and the +emale) De
there+ore need to de1elo' new li+e styles com'ati!le with the real needs o+ human nature, with the
health o+ li1ing nature and with the resources o+ the world) Human !eings are alienated +rom nature and
there+ore also +rom the a!ility to recognise measure and limitation) Iature 2nows when to sto') There is a measure in all
natural things regarding size, s'eed and 1iolence) <s a result the system o+ nature tends to !e sel+:!alancing, sel+:ad*usting
and sel+:cleansing) Iot so with technology or man that is dominated !y technology) There are no sel+:limiting 'rinci'les
and no 1irtue o+ !eing sel+:ad*usting) Howe1er, any acti1ity that ignores sel+:limitation is o+ the de1il) In nature and society
it acts li2e a +oreign !ody and it causes crises) Thus any one who !ases his or her li+e on materialism, which includes
'ermanent, limitless e4'ansion in a +inite en1ironment, cannot last long) -Telly CBB%: CC$: CC;F 72ins CBB$: C?;:
Schumacher CBBG: $%, C$%, C$>:C$?.) There is conse5uently an end to the 'atriarchal reductionist world:1iew)
Its acti1ities will only !e rewarded with 'ositi1e +eed!ac2 until the su!systems !egin to show signs o+ stress) <t a certain
moment its increased technological mastery, its domination o+ nature and society and the huge 'ro+it it generates will a++ect
the social and ecological su!:systems) Then the +eed!ac2 turns negati1e) This will lead to a 'rocess o+ decline in the
system, since decay and colla'se are the 'ro'er systemic !eha1iour under such circumstances) That is the moment the old
instrumental yang is turning into a re: emergence o+ the su!tle yinLs intuiti1e consciousness to restore the !alance)
-Henderson CB?A: G$B, ;%%.)
3$
Alt 7ol$enyBatriarhy
The Alt sol$es; feminism an adresss and o$erthro! the root ause of $ioleneM patriarhy
Ioungs (J
-@illian Ooung, %;, International <++airs A%, I, ?&:A?, Feminist International Relations: a contradiction in terms/ 0r: why
women and gender are essential to understanding the world 6we3 li1e in,"
htt':((www)arts)ual!erta)ca(]courses(HoliticalScience(>>C9C(documents(@illianOoungsFeministIRContradiction0r)'d+.
So1ereignty is a core conce't in International Relations !ecause it de+ines the 're:eminent role o+ states
as 'olitical actors, and !y im'lication also de+ines 'olitical identity -citizenshi'. in state:centered terms, !inding
6authentic 'olitics e4clusi1ely within territorially:!ound communities3)3^ For +eminist International Relations there are ways
in which so1ereignty can !e regarded as a +oundational 'ro!lem in the masculinist distortions o+ the nature o+ 'olitics and
'olitical agency) 8asculinist dominance is institutionalized !y the 6so1ereignty contractL and the 6se4ual
contract3 o+ modern 7uro'ean state:ma2ing, which is simultaneouslyQand not coincidentallyQthe ma2ing o+
rational man, the so1ereign su!*ect and 'olitical agency) In this historical conte4t, 'oliciesQas conce't and
actionQis rendered de+initely masculine and 'olitical identity is gendered !oth conce'tually -in RIIIIS o+
how we thin2 a!out 'olitical agency, su!*ecti1ity and su!*ect:i1e relations. and em'irically -in terms o+ how we organise
'olitical acti1ities, structures and o!*ecti1e relations.)J The 'u!lic o1er 'ri1ate -male o1er +emale. social hierarchy leads to
the gendering o+ 'olitical agency and in+luence in 'ro+ound ways) This is a 'ro!lem when we thin2 o+ internal state 'olitics
!ut it is am'li+ied in international relations, the so:called realm o+ high 'olitics, where women ha1e had least
'resence and direct im'act) Radical thin2ers such as *ohn Ho++man argue +or the reconstruction o+ the 'olitical conce't o+
so1ereignty as emanci'atory, +or 6a so1ereignty !eyond the state3)" States are an e4'ression o+ 'atriarchal 'ower)
67m'irically, states are -mostly. run !y men, de+ended !y men and ad1ance the interests o+ men ) ) )
ogically, state so1ereignty is gendered !y its assertion that leadershi' is monolithic, hierarchical and
1iolent) These 'rinci'les are all JmasculinistJ in character since the idea o+ concentrating 'ower so that
the +ew rule !y +orce o1er the many is associated with the domination o+ men) Ho++man e4'lores the
'ro!lematics and com'le4ities o+ the characteristic o+ the state as the sole legitimate user o+ +orce in the interests o+ internal
and e4ternal order, a legitimacy deri1ing in the li!eral tradition +rom the social contract) This characteristic o+ the state and
issues o+ 1iolence associated with it is central to the conce't o+ security in International Relations) Feminists ha1e e4amined
e4tensi1ely the degree to which mainstream conce'ts o+ security in the Held ha1e !een traditionally constrained !y
masculinist !lin2ers, +ailing to ta2e account o+ security issues women con+ront daily that are associated
with their une5ual or o''ressed conditions o+ e4istence in relation to men, +or e4am'le domestic 1iolence)
They also largely +ail to ta2e account o+ the s'eci+ic ways in which women and children are a++ected !y war, military
occu'ation, militarization, -+orced. migration, human tra++ic2ing, se4ual and other +orms o+ sla1ery and -+orced. 'rostitution)
Carolyn I 0rdstrum has +orce+ully e4'lained: It too2 years o+ studying war +irsthand +or me to learn that children constituted
a ma*or 'ercentage o+ war deaths in the contem'orary world) 9ehind the rhetoric o+ soldiers +ighting soldiers that +uels
military 'ro'aganda and 'o'ular accounts o+ war around the world, children are maimed, tortured, star1ed, +orced to -+ight,
and 2illed in num!ers that ri1al adult ci1ilian casualties, and outnum!er those o+ soldiers ) ) ) <s a society in general we
are taught to 6not:see3 many issues 1iolence and war, es'ecially when it comes to children) I+ silence is
'olitical, not:2nowing is at the core o+ 'ower and its a!uses_> The im'lication o+ +eminist analysis o+ such areas
is that the mainstream tendency to ignore them is a +orm o+ 'olitical not:2nowing) 0ne o+ the most 'ower+ul, and 'erha's
contro1ersial, aims o+ di++erent 2inds o+ +eminist analysis in these areas is the o'ening u' o+ consideration that di++erent
2inds o+ o''ression, including in e4treme +orms as 1iolence, may !e interconnected) <s <nn Tic2ner has
e4'lained: Dhereas con1entional security studies has tended to loo2 at causes and conse5uences o+ wars
+rom a to':down, or structural, 'ers'ecti1e, +eminists ha1e generally ta2en a !ottom:u' a''roach,
analyzing the im'act o+ war at the microle1el) 9y so doing, as well as ado'ting gender as a category o+
analysis, +eminists !elie1e they can tell us some:thing new a!out the causes o+ war that is missing +rom
!oth con1entional and critical 'ers'ecti1es)
3%
555Frame!ork555
Frame!ork
8$en if they !in Frame!ork; !e still !in. They ignore pro"lems that kill more people.
:ale!ski; (-
NHarysia :ale!ski; 4iretor of the Center for Cender 7tudies at the 9ni$ersity of A"erdeen; From an inter$ie! on
9nsettling 0&; Hasulinity; and Haking 0& Theory 0nteresting NagainP; httpE33!!!.theory+talks.org3*((-3(J3theory+
talk+*?.htmlP
This is a ty'ical 6IR 5uestion3 since it 'resu''oses there is -or 'erha's 6should !e3. a central issue that we
could(should all agree on) <lso I thin2 there3s a huge di++erence !etween a central 6challenge3 and a 'rinci'al 6de!ate3 R
whereas the latter might !e con+ined to the scholarly community, with little to do with what either the 'u!lic or 'oliticians
thin2 is a 'ressing issue, the +ormer we might understand to !e more related to what matters to 6ordinary 'eo'le3) <s such
these can !e -o+ten are. 1ery di++erent) -=o 6ordinary 'eo'le3 s'end much time arguing the di++erence !etween realism and
neo:realism or constructi1ism and 'oststructuralism/. I really don3t thin2 that *ust !ecause we are all su''osedly dealing with
the international s'here in IR, there should necessarily !e a central issue or de!ate that we should agree on as !eing central)
There is such a massi1ely wide range o+ issues we might !e concerned with N a 'ro!lem +or me is that
the things that tend to end u' scoring highly on IR3s 'riority list -!iggest challenges. are the things that ha1e
tended to mirror the interests o+ ma*or 'owers in the world R whether that3s the <merican go1ernment or Destern
'owers more generally, which, !y the way, are -surely not coincidentallyY. still o1erwhelmingly dominated !y
elite men) 71en i+ war, con+lict or really the incidence o+ 1iolent deaths could !e 6sort o+3 agreed u'on as
the central issue in IRF why isn3t IR3s central concern 'o1erty gi1en it still 'roduces the highest !ody
count/
0
555Affirmati$e555
978 F8H 0& /A4 CA&47 F&6H 769TG K6&8A F0L8
1
AffNeo+Li"eralism 7ol$es
Li"erali'ation and Harket 4e$elopment ha$e already inreased gender e%uality more than the
go$ernment e$er ould
CAT6 poliy report; -2
N0ndi$idual Li"erty; Free Harkets; and Beae; CAT6 Boliy &eport; 6to"er 1--2;
httpE33!!!.ato.org3pu"s3poliyWreport3pr+1-n)+F.htmlP
Tate `iao Shou tal2ed a!out J8ar2et =e1elo'ment and Rural DomenLs Re1olution in Contem'orary China)J Shou, a nati1e
o+ China who is currently teaching at the Uni1ersity o+ Hawaii at 8anoa, argued that li!eralization in China has greatly
increased the economic !argaining 'ower o+ women and has gi1en them greater +inancial and social
+reedom) J8ar2et de1elo'ment in the 'ast se1eral years has done more to reduce 'atriarchy in China than
go1ernment action did in the 're1ious +our decades)J 8ichael Tanner, director o+ health and wel+are studies at the
Cato Institute, urged China to ado't a 'ri1ately run de+ined:contri!ution retirement system similar to the one in Chile) The
man who de1elo'ed that system, #os\ Hiaera, co:chairman o+ the Cato Hro*ect on Social Security Hri1atization, told the crowd
that since Chile 'ri1atized its 'ension system in the early CBA%s, it has e4'erienced an a1erage annual growth rate o+ ?
'ercent) <+ter the con+erence, Hiaera met with the o++icial in charge o+ de1elo'ing ChinaLs 'ension system, who e4'ressed
great interest in ChileLs success+ul mo1e toward 'ri1atization, and ga1e si4 reasons why a 'ri1ate system +or China would !e
're+era!le to a 'ay:as:you:go state:run system)
2
Aff 8ssentialism
Assoiating !omen !ith peae reinfores harmful gender sterotypes.
Tikner *((1
@Ann; professor at the 7hool of 0nternational &elations 97C. /.A. in Gistory; 9ni$ersity of London. H.A. in 0&; Iale.
Bh4 from /randeis 9ni$ersity; =,hy ,omen Cant &un the ,orldE
0nternational Bolitis Aording to Franis Fukuyama; htt':((we!)centre)edu(lorihm(tic2ner)'d+K
8ost IR +eminists would deny the assertion that women are morally su'erior to men) Indeed, many o+ them
ha1e claimed that the association o+ women with 'eace and moral su'eriority has a long history o+ 2ee'ing
women out o+ 'ower, going !ac2 to the de!ates a!out the merits o+ +emale su++rage in the early 'art o+ the century) The
association o+ women with 'eace can 'lay into un+ortunate gender stereoty'es that characterize men as
acti1e, women as 'assi1eF men as agents, women as 1ictimsF men as rational, women as emotional) Iot
only are these stereoty'es damaging to women, 'articularly to their credi!ility as actors in matters o+
international 'olitics and national security, !ut they are also damaging to 'eace) <s a conce't, 'eace will remain a
so+t" issue, uto'ian and unrealistic, as long as it is associated with +emininity and 'assi1ity); This entire
de!ate a!out aggressi1e men and 'eace+ul women +re5uently comes u' when issues a!out women and world
'olitics are on the ta!le) 8oreo1er, it detracts +rom what +eminists consider to !e more 'ressing agendas, such
as stri1ing to unco1er and understand the disad1antaged socioeconomic 'osition o+ many o+ the world3s women and why
women are so 'oorly re'resented among the world3s 'olicyma2ers)
3
Aff&e$olutions fail
&e$olutions against the state atually inrease su"ordination of !omen.
Beterson -*
S'eci+ically, we need to e4amine: -C. the structure o+ the 'rere1olutionary society in terms o+ the status o+ women and the
relationshi's among +amily, society, and the stateF -$. the rhetorical and sym!olic !ases o+ legitimacy that de1elo' in the
re1olutionary 'rocessF and -G. the sym!olic and o!*ecti1e outcomes o+ the re1olution) The structure o+ the 'rere1olutionary
society should !e analyzed with res'ect to two main 'oints) 0ne, the relati1e 'osition o+ women with res'ect to men should
!e determined: Das gender a !asis +or discrimination under the old regime/ In all 'rere1olutionary regimes u' to the 'resent
day, gender has !een a !asis +or discrimination) @ailey, li2e Heterson, argues that all states rest on a +oundation
consisting o+ gender hierarchy as well as class strati+ication, and that the Jsu!ordination o+ women ))) emerges
as an integral 'art o+ the emergence o+ ))) the state)J >A I+ we acce't this connection !etween the su!ordination o+
women and the social !ases o+ states, all re1olutions against state:!ased regimes ha1e the 'otential to li!erate
women +rom men as well as to li!erate men +rom one another !ut, !ecause re1olutions also result in the
strengthening o+ state institutions, the continued su!ordination o+ women a+ter re1olutionary
trans+ormation is structurally +a1ored)

AffBerm
Berm sol$es "estAttempts at re"ellion outside the system fail
Beterson -*
In the +ace o+ such 'ressures, I !elie1e that +eminist critics o+ the 'resent state system should !eware) The 1ery
+act that the state creates, condenses, and +ocuses 'olitical 'ower may ma2e it the !est +riend, not the
enemy, o+ +eministsQ!ecause the a1aila!ility o+ real 'olitical 'ower is essential to real democratic
control) Iot su++icient, I 2now, !ut essential) 8y !asic 'remise is that 'olitical 'ower can signi+icantly disru't
'atriarchal and class -which is to say, economic. 'ower) It holds the 'otential, at least, +or disru'ting the
'atriarchal and economic o''ression o+ those in the lower reaches o+ class, se4, and race hierarchies) It is
indis'uta!le that, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it has !een the 'olitical 'ower o+ states that has con+ronted the
massi1e economic 'ower 'ri1ately constructed out o+ industrial 'rocesses and has im'osed o!ligations on em'loyers +or the
wel+are o+ wor2ers as well as 'ro1iding additional social su''orts +or the 'o'ulation at large) <nd the 'olitical tem'ering o+
economic 'ower has !een the most res'onsi1e to !road 'u!lic needs in li!eral democracies, where go1ernments must
res'ond roughly to the interests o+ 1oters) S'eci+ically, I am 'ro'osing that a re:+ormed li!eral state could well ser1e
+eminist 'ur'oses and 1alues and, more s'eci+ically, that a reconcei1ed li!eral 'luralism could ser1e to !ring
'resently dis'ossessed 1oices into 'olitical discourse and dis'ossessed 'eo'le into 'olitical
decisionma2ing) <gain, 'lease note the words Jre:+ormedJ and Jreconcei1ed)J The li!eralism I am tal2ing a!out is not the
1ersion generally identi+ied and re*ected in +eminist discussion) Dhat +ollows is an argument a!out some o+ the +eminist
antili!eral charges and the s2etching out o+ a di++erent +eminist li!eralism as it might o'erate domestically and
internationally)
!
Aff Ditimi'ation Cood
Ditimhood mo"ili'es ation through a sense of reognition and solidarity !hile also onfirming
the $ery humanity of persons in$ol$ed
Hino! -F
NHartha; Brof of La! O Gar$ard; August; J( 9CLA L. &e$. 1J11; le1isP
Telling 'ersonal stories o+ 'ain can !e thera'euticF 'ersonal stories can also hel' mo!ilize 'eo'le with similar
e4'eriences through a sense o+ recognition and solidarity) nC%? Telling stories o+ 1ictimhood can also !e
essential +or con+irming the 1ery humanity o+ those in1ol1ed, and +or 'ersuading 'er'etrators and
!ystanders to ac2nowledge harms and to act di++erently) Indi1idualized stories are essential to a1oid the
dehumanizing a!stractions that allow 'eo'le to +orget or tri1ialize the su++ering o+ others ) nC%A Sora Ieale
Hurston wrote, JThere is no agony li2e !earing an untold story inside you)J nC%B Surely that agony is most intense when the story is a!out you and your own
'ain) Oet there is a ris2 that em'hasizing indi1idual stories and stressing +eelings can undermine critical e1aluation and analysis o+ contradictory claims)
ICC%,[
&eogni'ing indi$iduals as "oth $itims and more than $itims an sol$e the dilemma of
$itimhood
Le$it 1--.
NNany; Assoiate Brofessor at 9HKC La!; April; JF 9CLA L. &e$. 1(F2; le1isP
The 'ur'ose o+ e4amining the 1arious ways in which legal doctrines and the legal system disad1antage men is not to thrust men into 1ictimhood) n?&
Hro+essor 8artha 8inow has cautioned a!out the dilemma o+ 1ictimhood: 0n the one hand, +ailure to ac2nowledge
1ictimization Jcountenances o''ression )J 0n the other hand, s'ea2ing in terms o+ 1ictimization may
'romote 'assi1ity, hel'lessness, and !laming !eha1ior on the 'art o+ 1ictims) n?> <s a 'artial resolution o+ the
dilemma, 8inow suggests J treating all 'artici'ants as more than mere 1ictims and more than mere
'er'etrators, recognizing the ca'acity o+ the most 1ictimized +or choice, redressing the structures o+
constraint, and treating res'onsi!ility not as !lame !ut as the a!ility to res'ond)J
Ditimhood is key to in$oking moral responses to suffering !hile also supporting a greater sense
of solidarity among sufferers
Hino! 1--F
NHartha; Brof of La! O Gar$ard; August; J( 9CLA L. &e$. 1J11; le1isP
It seems odd that anyone would em'hasize their 1ictimhood, yet there are many attractions to 1ictim status ) n& Hrime
among them is sym'athy) <s one commentator 'ut it: JT here is an elemental moral re5uirement to res'ond to
innocent su++ering) I+ we were not to res'ond to it and its claim u'on us, we would !e without
conscience, and in some !asic sense, not com'letely human)J n> Seeing onesel+ as a 1ictim can also relie1e a
!urdensome sense o+ res'onsi [bC;C;, !ility or sel+:!lame) n? Eictim status can su''ort a sense o+ solidarity with
others who ha1e su++ered in similar ways ) nA
"

Fem K Model - Somewhat Good

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fem K Model - Somewhat Good

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CNDI 2010 Feminism Kritik

CNDI 2010 Feminism Kritik

CNDI 2010 Feminism Kritik

S-ar putea să vă placă și