UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Ladies and Gentlemen, We are floating in space

The Gender K
1NCs 1NC: Ladies in Space (Mars, RLV, C China).....................................................................................................4 1NC: Cosmodolphins (Satellites)................................................................................................................... 9 1NC (eco)feminist imaginaries (Space E Elevators).........................................................................................15 Links Link: Apocalypse................................................................................................................... . ......................24 Link: Beyond the Earths M Mesosphere..........................................................................................................25 Link: Colonization.................................................................................................................. . .....................26 LINK: COOPERATION.............................................................................................................. . ................31 LINK: Data transparency................................................................................................................. . ............32 LINK: Debate ****............................................................................................................................... . .......32 Link: Democracy.................................................................................................................... . .....................32 Link: Development................................................................................................................ . ......................33 Link Economy....................................................................................................................... . ......................35 Link: Environmental Control Causes W Warming.........................................................................................35 Link Extinction Discourse/Space

E Exploration............................................................................................36 Link: Frontier......................................................................................................................... . ......................37 Link: Gender Invisibility...................................................................................................................... . ........39 Link: Gendered Language...................................................................................................................... . ......40 Link: Hegemony.................................................................................................................... . ......................42 Link: International Relations....................................................................................................................... . .43 Link: NASA............................................................................................................................ . .....................44 Link: NASA/ISS/Apocalypse................................................................................................... . ....................51 Link: Nuclear War............................................................................................................................... . ........51 LINK: POLITICS....................................................................................................................... . .................52 Link: Peacekeeping............................................................................................................... . .......................53 Link: Satellites....................................................................................................................... . ......................54 Link: Science......................................................................................................................... . ......................56 Link: Space........................................................................................................................... . .......................58 Link: Space competition.................................................................................................................. . .............60 Link: Space Exploration................................................................................................................... . ............61 Link: Space Exploration and D Development...................................................................................................62

Link: Spaceflight .................................................................................................................. . .....................63 Link: Space Privacy.......................................................................................................................... . ...........65 Link: Surveillance.................................................................................................................. . ......................65 Link: Survivalism................................................................................................................... . ......................66 Link: Objectivity..................................................................................................................... . .....................66 Link: Technology.................................................................................................................... . .....................69 Link: TechnoReproduction................................................................................................................ . .........71 Link: Tech/Science/Economy.................................................................................................. . .....................72 Link: Utopianism................................................................................................................... . ......................73 Link: War/Solving War............................................................................................................................... . .79 Impacts Impact Turns Economy....................................................................................................................... . ......80 1

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Impact: Environment................................................................................................................. . ...................81 Impact NVTL............................................................................................................................. . ..................82 Impact: Space war................................................................................................................................ . ........82 IMPACT: Structural Violence and W War........................................................................................................83 IMPACT: War............................................................................................................................... . ..............83 Impact: Warming....................................................................................................................... . ..................84 Impact Calculus: Ethics/Oppression......................................................................................................... . ....85 Alternatives Alt: Consciousness.............................................................................................................. . .........................86 Alt: Consciousness: Solves Gendered L Language...........................................................................................88 Alt: Cyberspace................................................................................................................... . .........................88 Alt: cyber-space solves........................................................................................................................... . ......89 Alt: Deconstruction............................................................................................................. . .........................91 Alt: Ethics key................................................................................................................................ . .............91 Alt Ethics: Solves Environment................................................................................................................. . ...94 Alt (To Utopianism) Feminist R Realism.........................................................................................................95 ALT: Haraway........................................................................................................................ . .....................98

Alt: Gender IR.................................................................................................................................. . .........101 ALT: Rhetorical Intervention.................................................................................................................. . ...102 ALT: Standpoint Epistemology................................................................................................................ . ..103 Alt: Transexuality................................................................................................................. . .....................105 2NC ANS To: 2NC OVERVIEW : Framework, alt, turns the c case....................................................................................106 2NC: ALT IS A PREREQ........................................................................................................................ . ..107 PERMUTATION BLOCK.........................................................................................................................1 0 08 Framing card:............................................................................................................................. . ................115 AT: Alt Bad............................................................................................................................... . ...............115 AT: Astronaut turn............................................................................................................................... . ......115 AT: Alt no solvo environment................................................................................................................. . ...116 AT: Case O/W............................................................................................................................... . ............117 AT: Cede the Political......................................................................................................................... . .......118 AT: Cede the Political: Cyborg//Link to Utopian P Ptx..................................................................................119 AT Cyborg NOT REAL W WORLD..............................................................................................................119 AT: Essentialism (Butler)......................................................................................................................... . ..120 AT: Gender Equity

Now............................................................................................................................1 2 21 AT: Human Nature: Ethics.........................................................................................................................1 2 22 AT: Link of Omission....................................................................................................................... . .........124 AT: Overview Effect............................................................................................................................ . ......125 A/T REALISM INEVITABLE................................................................................................................... 1 126 AT: Science is objective....................................................................................................................... . ......129 AT: Youre antiscience......................................................................................................................... . ....130 AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSES (Sorry not as organized) AFF: Perm............................................................................................................................. . ....................131 AFF China Perm............................................................................................................................. . .....134 Aff: Perm Satellites....................................................................................................................... . .............135 AFF: Perm Solves........................................................................................................................... . ...........136 AFF: Astronaut turn............................................................................................................................... . ....137 2

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AFF: Butler CounterK..............................................................................................................................13 9 AFF: Space Turn.............................................................................................................................. . ..........143 Aff Haraway Indict............................................................................................................................ . .....145 AFF: AT: Threat Con............................................................................................................................... . ..148 AFF: Alt cant solve............................................................................................................................. . ......149 AFF: No masculine Space Program N Now...................................................................................................151 AFF: Patriarchy doesnt e exist.....................................................................................................................152 AFF: Alt no Solvo............................................................................................................................. . .........153 AFF: Victim Turn.............................................................................................................................. . ........154 AFF: Cede The Political......................................................................................................................... . ....155 AFF Predictions Good............................................................................................................................. . ...155 AFF AT: Reps 1st................................................................................................................................ . ......156 AFF: AT: NVTL............................................................................................................................. . ...........156 AFF: AT: Epistemology................................................................................................................ .............157

Thanks to the Lord of the Flies for all their help (and for not skinning us alive and gloriously reveling in the appropriation of our power through sacrifice by wearing our pelts):

darius white, gabriel xu, edrick rougeau, ben roberts, luis trejo, meagan wilson, lloyd farley, tyler gamble, lenzi daniel, nicholas ho, chase taylor, alex tran, jennifer li, haris ijaz, reese rosenthal, rikki bleiweiss, and darryl smith jr.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Ladies in Space (Mars, RLV, China)

REALIST SPACE POLICY IS BUILT AROUND A PERSUASIVE ARCHITECTURE OF HETEROMASCULINITY THIS ORDERING SYSTEM ELEVATES THE VALUES OF PREEMPTIVE . AGGRESSION, COMPETITIVE COLONIZATION, AND VIOLENCE AS RATIONALES FOR THE EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF OUTER SPACE. THIS DISCURSIVE MOVE IS NEITHER NEUTRAL NOR INEVITBALE BUT INSTEAD PRODUCES A MORE INSIDIOUS POLITICS THAT INSTRUCTS US TO TREAT FEMINIZED SPACES AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONQUEST. Griffin 2009 (Penny, Senior Lecturer Convenor MA International Relations - Convenor, Postgraduate Seminar Series,
University of New South Wales, The

spaces between us: The gendered politics of outer space in Bormann, N. and Sheehan, M. (eds), Securing Outer Space. London and New York: Routledge, pp.5975.) This chapter is about sex, but not the sex that people already have clarity about. Outer space as a human, political domain is organized around sex, but a sex that is tacitly located, and rarely spoken, in ofcial discourse. The politics of outer space exploration, militarization and commercialization as they are conceived of and practiced in the US, embody a distinction between public and private (and appropriate behaviours, meanings and identities therein) highly dependent upon heteronormative hierarchies of property and propriety.1 The central aim of this chapter is to show how US outer space discourse, an imperial discourse of technological, military and commercial superiority, congures and prescribes success and successful behaviour in the politics of outer space in particularly gendered forms. US space discourse is, I argue, predicated on a heteronormative discourse of conquest that reproduces the dominance of heterosexual masculinity(ies), and which hierarchically orders the construction of other (subordinate) gender identities. Reading the politics of outer space as heteronormative suggests that the discourses through which space exists consist of institutions, structures of understanding, practical orientations and regulatory practices organized and privileged around heterosexuality. As a particularly dominant discursive arrangement of outer space politics, US space discourse (re)produces meaning through gendered assumptions of exploration, colonization, economic endeavour and military conquest that are deeply gendered whilst presented as

universal and neutral. US space

discourse, which dominates the contemporary global politics of outer space, is thus formed from and upon institutions, structures of understanding, and practical

orientations that privilege and normalize heterosexuality as universal. As such, the hegemonic discursive rationalizations of space exploration and conquest (re)produce both heterosexuality as unmarked (that is, thoroughly normalized) and the heterosexual imperatives that constitute suitable space-able people, practices and behaviours. As the introduction to
this volume highlights, the exploration and utilization of outer space can thus far be held up as a mirror of, rather than a

challenge to, existent, terrestrially-bound, political patterns, behaviours and impulses. The new possibilities for human progress that the application and development of space technologies dares us to make are grounded only in the strategy obsessed (be it commercially, militarily or otherwise) realities of contemporary global politics. Outer space is a conceptual, political and material space, a place for collisions and collusions (literally and
metaphorically) between objects, ideas, identities and discourses. Outer space, like international relations, is a global space always

socially and locally embedded. There is nothing out there about outer space. It exists because of us, not in spite of us, and it is

this that means that it only makes sense in social terms, that is, in relation to our own constructions of identity and social location. In this chapter, outer space is

the problematic to which I apply a gender analysis; an arena wherein past, current and future policy-making is embedded in relation to certain performances of power and recongurations of identity that are always, and not incidentally, gendered. Effective and appropriate behaviour in the politics of outer space is congured and prescribed in particularly gendered forms, with heteronormative gender regulations endowing outer spaces hierarchies of technologically superior, conquesting performance with their everyday power. It is through gender that US techno-strategic and astro-political discourse has been able to (re)produce outer space as a heterosexualized, masculinized realm.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Ladies in Space (Mars, RLV, China)

IT IS QUITE ODD THAT THE AFFIRMATIVES APPEAL TO SOLVE VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE IS SO EASILY BELIEVED. EVEN IF THE AFFIRMATIVE WINS THEY SOMEHOW SLOW PARTICULAR CONFLICT SCENARIOS, THEIR STRATEGIC COMMITMENT TO MASCULINITY IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT. AS LONG AS MASCULINIST ORDERING SYSTEMS CONTINUE TO INFLUENCE THE DIRECTION O OF US SPACE POLICY, WAR IS GAURANTEED. WORKMAN, assistant professor of political science at the University of New Brunswick, 1996 (Thom, Pandoras
Sons: The Nominal Paradox of Patriarchy

and War, YCISS Occasional Paper Number 31, January, www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31-Workman.pdf ) As we created "man" and "woman" we simultaneously created war. Contemporary warfare, in complementary terms, emerges within the inner-most sanctums of gendered life. Gender constructs are constitutive of war; they drive it and imbue it with meaning and sense. War should not be understood as simply derivative of the masculine ethos, although it numerous facets accord with the narratives and lore of masculinity. The faculty of war is our understanding of man and women, of manliness and womanliness, and particularly of the subordination of the feminine to the masculine. It is the twinning of the masculine and the feminine that nourishes the war ethic. This can be illustrated by examining the infusion of the language of war with heterosexual imagery typically of patriarchy, that is, with ideas of the prowessladen male sexual subject conquering the servile female sexual object. Both sex and war are constituted through understandings of male domination and female subordination. The language is bound to be mutually reinforcing and easily interchangeable. War is a metaphor for sex and sex is a metaphor for war. A recent study of nicknames for the penis revealed that men were much
more inclined to metaphorize the penis with reference to mythic or legendary characters (such as the Hulk, Cyclops, Genghis Khan, The Lone Ranger, and Mac the Knife), to authority figures and symbols (such as Carnal

King, hammer of the gods, your Majesty, Rod of Lordship, and the persuader), to aggressive tools (such as screwdriver, drill, jackhammer, chisel, hedgetrimmer, and fuzzbuster), to ravening beasts (such as beast of burden, King Kong, The Dragon, python, cobra, and anaconda), and to weaponry (such as love pistol, passion rifle, pink torpedo, meat spear, stealth bomber, destroyer, and purple helmeted love warrior).11 The intuitive collocation of sexuality with domination, conquering, destruction, and especially instruments of war is confirmed by this study. Both sex and war, however, are manifestations of the gendered notions of power over, submission, inequality, injury, contamination, and destruction. Both practices are integral

expressions of patriarchal culture and proximate to its reproduction. It is hardly surprising that the language of sexuality and war is seamless. War is masculinist in the sense that it is bound up with the flight from woman to man; it is a repudiation of feminine characteristics and traits in favour of those understood as masculine. War is inscribed with the celebration of manliness
and the concomitant loathing of womanliness. We can speak of war in terms of its migration "to the masculine" and its flight "from the feminine". With respect to the

former, war is associated explicitly with the achievement and recovery of masculinity. Embedded within the fabric of masculinity are the rituals of violence and destruction. Violence and aggression are not incidental to masculinity; they are integral to its meaning. War arises as the quintessential practice of masculine confirmation; in and through war manliness is achieved. The tapestry of virility
embodies the war ethic. The masculinity of the war-maker is not doubted. War becomes the exclusive sanctuary of masculinized males (and occasionally of masculinized females). The extensive role of "women" in the

functioning of the militaries is understood logistically but does not resonate within patriarchal consciousness. GENDER WILL CONTROL THE DIRECTION, USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY CONTINUED CONDENSATION AROUND THE VALUES OF AGGRESSIVE . MASCULINTIY OBSCURES STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE, CURRENT MILITARY ADVENTURISM, AND WILL CULMINATE IN TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION AND NUCLEAR OMNICIDE Nhanenge 7 [Jytte Masters at U South Africa, paper submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
master of arts in the subject Development

Studies, ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT] Technology can be used to dominate societies or to enhance them. Thus both science and technology could have developed in a different direction. But due to patriarchal values infiltrated in science the type of technology developed is meant to dominate, oppress, exploit and kill. One reason is that patriarchal societies identify masculinity with conquest. Thus any technical innovation will continue to be a tool for more effective oppression and exploitation. The highest priority seems to be given to technology that destroys life. Modern societies are dominated by masculine institutions and patriarchal ideologies. Their technologies prevailed in Auschwitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and in many other parts of the world. Patriarchal power has brought us acid rain, global warming, military states, poverty and countless cases of suffering. We have seen men whose power has caused them to lose all sense of reality, decency and imagination, and we must fear
such power.

The ultimate result of unchecked patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe

and nuclear holocaust. Such actions are denial of wisdom. It is working against natural harmony and destroying the basis of existence. But as long as ordinary people leave questions of technology to the "experts" we will continue the forward stampede. As long as economics focus on technology and both are the focus of politics, we can leave none of them to experts. Ordinary
people are often more capable of taking a wider and more humanistic view than these experts. (Kelly 1990: 112-114; Eisler 1990: 3233; Schumacher 1993: 20, 126, 128, 130).

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Ladies in Space (Mars, RLV, China)

THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO REJECT THE AFFIRMATIVES GENDERED ENFRAMING OF
THE WORLDSIMPLY THE PROCESS OF CRITIQUE REMOVES THE IDEOLOGICAL BLINDERS INHERENT IN POLICY-MAKING. THE PERMUTATION IS DOOMED TO FAILURE B/C THE STARTING POINT OF THE 1AC WAS PROFOUNDLY MILITARIZED Shepherd 8 [Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham,
Gender, Violence and Global Politics:

Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, EBSCO]

As discussed above, ideas about masculinity and femininity, dignity and sacrifice may not only be violent in themselves, but are also the product/productive of physical

violences. With this in mind, the feminist argument that 'peacetime' is analytically misleading is a valid one. Of interest are the
'in-between days' and the ways in which labelling periods of war or peace as such can divert attention away from the myriad

violences that inform and reinforce social behaviour. [W]ar can surely never be said to start and end at a clearly defined moment. Rather, it seems part of a continuum of conflict, expressed now in armed force, now in economic sanctions or political pressure. A time of supposed peace may come later to be called 'the pre-war period'. During the fighting of a war, unseen by the foot soldiers under fire, peace processes are often already at work. A time of postwar reconstruction, later, may
be re-designated as an inter bellum a mere pause between wars (Cockburn and Zarkov, cited in El Jack, 2003, p. 9). Feminist security studies interrogates the pauses between wars, and the political processes and practices of power that demarcate times as such. In doing so, not only is the remit of recognisable violence (violence

worthy of study) expanded, but so too are the parameters of what counts as IR. Everyday violences and acts of everyday resistance ('a fashion show, a tour, a small display of children's books' in Enloe, 2007, pp. 11720) are the stuff of relations international and, thus, of a comprehensive understanding of security. In the following section I outline the ways in which taking these claims seriously allows us to engage critically with the representations of international relations that inform our research, with potentially profound implications. As well as conceiving of gender
as a set of discourses, and violence as a means of reproducing and reinforcing the relevant discursive limits, it

is

possible to see security as a set of discourses, as I have argued more fully elsewhere (Shepherd, 2007; 2008; see also Shepherd and Weldes, 2007).

Rather than pursuing the study

of security as if it were something that can be achieved either in absolute, partial or relative terms, engaging with security as discourse enables the analysis of how these discourses function to reproduce, through various strategies, the domain of the international with which IR is self-consciously concerned. Just as violences that are gendering reproduce gendered subjects, on this
view states, acting as authoritative entities, perform violences, but violences, in the name of security, also perform states. These processes occur simultaneously, and

across the whole spectrum of social life: an instance of rape in war is at once gendering of the individuals involved and of the social collectivities states, communities, regions they feel they represent (see Bracewell, 2000); building a fence in the name
of security that separates people from their land and extended families performs particular kinds of violence (at checkpoints, during patrols) and performs particular

subject identities (of the state authority, of the individuals affected), all of which are gendered. All of the texts under discussion in this essay argue that it is imperative to explore and expose gendered power relations and, further, that doing so not only enables a rigorous critique of realism in IR but also reminds us as scholars of the need for such a critique. The critiques of IR
offered by feminist scholars are grounded in a rejection of neo-realism/realism as a dominant intellectual framework for academics in the discipline and policy makers

alike. As Enloe reminds us, 'the government-centred, militarized version of national security [derived from a realist framework] remains the dominant mode of policy thinking' (Enloe, 2007, p. 43). Situating gender as a central category of analysis encourages us to 'think outside the "state security box"' (p. 47) and to remember that 'the "individuals" of global politics do not work alone, live alone or politic alone they do so in interdependent relationships with others' (Sjoberg and Gentry, 2008, p. 200) that are inherently gendered. One of the key analytical contributions of all three texts is the way in which they all
challenge what it means to be 'doing' IR, by recognising various forms of violence, interrogating the public/private divide and demanding that attention is paid to the

temporal and physical spaces in-between war and peace. Feminist security studies should not simply be seen as 'women doing security', or as 'adding women to IR/security studies', important as these contributions are. Through their theorising, the authors discussed here reconfigure what 'counts' as IR, challenging orthodox notions of who can 'do' IR and what 'doing' IR means. The practices of power needed to maintain dominant configurations of international

relations are exposed, and critiquing the productive power of realism as a discourse is one way in which the authors do this. Sjoberg and Gentry pick up on a recent theoretical shift in Anglo-American IR, from system-level analysis to a recognition that individuals matter. However, as they rightly point out, the individuals who are seen to matter are not gendered relational beings, but rather reminiscent of Hobbes' construction of the autonomous rational actor. '[T]he narrowness of the group that [such an approach] includes limits its effectiveness as an interpretive framework and reproduces the gender, class and race biases in system-level international relationship scholarship' (Sjoberg and Gentry 6

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Ladies in Space (Mars, RLV, China)

2008, p. 200, emphasis added). Without paying adequate attention to the construction of individuals as gendered beings, or to the reproduction of
widely held ideas about masculine and feminine behaviours, Sjoberg and Gentry remind us that we will ultimately fail 'to see and deconstruct

the increasingly subtle, complex and disguised ways in which gender pervades international relations and global politics' (2008, p. 225). In a similar vein, Roberts notes that 'human security is marginalised or rejected as inauthentic [because] it is not a reflection of realism's (male) agendas and priorities' (2008, p. 169). The 'agendas and priorities' identified by Roberts

and acknowledged by Sjoberg and Gentry as being productive of particular biases in scholarship are not simply 'academic' matters, in the

pejorative sense of the term. As Roberts argues, 'Power relationships of inequality happen because they are built that way by human determinism of security and what is required to maintain security (p. 171). Realism, as academic discourse and
as policy guideline, has material effects. Although his analysis employs an unconventional definition of the term 'social construction' (seemingly interchangeable with

'human agency') and rests on a novel interpretation of the three foundational assumptions of realism (Roberts, 2008, pp. 16977), the central point that Roberts seeks to make in his conclusion is valid: 'it is a challenge to those who deny relationships between gender and security; between human agency (social construction) and lethal outcome' (p. 183). In sum, all three texts draw their readers to an inescapable, and for the conventional study of IR a devastating conclusion: the dominance of neorealism/realism and the state-based study of security that derives from this is potentially pathological, in that it is in part productive of the violences it seeks to

ameliorate. I suggest that critical engagement with orthodox IR theory is necessary for the intellectual growth of the discipline, and considerable insight can be gained by acknowledging the relevance of feminist understandings of gender, power and theory. The young woman buying a T-shirt from a multinational clothing corporation with her first pay cheque, the group of young
men planning a stag weekend in Amsterdam, a group of students attending a demonstration against the bombing of Afghanistan studying these significant actions

currently falls outside the boundaries of doing security studies in mainstream IR and I believe these boundaries need contesting. As Marysia Zalewski argues:
International politics is what we make it to be ... We need to rethink the discipline in ways that will disturb the existing

boundaries of both that which we claim to be relevant in international politics and what we assume to be legitimate ways of constructing knowledge about the world (Zalewski 1996, p. 352, emphasis in original).

THE ALTERNATIVE SOLVES THE ORIGIN OF THE HARM AREAS IN A MORE

EFFECTIVE WAY WE MUST EXPOSE STRUCTURAL INEQUITIES, CHALLENGE .

MASCULINE ELITE POLICY MAKING, AND CULTIVATE A DEMOCRATIC APPROACH TO TECHNOLOGY GOVERNED BY A RESISTANCE TO MASCULINE DOMINANCE. THIS APPROACH HAS SUCCESSFULLY ALTERED GOVERNMENT POLICY IN THE PAST. VOTING NEGATIVE IN THIS DEBATE IS A PIVOTAL PERFORMATIVE STEP. Campbell 9 [Nancy D. Campbell, associate professor in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Reconstructing
Science and Technology Studies Views from Feminist Standpoint Theory, Frontier: a Journal of Womyns Studies, Volume 30, Number 1, 2009 Muse]

Accomplishing the ambitious goal of governing technoscience more wisely and fairly requires concerted thinking about what incentives might lead technoscientific elites to ally with social justice-oriented groups. Current science and technology policy disappears most forms of social vulnerability along with basic questions of social reproduction. If we are trying to understand why technoscientific enterprises are
organized to cut out relevant groups who in fact need a reasonable scientific basis for making reconstructivist claims upon society and state, or whose work might

meaningfully redirect research trajectories, feminist standpoint-directed governance offers a more fulsome answer than analyses based on notions of the power elite [End Page 11] or pluralist denials of uneven power differentials. The
concerns of powerful social groups have been raised to a privileged position, while the concerns of other social groups are rendered irrelevant or antiscientific. The

absence of diversity among practitioners of technoscience has epistemological as well as political consequences.37 Setting science

upon a fairer footing would require undoing the assimilation of the goals of science to the relations of ruling. This is unlikely to happen without due consideration of

how social reproduction takes placeand the key role of the market and its supporting institutions in arranging that it continue to take place privately. Gender differentials and racial disparities structure the social worlds of technoscientific elites in ways that effectively cut them off from those whose problems they are trying to solve. These relatively silent but implicated actorsthe poor, the other 90 percenthaunt the corridors of an R&D enterprise, the political economy of which is organized so as to endorse and thereby
reinforce certain identities and not others. Credibility, legitimacy, and authority are accorded on the basis of endorsed

identities.38 An especially clear example of this has recently been provided in science and technology studies by Steven Epstein, Inclusion: The Politics of

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Ladies in Space (Mars, RLV, China)

Difference in Medical Research (University of Chicago Press, 2007). Epstein credits the feminist and womyns health movement with instigating a movement against standardization in clinical trials. The emergence of what Epstein calls the identity-and-difference paradigm responded to health activists claims that clinical trials were not broadly representative. While the story Epstein tells is too complex to condense here, it is an example of that ways in which certain identities are endorsed, and others unconsidered in ways that are consequential. Until relevant social groups can meaningfully participate in setting priorities and guide research trajectories, it is hard to see technoscience serving social justice ends (unless, of course, there is a commercial compulsion). Unless steps are taken to restructure scientific inquiry according to equity
criteria, technoscientific innovation will continue to take place only at the behest of the market system (see Barker 2009, this volume). Most people have little place in

the R&D enterprise; the effects of technoscientific practices and products upon social reproduction will likely continue to be pernicious. Restructuring inquiry so as to be relevant to multiple communities of practice is as much an epistemological question as a pragmatic one.39 Yet the deliberative, participatory processes on offer, among them the science shops or consensus conferences,40 fall short on epistemological and research design questions, not to speak of their impracticality in largescale democracies. If we look closely at the sociality of technoscientific practice, at what technoscientists [End Page 12] are doing and saying, we can see how they cast their decisions about what matters into reality. Improving scientific inquiry thus means opening research design to scrutiny in ways that would make it subject to influence by current outsiders whose achieved standpoints allow them to see matters now invisible or insignificant to insiders. It also means not overlooking the hierarchies of credibility that situate the needs of those who benefit financially from the R&D enterprise over the needs
of those who do not.41 Those hierarchies are reproduced through the social organization of knowledge-producing

enterprises, and so it is no wonder they veer away from latter and steer toward the former in ways that place most technoscience as reinforcing elite privilege and failing to be relevant to all others. Moving toward fair science requires understanding which aspects of inequality are salient for whom, rather than presuming to know in advance what is or is not a meaningful difference from a particular standpoint. If social inequality is to be better
taken into account, part of the process will also entail unlearning the presumptions of privilege. What matters is

constructed in the process of negotiation, rather than constituted a priori. Which differences draw meaningful boundaries between
various domains within a community of practice? How are these differences experienced? Why do particular aspects of inequalitybut not otherscontinue to be

salient differences in technoscientific domains? What can be done to address the persistence of gender inequalities that are seemingly glued tightly onto the map of differential power relations in technoscientific domains?

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Cosmodolphins (Satellites)

INSTEAD OF BEGINNING FROM AN ASSESSMENT OF THE AFFIRMATIVE THROUGH COSTBENEFIT ANALYSIS, WE ASK THE CRITIC TO CONSIDER WHAT SILENT HISTORIES ARE BUNDLED IN THE AFFIRMATIVES TROPICAL DEPLOYMNET OF SPACE. AS DONNA HARAWAY DMEONSTRATES IN HER OWN METHODOLOIGCAL EXPLORATION, ANY TIME WE SPEAK OF THE CONCEPT OF OUTER SPACE WE ALSO SPEAK THESE SILENT HISTORIES OF MASCULINE CONTROL AND MILITARIZATION. HARAWAY, professor in the History of Consciousness program at UC- Santa Cruz, 1992 (Donna, THe Promises of
Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for

Inappropriate/d Others, Cultural Studies eds. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A Treichler, p 315-7) An ecosystem is always of a particular type, for example, a temperate grassland or a tropical rain forest. In the iconography of late capitalism, Jane Goodall did not go to that kind of ecosystem. She went to the "wilds of Tanzania," a mythic "ecosystem" reminiscent of the original garden from which her kind had been expelled and to which she returned to commune with
the wilderness's present inhabitants to learn how to survive. This wilderness was close in its dream quality to "space," but the

wilderness of Africa was coded as dense, damp, bodily, full of sensuous creatures who touch intimately and intensely. In contrast, the extraterrestrial is coded to be fully general; it is about escape from the bounded globe into an anti-ecosystem called, simply, space. Space is not about "mans" origins on earth but about "his" future, the two key allochronic times of salvation history. Space and the tropics are both utopian topical figures in Western imaginations, and their opposed properties dialectically signify origins and ends for the creature whose mundane life is supposedly outside both: modern or postmodern man. The first primates to approach that abstract place called "space" were monkeys and apes. A rhesus monkey survived an 83 mile-high flight in 1949. Jane Goodall arrived in "the wilds of Tanzania" in 1960 to encounter and name
the famous Gombe Stream chimpanzees introduced to the National Geographic television audience in 1965. However, other chimpanzees were vying for the spotlight in

the early 1960s. On January 31, 1961, as part of the United States man-in-space program, the chimpanzee HAM, trained for his task at Holloman Air Force Base, 20 minutes by car from Alamogordo, New Mexico, near the site of the first atom bomb explosion in July 1945, was shot into suborbital flight (Figure 8). HAM's name

inevitably recalls Noah's youngest and only black son. But this chimpanzeets name was from a different kind of text. His name was an acronym for the scientific-military institution that launched him, Holloman AeroMedical; and he rode an arc that traced the birth
path of modern science-the parabola, the conic section. HAM's parabolic path is rich with evocations of the history of Western

science. The path of a projectile that does not escape gravity, the parabola is the shape considered so deeply by Galileo, at the first mythic moment of origins of modernity, when the unquantifiable sensuous and countable mathematical properties of bodies were separated from each other in scientific knowledge. It describes the path of ballistic weapons, and it is the trope for "man's" doomed projects in the writings of the existentialists in the 1950s. The parabola traces the path of Rocket Man at the end of World War II in Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow (1973). An understudy for man, HAM went
only to the boundary of space, in suborbital flight. On his return to earth, he was named. He had been known only as #65 before his successful flight. If, in the official

birth-mocking language of the Cold War, the mission had to be "aborted," the authorities did not want the public worrying about the death of a famous and named, even if not quite human, astronaut. In fact, #65 did have a name among his handlers, Chop Chop Chang, recalling the stunning racism in which the other primates have been made to participate.39 The space race's surrogate child was an "understudy for man in the conquest of space" (Eimerl and De
yore, 1965, p. 173). His hominid cousins would transcend that closed parabolic figure, first in the ellipse of orbital flight, then in the open trajectories of escape from

earth's gravity. HAM, his human cousins and simian colleagues, and their englobing and interfacing technology were implicated in a reconstitution of masculinity in Cold War and space race idioms. The movie The Right Stuff (1985) shows the first crop of human astronau(gh)ts struggling with their affronted pride when they realize their tasks were competently performed by their simian cousins. They and the chimps were caught in the same theater of the Cold War, where the masculinist, deathdefying, and skillrequiring heroics of the old jet aircraft test pilots became obsolete, to be replaced by the media-hype routines of projects Mercury, Apollo, and their sequelae. After chimpanzee Enos completed a fully automated orbital flight on November 29,1961, John Glenn, who would be the first human American astronaut to orbit earth, defensively "looked toward the future by affirming his belief in the superiority of astronauts over chimponauts." Newsweek announced Glenn's orbital flight of February 20,1962, with the headline, "John Glenn: One Machine That Worked Without Flaw."40 Soviet primates on both sides of the line of hominization raced their U.S. siblings into extraterrestrial orbit. The space ships, the recording and tracking technologies, animals, and human beings were joined as cyborgs in a theater of war,

science, and popular culture. Henry Burroughs's famous photograph of an interested and intelligent, actively participating HAM, watching the hands of a white, laboratory-coated, human man release him from his contour couch, illuminated the system of meanings that binds humans and apes together in the late twentieth century (Weaver, 1961). HAM is the perfect child, reborn in the cold matrix of space. Time described chimponaut Enos in his "fitted contour couch that looked like a cradle trimmed with electronics.41 Enos and HAM were cyborg neonates, born of the interface of the dreams about a technicist automaton and masculinist autonomy.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Cosmodolphins (Satellites)

There could be no more iconic cyborg than a telemetrically implanted chimpanzee, understudy for man, launched from earth in the space program, while his conspecific in the jungle, "in a spontaneous gesture of trust," embraced the hand of a woman scientist named Jane in a Gulf Oil ad showing "man's place in the ecological structure." On one end of time and space, the chimpanzee in the wilderness modeled communication for the stressed, ecologically threatened and threatening, modern human. On the other end, the ET chimpanzee modeled social and technical cybernetic communication systems, which permit postmodern man to escape both the jungle and the city, in a thrust into the future made possible by the socialtechnical systems of the "information age" in a global context of threatened nuclear war. The closing image of a human fetus hurtling through space in Stanley
Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completed the voyage of discovery begun by the weaponwielding apes at the film's gripping opening. It was the project(ile) of

self- made, reborn man, in the process of being raptured out of history. The Cold War was simulated ultimate war; the media and advertising industries of nuclear culture produced in the bodies of animals-paradigmatic atives and aliens--the reassuring images appropriate to this state of pure war (Virilio and Lotringer, 1983).42 In the aftermath of the Cold War, we face not the end of nuclearism, but its dissemination. Even without our knowing his ultmate fate as an adult caged chimpanzee, the
photograph of HAM rapidly ceases to entertain, much less to edify. Therefore, let us look to another cyborg image to figure possible emergencies of inappropriate/d

others to challenge our rapturous mythic brothers, the postmodern spacemen

THE AFFIRMATIVE DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO INVESTIGATE THESE STRUCTURING TROPES, BUT RATHER MAINTAINS THE SAME POSTURE DOMINANT IN MOST OF TECHNOSCIENTIFIC THOUGHT. IF ONLY WE HAD MORE DATA! IF ONLY WE HAD MORE EVIDENCE! IF ONLY WE HAD MORE CONTROL! THESE TANTALIZING GESTURES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN IMAGINED FICTIONS THAT DENY A MUCH MORE SIMPLE FACT: THE PROCESSES OF DOMINATION AND EXCLUSION THAT CREATE TECHNOLOGY WILL DETERMINE ITS USE. Haraway 91 (Donna J., Distinguished Professor Emerita in the History of Consciousness Department at UC Santa Cruz, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, The Reinventing of Nature) This is the context in which the projections for world-wide structural unemployment stemming from the new technologies are part of the picture of the homework economy. As robotics and related technologies put men out of work in 'developed' countries and exacerbate

failure to generate male jobs in Third World 'development', and as the automated office becomes the rule even in laboursurplus countries, the feminization of work

intensifies. Black women in the United States have long known what it looks like to face the structural underemployment ('feminization') of black men, as well as their own highly vulnerable position in the wage economy. It is no longer a secret that sexuality, reproduction, family, and community life are interwoven with this economic structure in myriad ways which have also differentiated the situations of white and black women. Many more women and men will contend with similar situations, which will make cross-gender and race alliances on issues of basic life support (with or without jobs) necessary, not
just nice. The new technologies also have a profound effect on hunger and on food production for subsistence world-wide. Rae Lessor Blumberg (1983) estimates that

women produce about 50 per cent of the world's subsistence food.'7 Women are excluded generally from benefiting from the increased high-tech commodification of food and energy crops, their days are made more arduous because their responsibilities to provide food do not diminish, and their reproductive situations are made more complex. Green Revolution technologies interact with other high-tech industrial production to alter gender divisions of labour and differential gender migration patterns. The new technologies seem deeply involved in the forms of 'privatization' that Ros Petchesky (1981) has analysed, in which militarization, right-wing family ideologies and policies, and intensified definitions of corporate (and state) property as private synergistically interact. 18 The new communications technologies are fundamental to the eradication of 'public life' for
everyone. This facilitates the mushrooming of a permanent high-tech military establishment at the cultural and

economic expense of most people, but especially of women. Technologies like video games and highly miniaturized televisions seem
crucial to production of modern forms of 'private life'. The culture of video games is heavily orientated to individual competition

and extraterrestrial warfare. High-tech, gendered imaginations are produced here, imaginations that can contemplate destruction of the planet and a sci-fi escape from its consequences. More than our imaginations is militarized; and the other realities of electronic and nuclear warfare are inescapable. These are the technologies that promise
ultimate mobility and perfect exchange - and incidentally enable tourism, that perfect practice of mobility and exchange, to emerge as one of the world's largest single

10

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Cosmodolphins (Satellites)

industries. The new technologies affect the social relations of both sexuality and of reproduction, and not always in the same ways. The close ties of sexuality and instrumentality, of views of the body as a kind of private satisfaction- and utility-maximizing machine, are described nicely in sociobiological origin stories that stress a genetic calculus and explain the inevitable dialectic of domination of male and female gender roles.19 These
sociobiological stories depend on a high-tech view of the body as a biotic component or cybernetic communications system. Among the many transformations of

reproductive situations is the medical one, where women's bodies have boundaries newly permeable to both 'visualization' and 'intervention'. Of course, who controls the interpretation of bodily boundaries in medical hermeneutics is a major feminist issue. The speculum served as an icon of women's claiming their bodies in the 1970s; that handcraft tool is inadequate to express our needed body politics in the negotiation of reality in the practices of cyborg reproduction. Self-help is not enough. The technologies of visualization recall the important cultural practice of hunting with the camera and the deeply predatory nature of a photographic consciousness,z Sex, sexuality, and reproduction are central actors in high-tech myth systems structuring our imaginations of personal and social possibility. Another critical aspect of the social relations of the new technologies is the reformulation of expectations, culture, work, and reproduction for the large scientific and technical work-force. A major social and political danger is the formation of a strongly bimodal social structure, with the masses of women and men of all ethnic groups, but especially people of colour, confined to a homework economy, illiteracy of several varieties, and general redundancy and impotence, controlled by high-tech repressive apparatuses ranging from entertainmcnt to surveillance and disappearance. An adequate socialistfeminist politics should address women in the privileged occupational categories, and particularly in the production of science and technology that constructs scientific-technical discourscs, processes, and objcctS.21 This issue is only one aspect of enquiry into the possibility of a feminist science, but it is important. What kind of constitutive role in the production of knowledge, imagination, and practice can new groups doing science have? How can these groups be allied with progressive social and political movements? What kind of political accountability can be constructed to tie women together across the scientific-technical hierarchies separating us? Might there be ways of developing feminist science/technology politics in alliance with anti-military science facility conversion

action groups? Many scientific and technical workers in Silicon Valley, the high-tech cowboys included, do not want to work on military science.22 Can these
personal preferences and cultural tendencies be welded into progressive politics among this professional middle class in which women, including women of colour, are

coming to be fairly numerous? Let me summarize the picture of women's historical locations in advanced industrial societies, as these positions have been restructured partly through the social relations of science and technology. If it was ever possible ideologically to characterize women's lives by the distinction of public and private domains - suggested by images of the division of working-class life into factory and home, of bourgeois life into market and home, and of gender existence into personal and political realms - it is now a totally misleading ideology, even to show how both terms of these dichotomies construct each other in practice and in theory. I prefer a network ideological image, suggesting the profusion of spaces and identities and the permeability of boundaries in the personal body and in the body politic. INetworking' is both a feIninist practice and a multinational corporate strategy weaving is for oppositional cyborgs. THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF TECHNOLOGY AS A THING, BUT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE TROPES THAT CONDITION ITS REPRESENTATION IN POLICY DEBATES AND ITS FIATED PRODUCTION. THE APPEAL TO THE NEUTRALITY OF SCIENCE AND ITS ACCOMPANYING VALORIZATION OF EMPIRICAL DATA AS THE PARAMOUNT DEMONSTRATION OF CREDIBILITY BELLIES A MORE SUBTLE FORM OF DOMIANTION. Franklin, professor in the department of sociology at Lancaster University,1995 (Sarah, science as culture, cultures
of science, Annual Review of

Anthropology, 24, 166) Although a pro- and antiscience division is often drawn between critical science studies, such as the study of science as culture by anthropologists, and so-called real science undertaken by professional scientists, this is one of many divisions, or borders, defining science that are currently breaking down (92, 93, 106), Science studies has its own groupings that divide along the faultlines of "realism" vs "relativism," the view of science as knowledge or practice, the validity of constructivist or objectivist approaches to science, and the question of where science is located (124, 150), Many of the same contentious issues seen to be at stake between critical science studies and mainstream scientific practice are in fact reproduced within science studiesan isomorphism that is often least surprising from an anthropological vantage point, which would see both intellectual traditions as derivative of a shared cultural context. In other words, certain cultural values are equally invisible within both science studies and within science itself. The claim, for example, that empiricism can be unmarked, that is, can provide an evidentiary basis that "speaks for itself," is after all a point of view, and one that may be held by science

studies scholars as well as by scientists themselves. Moreover, it is a point of view with a history that establishes a cultural tradition: the tradition of "value-neutrality" or transparency. To distinguish between pure and applied knowledge, between hard and soft sciences invokes not only this value system, but the hierarchical nature of it, thus exemplifying the kind of cultural fact at issue here.

11

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Cosmodolphins (Satellites)

SATALITE DATA COLLECTION ONLY WORKS IN A THEORETICAL WORLD ERASED OF BODIES AND POLITICS. IF MASCULINE NEUTRALITY IS ABLE TO GOVERN THE SUPPORT FOR THE PLAN, STALLITES WILL ALSO BE USED TO MAINTAIN ELITE POWER THROUGH OMNISCIENCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL. Liftin 97 (Karen, U. of Wash., Dept. of Poli-Sci, Ph.D @ UCLA, A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites,
Frontiers: A Journal of Women

Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, Intersections of Feminisms and Environmentalisms, pp. 2647. University of Nebraska Press) The miniaturization of the earth made possible by satellite photography appeals to the managerial impulse; the "blue-and-white Christmas ornament" can be "managed" far more easily that a world of 5.5 billion people and thou-sands of cultures. The distinctive combination of will-to-power and the sense of the earth's fragility that typifies the remote sensing project is expressed in the words of astronaut "Buzz"Aldrin: "The earth was eventually so small I could blot it out of the
universe by holding up my thumb."60 From space, the ultimate domination of the earth, or at least the illusion of it, becomes

possible. While it is the earth that is objectified by the planetary gaze, ultimately "managing planet earth" will mean controlling human behavior, not the earth itself. Ecosystems will respond in various ways to changes in human behavior, but they will only be vicariously "managed." It is people, even as they are rendered invisible by the planetary gaze, who will be managed. The science and technology of remote sensing perpetuate the knowledge/power nexus with respect not only to human domination of nature, but also to social control. Thus, the
six assumptions implicit in the project of global environmental monitoring by satellite turn out to be plagued with internal

inconsistencies, pa-rochial biases, and moral difficulties. Neither the science nor the technology of Earth remote sensing is neutral. The vast
quantities of data generated by satellites are unlikely to lead to either scientific certainty or rational policy. Indeed, EOS technology, at least as presently constituted, seems to reinforce the drive to industrialization and the interrogatory approach to nature that lie at the heart of modernity.

The global view that it purports to provide may become a totalizing perspective that omits human agency and substitutes the vantage point of a tech-nical elite for the collective experiences of the diversity of human beings.
EOStechnology, like other photographic technologies, is a voyeuristic endeavor that maximizes the distance between subject and object-in this case, between the

observing human and Earth'sdynamic processes. Finally, the language of plan-etary

management that pervades discussions of EOS suggests that the disciplin-ary power inherent in the managerial impulse is at the heart of the remote sens-ing project. THE SEMIOTIC BUNDLING IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS LEAVING THE TROPE OF MASCULINE TECHNOSCIENCE IN TACT IS NOT JUST AN EXCUSE OR APOLOGY FOR CONFLICT; NOR IS IT JUST A ROOT CAUSE. INSISTANCE ON MAINTAINING THE TROPE OF SCEINTIFIC OBJECTIVITY IS A RHETORICAL PERFORMANCE OF WAR. HARAWAY, professor in the History of Consciousness program at UC-Santa Cruz, 1996 (Donna, Modest Witness:
Feminist Diffractions in Science

Studies, The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, 435-7) A central issue requires compressed comment here: the structure of heroic action in science. Several scholars have commented on the proliferation of violent misogynist imagery in many of the chief documents of the Scientific Revolution. The modest man had at least a tropic taste for the rape of nature. Science made was nature undone, to embroider on Bruno Latours metaphors in his important Science in Action. Natures coy resistance was part of the story, and getting nature to reveal her secrets was the prize for manly valorall, of course, merely valor of the mind. At the very least, the encounter of the
modest witness with the world was a great trial of strength. In disrupting many conventional accounts of scientific objectivity, Latour and others have masterfully

unveiled the self-invisible modest man. At the least, that is a nice twist on the usual direction of discursive unveiling and the heterosexual epistemological erotics. Steve Woolgar would then keep the light relentlessly on this modest being, the hardest case or hardened self that covertly guarantees the truth of a representation and emerges simply as the facat of the matter. That crucial emergence depends on many kinds of transparency in the grand narratives of the experimental way of life. Latour and others eschew Woolgars relentless insistence on reflextivity, which, in perhaps ungenerously read versions seems not be able get beyond self-vision as the cure seem to be practically the same thing, if what you are after is another kind of world and worldliness. Diffraction, the production of difference patterns, should be a more useful metaphor for the needed work than reflexivity. Latour is generally less interested than his colleague in forcing the
Wizard of Oz to see himself as linchpin in the technology of scientific representation. Latour wants to follow the action in science-in-the-making. He wants to make us

12

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Cosmodolphins (Satellites)

swerve from the unlively analytical habits of contemplating science already made. Perversely, however, the structure of heroic action is only intensified in this project both in the narrative of science and in the discourse of the science-studies scholar. For the author of Science in Action, technoscience itself is war, the demiurge that makes and unmakes worlds. Privileging the younger face as science-in-the-making,
Latour adopts as the figure of his argument

the double-faced Roman god, Janus is the keeper of the gate of heaven, and the gates to his temple in the Roman Forum were always open in times of war and close in times of peace. War is the great creator and destroyer of worlds, the womb for masculine birth of time. The action in science-in-the-making is all trials and feats of strength, amassing of allies, forging of worlds in the strength and numbers of coerced allies. All action is agonistic; the creative abstraction is both breathtaking and numbingly conventional. Trials of strength decide whether representation holds or not. Period. To complete, one must have the force equivalent of a counterlaboratory capable of winning in these high-stakes trials of strength, or give up dreams of making worlds. Victories and performances are the action sketched in this all-too-seminal book: The list of trials becomes a thing; it is literally reified. War is the paradigmatic rhetorical performancethe perfect technique of physical-spiritual persuasion. The word is performative. The word is spermatic; it is made flesh. This is an old figure in sacred secular technoscience narratives. This powerful tropic system is like quicksand. Science in Action works by relentless, recursive mimesis. The story is told by
the same story. The

object studied and the method of study mime each other. The analyst and the analysand both do the same thing, and the reader is sucked into the game. It is the only game imagined. The goal of the book is penetrating science from outside,
following controversies and accompanying scientists up to the end, being slowly led out of science in the making. The reader is taught how to resist both the scientists

and the false science studies scholars recruiting pitches. The prize is not getting stuck in the maze, but exiting the space of technoscience a victor, with the strongest story. No wonder Steven Shapin began his review of this book with the gladiators salute: Ave, Bruno, morituri te salutant. THEREOFORE, WE URGE YOU TO VOTE NEGATIVE AS A DEMONSTRATION OF THE COMMITMENT TO DISRUPT AND DIFFRACT TECHNOSCIENTIFIC MASCULINITY THIS . POLITICAL ACT OFFERS A BETTER SEMOTIC UNDERSTANDING OF VISION THAT OUGHT

TO GUIDE FUTURE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SPACE. Haraway 91 (Donna J., Distinguished Professor Emerita in the History of Consciousness Department at UC Santa Cruz, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, The Reinventing of Nature) I would like to proceed by placing metaphorical reliance on a much maligned sensory system in feminist discourse: vision. Vision can be good for avoiding binary oppositions. I would like to insist on the embodied nature of all vision, and so reclaim the sensory system that has been used to signify a leap out of the marked body and into a conquering gaze from nowhere. This is the gaze that mythically inscribes all the marked bodies, that makes the unmarked category claim the power to see and not be seen, to represent while escaping representation. This gaze signifies the unmarked positions of Man and White, one of the many nasty tones of the world objectivity to feminist ears in scientific and technological, late industrial, militarized, racist and male dominant societies, that is, here, in the belly of the monster, in the United States in the late 1980s. I would like a doctrine of
embodied objectivity that accommodates paradoxical and critical feminist science projects: feminist objectivity means quite simply situated know/edges. The eyes

have been used to signify a perverse capacity - honed to perfection in the history of science tied to militarism, capitalism, colonialism, and male supremacy - to distance the knowing subject from everybody and everything in the interests of unfettered power. The instruments of visualization in multinationalist, postmodernist culture have compounded these meanings of
dis-embodiment. The visualizing technologies are without apparent limit; the eye of any ordinary primate like us can be endlessly enhanced by sonography systems,

magnetic resonance imaging, artificial intelligence-linked graphic manipulation systems, scanning electron microscopes, computer-aided tomography scanners, colour enhancement techniques, satellite surveillance systems, home and office VDTs, cameras for every purpose from filming the mucous membrane lining the gut cavity of a marine worm living in the vent gases on a fault between continental plates to mapping a planetary hemisphere elsewhere in the solar system. Vision in this technological feast becomes unregulated gluttony; all perspective gives way to infinitely mobile vision, which no longer seems just mythically about the god-trick of seeing everything from nowhere, but to have put the myth into ordinary practice. And like the god-trick, this eye fucks the world to make techno-monsters. Zoe Sofoulis

13

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC: Cosmodolphins (Satellites)

(1988) calls this the cannibal-eye of masculinist extra-terrestrial projects for excremental second birthing. A tribute to this ideology of direct, devouring, generative, and unrestricted vision, whose technological mediations are simultaneously celebrated and presented as utterly transparent, the volume celebrating the IOOth anniversary of the National Geographic Society closes its survey of the
magazine's quest literature, effected through its amazing photography, with two juxtaposed chapters. The first is on 'Space', introduced

by the epigraph, 'The choice is the universe - or nothing' (Bryan, 1987, p. 352). Indeed. This chapter recounts the exploits of the space race and displays the colour enhanced 'snapshots' of the outer planets reassembled from digitalized signals transmitted across vast space to let the viewer 'experience' the moment of discovery in immediate vision of the 'object,.8 These fabulous objects come to us simultaneously as indubitable recordings of what is simply there and as heroic feats of techno-scientific production. The next chapter is the twin of outer space: 'Inner Space', introduced by the
epigraph, 'The stuff of stars has come alive' (Bryan, 1987, p. 454). Here, the reader is brought into the realm of the infinitesimal, objectified by means of radiation

outside the wave lengths that 'normally' are perceived by hominid primates, i.e., the beams of lasers and scanning electron microscopes, whose signals are processed into the wonderful full-colour snapshots of defending T cells and invading viruses. But of course that view of infinite vision is an illusion, a god-trick. I would like to suggest how our insisting metaphorically on the particularity and embodiment of all vision (though not necessarily organic embodiment and including technological mediation), and not giving in to the tempting myths of vision as a route to disembodiment and second-birthing, allows us to construct a usable, but not an innocent, doctrine of objectivity. I want a feminist writing of the body that metaphorically emphasizes vision again, because we need to reclaim that sense to find our way through all the visualizing tricks and powers of modem sciences and technologies that have transformed the objectivity debates. We need to learn in our
bodies, endowed with primate colour and stereoscopic vision, how to attach the objective to our theoretical and political scanners in order to name where we are and are

not, in dimensions of mental and physical space we hardly know how to name. So, not so perversely, objectivity turns out to be about particular and specific embodiment, and definitely not about the false vision promising transcendence of all limits and responsibility. The moral is simple: only partial perspective promises objective vision. This is an objective vision that initiates, rather than closes off, the problem of responsibility for the generativity of all visual practices. Partial

perspective can be held accountable for both its promising

and its destructive monsters. All Western cultural narratives about objectivity are allegories of the ideologies of the relations of what we call mind and body, of distance

and responsibility, embedded in the science question in feminism. Feminist objectivity is about limited location and situated knowledge, not about transcendence and splitting of subject and object. In this way we might become answerable for what we learn how to see. These are lessons which I learned in part walking with my dogs and wondering how the world looks
without a fovea and very few retinal cells for colour vision, but with a huge neural processing and sensory area for SOleUs. It is a lesson available from

photographs of how the world looks to the compound eyes of an insect, or even from the camera eye of a spy satellite or the digitally transmitted signals of space probe-perceived differences 'near' Jupiter that have been transformed into coffee table colour photographs. The 'eyes' made available in modem technological sciences shatter any idea of passive vision; these prosthetic devices show us that all eyes, including our own organic ones, are active perceptual systems, building in translations and specific ways of seeing, that is, ways of life.

There is no unmediated photograph or passive camera obscura in scientific accounts of bodies and machines; there are only highly specific visual possibilities, each

with a wonderfully detailed, active, partial way of organizing worlds. AIl these pictures of the world should not be allegories of infinite mobility and interchangeability, but of elaborate specificity and difference and the loving care people might take to learn how to see faithfully from another's point of view, even when the other is our own machine. That's not alienating distance; that's a possible allegory for feminist versions of objectivity. Understanding how these visual systems work, technically, socially, and psychically ought to be a way of embodying feminist objectivity.

14

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC (eco)feminist imaginaries (Space Elevators)

A QUESTION HAUNTS MODERN POLITICS, JUST AS IT HAS HAUNTED THE POLITICS
OF THE PAST: WHAT IS A WOMAN? WE ARE COMPELLED TO ASK THIS QUESTION BECAUSE WHILE THE AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTS A WORLD OF NEUTRALITY AND UNIVERSALITY, THE QUESTION OF WOMAN DEMANDS WE ATTEND TO PARTICULARITY AND PARTIALITY WE CANNOT PRESUME THAT WE HAVE . ALREADY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION. INSTEAD, WE MUST CENTER OUR POLITICS IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT TAKING THE QUESTION OF WOMAN SERIOUSLY ENTAILS. BEAUVOIR 2009 [1949] (SIMONE DE, preeminent French existentialist philosopher,
Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier)
I hesitated a long time before writing a book on woman. The subject is irritating, especially for women; and it is not new. Enough ink has flowed over the quarrel about feminism; it is now almost over: let's not talk about it any more. Yet it is still

Second Sex trans Constance

being talked about. And the volumes of idiocies churned out over this past century do not seem to have clarified the problem. Besides, is there a problem? And what is it? Are there even women? True, the theory of the eternal feminine still has its followers; they whisper, 'Even in Russia, women are still very much women'; but other well-informed people - and also at times those same ones - lament, 'Woman is losing herself, woman is lost.' It is hard to know any longer if women still exist, if they will always exist, if there should be women at all, what place they hold in this world, what place they should hold. 'Where are the women?' asked a short-lived magazine recently. * But first, what is a woman? 'rota mulier in utero: she is a womb,' some say. Yet speaking of certain women, the experts proclaim, 'They are not women', even though they have a uterus like the others. Everyone agrees there are females in the human species; today, as in the past, they make up about half of humanity; and yet we are told that 'femininity is in jeopardy'; we
are urged, 'Be women, stay women, become women: So not every female human being is necessarily a woman; she must take part in this mysterious and endangered reality known as femininity. Is femininity secreted by the ovaries? Is it

enshrined in a Platonic heaven? Is a frilly petticoat enough to bring it down to earth? Although some women zealously strive to embody it, the model has never been patented. It is typically described in vague and shimmering terms borrowed from a clairvoyant's vocabulary. In St Thomas's time it was an essence defined with as much certainty as the sedative quality of a poppy. But conceptualism has lost ground: biological and social sciences no longer believe there are immutably determined entities that define given

characteristics like those of the woman,

the Jew or the black; science considers characteristics as secondary reactions to a situation. If there is no such thing today as femininity, it is because there never was. Does the word 'woman', then, have

no content? It is what advocates of Enlightenment philosophy, rationalism or nominalism vigorously assert: women are, among human beings, merely those who are arbitrarily designated by the word 'woman'; American women in
particular are inclined to think that woman as such no longer exists. If some backward individual still takes herself for a woman, her friends advise her to undergo psychoanalysis to get rid of this obsession. Referring to a book - a very irritating

one at that - Modern Woman: The Lost Sex, Dorothy Parker wrote: 'I cannot be fair about books that treat women as women. My idea is that all of us, men as well as women, whoever we are, should be considered as human beings: But nominalism is a doctrine that falls a bit short; and it is easy for anti-feminists to show that women are not men. Certainly woman like man is a human being; but such an assertion is abstract; the fact is that every concrete human being is always uniquely situated. Rejecting the notions of the eternal feminine, the black soul or the Jewish character is not to deny that there are today Jews, blacks or women: this denial is not a liberation for those concerned, but an inauthentic flight. Clearly, no woman can claim without bad faith to be situated beyond her sex. A
few years ago, a well-known woman writer refused to have her portrait appear in a series of photographs devoted specifically to women writers. She wanted to be included in the men's category; but to get this privilege, she used her husband's

influence. Women who assert they are men still claim masculine consideration and respect. I also remember a young Trotskyite standing on a platform during a stormy meeting, about to come to blows in spite of her obvious fragility. She was denying her feminine frailty; but it was for the love of a militant man she wanted to be equal to. The defiant position that American women occupy proves they are haunted by the sentiment of their own femininity. And the truth is that anyone can clearly see that humanity is split into two categories of individuals with manifestly different clothes, faces, bodies, smiles, movements, interests and occupations; these differences are perhaps superficial; perhaps they are destined to disappear. What is certain is that for the moment they exist in a strikingly obvious way. If the female function is not enough to define woman, and if we also reject the explanation of the 'eternal feminine', but if we accept, even temporarily, that there are women on the earth, we then have to ask: what is a woman? Merely
stating the problem suggests an immediate answer to me. It is significant that I pose it. It would never occur to a man to write a book on the singular situation of males in humanity.* If I want to define myself, I

first have to say, 'I am a woman'; all other assertions will arise from this basic truth. A man never begins by positing himself as an individual of a certain sex: that he is a man is obvious. The categories 'masculine' and 'feminine' appear as symmetrical in a formal
way on town hall records or identification papers. The relation of the two sexes is not that of two electrical poles: the man represents both

the positive and the neuter to such an extent that in French 'hommes' designates human beings, the particular meaning of the word 'vir' being assimilated into the general meaning of the word 'homo'. Woman is the negative, to such a point that any determination is imputed to her as a limitation, without reciprocity. I used to get annoyed in abstract discussions to hear men tell me: 'You think such and such a thing because you're a woman.' But I know my only defence is to answer, 'I think it because it is true,' thereby

eliminating my subjectivity; it was out of the question to answer, well you think the contrary because you are a man', because it is understood that being a man is not a particularity; a man is in his right by virtue of being man; it is the woman who is in the wrong. In fact, just as for the ancients there was an absolute vertical that defined the oblique, there is an absolute human type that is masculine. Woman has ovaries and a uterus; such are the particular conditions that lock her in her subjectivity; some even say she thinks with her hormones. Man vainly forgets that his anatomy also includes hormones and testicles. He grasps his body as a direct and normal link 15

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC (eco)feminist imaginaries (Space Elevators)

with the world that he believes he apprehends in all objectivity whereas he considers woman's body an obstacle, a prison, burdened by everything that particularises it. 'The female is female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities,' Aristotle said. 'We should regard women's nature as suffering
from natural defectiveness.' And St Thomas in his turn decreed that woman was an 'incomplete man', an 'incidental' being. This is what the Genesis story symbolises, where Eve

appears as if drawn from Adam's 'supernumerary' bone, in Bossuet's words. Humanity is male, and man defines woman, not in herself, but in relation to himself; she is not considered an autonomous being. 'Woman, the relative being ... " writes
Michelet. Thus Monsieur Benda declares in Uriel's Report:' 'A man's body has meaning by itself, disregarding the body of the woman, whereas the woman's body seems devoid of meaning without reference to the male. Man thinks himself

without woman. Woman does not think herself without man.' And she is nothing other than what man decides; she is thus called 'the sex', meaning that the male sees her essentially as a sexed being; for him she is sex, so she is it in the absolute. She determines and differentiates herself in relation to man, and he does not in relation to her; she is the inessential in front of the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute. She is the Other. *2 The category of Other is as original as consciousness itself. The duality between Self and Other can be found in the most primitive societies, in the most ancient mythologies; this division did not always fall into the category of
the division of the sexes, it was not based on any empirical given: this comes out in works like Granet's on Chinese thought, and Dumezil's on India and Rome. In couples such as Varuna-Mitra, Ouranos-Zeus, Sun-Moon, Day-Night, no feminine

element is involved at the outset; neither in Good-Evil, auspicious and inauspicious, left and right, God and Lucifer; alterity is the fundamental category of human thought. No group ever defines itself as One without immediately setting up the Other opposite itself. It only takes three travellers brought together by chance in the same train compartment for the rest of the travellers to become vaguely hostile 'others'. Village people view anyone not belonging to the village as suspicious' others'. For the native of a country, inhabitants of other countries are viewed as 'foreigners'; Jews are the' others' for anti-Semites, blacks for racist Americans, indigenous people for colonists, proletarians for the propertied classes. After studying the diverse forms of primitive society in depth, Levi-Strauss could conclude: 'The transition from Nature to Culture is determined by man's ability to think of biological relationships as systems of oppositions; duality, alternation, opposition, and symmetry, whether presented in definite forms or in imprecise forms, are not so much matters to be explained as basic and immediate data of social reality. '*3 These phenomena could not be understood if human reality were solely a Mitsein4 based on solidarity and friendship. On the contrary, they become clear if, following Hegel, a fundamental hostility to any other consciousness is found in consciousness itself; the subject posits itself only in opposition; it asserts itself as the

essential and sets up the other as inessential, as the object. But the other consciousness has an opposing reciprocal claim: travelling, a local is shocked to realise that in neighbouring countries locals view him as a foreigner; between villages, clans, nations and classes there are wars, potlatches, agreements, treaties and struggles that remove the absolute meaning from the idea of the other and bring out its relativity; whether one likes it or not, individuals and groups have no choice but to recognise the reciprocity of their relation. How is it then that between the sexes this reciprocity has not been put forward, that one of the terms has been asserted as the only essential one, denying any relativity in regard to its correlative, defining the latter as pure alterity? Why do women not contest male sovereignty? No subject posits itself spontaneously and at once as the inessential from the outset; it is not the Other who, defining itself as Other, defines the One; the Other is posited as Other by the One positing itself as One. But in order for the Other not to turn into the One, the Other has to submit to this foreign point of view. Where does this submission in woman come from? There are other cases where, for a shorter or longer time, one category has managed to dominate another absolutely. It is often numerical inequality that confers this privilege: the majority imposes its law on or persecutes the minority. But women are not a minority like American blacks, or like Jews: there are as many women as men on the earth. Often, the two opposing groups concerned were once independent of each other; either they were not aware of each other in the past or they accepted each other's autonomy; and some historical event subordinated the weaker to the stronger: the Jewish diaspora, slavery in America, or the colonial conquests are facts with dates. In these cases, for the oppressed there was a before: they share a past, a tradition, sometimes a religion, or a culture. In this sense, the parallel Bebel draws between women and the proletariat would be the best founded: proletarians are not a numerical minority either and yet they have never formed a separate group. However, not one event, but a whole historical development, explains their existence as a class and accounts for the distribution of these individuals in this class. There have not always been proletarians: there have always been women; they are women by their physiological structure; as far back as history can be traced, they have always been subordinate to men; their dependence is not the consequence of an event or a becoming, it did not happen. Alterity
here appears to be an absolute, partly because it falls outside the accidental nature of historical fact. A situation created over time can come undone at another time blacks in Haiti for one are a good example; on the contrary, a natural condition

seems to defy change. In truth, nature is no more an immutable given than is historical reality. If woman discovers herself as the inessential, and never turns into the essential, it is because she does not bring about this transformation herself. Proletarians say 'we'. So do blacks. Positing themselves as subjects, they thus transform the bourgeois or whites into' others'. Women - except in certain abstract gatherings such as conferences - do not use 'we'; men say 'women' and women adopt this word to refer to themselves; but they do not posit themselves authentically as Subjects. The proletarians made the revolution in Russia, the blacks in Haiti, the Indochinese are fighting in Indochina. Women's actions have never been

more than symbolic agitation; they have won only what men have been willing to concede to them; they have taken nothing; they have received. They lack the concrete means to organise themselves into a unit that could posit itself in opposition.

They have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and unlike the proletariat, they have no solidarity of labour or interests; they even lack their own space that makes communities of American blacks, or the Jews in ghettos, the workers in Saint-Denis or Renault factories. They live dispersed among men, tied by homes, work, economic interests and social conditions to certain men - fathers or husbands - more closely than to other women. As bourgeois women, they are in solidarity with bourgeois men and not with women proletarians; as white women, they are in solidarity with white men and not with black women. The proletariat could plan to massacre the whole ruling class; a fanatic Jew or black could dream of seizing the secret of the atomic bomb and turning all of humanity entirely Jewish or entirely black: but a woman could not even dream of exterminating males. The tie that binds her to her oppressors is unlike any other. The division of the sexes is a biological given, not a moment in human history. Their opposition took shape within an original Mitsein and she has not broken it. The couple is a fundamental unit with the ~o halves riveted to each other: cleavage of society by sex is not possible: This is the fundamental characteristic of woman: she is the Other at the heart of a whole whose two components are necessary to each other. One might think that this reciprocity would have facilitated her liberation; when Hercules spins wool.at Omphale's feet, his desire enchains him. Why was Omphale unable to acquire long-lasting power? Medea, in revenge against Jason, kills her children: this brutal legend suggests that the bond
attaching the woman to her child could have given her a formidable upper hand. In Lysistrata, Aristophanes light-heartedly imagined a group of women who, uniting together for the social good, tried to take advantage of men's need for them: but

it is only a comedy. The legend that claims that the ravished Sabine women resisted their ravishers with obstinate sterility also recounts that by whipping them with leather straps, the men magically won them over into submission. Biological need - sexual desire and desire for posterity - which makes the male dependent on the female, has not liberated women socially. Master and slave are also linked by a reciprocal economic need that does not free the slave. That is, in the master-slave relation, the master does not posit the need he has for the other; he holds the power to satisfy this need and does not mediate it; the slave, on the other hand, out of dependence, hope or fear, internalises his need for the master; however equally compelling the need may be to them both, it always plays in favour of the oppressor over the oppressed: this explains the slow pace of workingclass liberation, for example. Now woman has always been, if not man's slave, at least
his vassal; the two sexes have never divided the world up equally; and still today, even though her condition is changing, woman is heavily handicapped. In no country is her legal status identical to man's, and often it puts her at a considerable

disadvantage. Even when her rights are recognised abstractly, long-standing habit keeps them from being concretely manifested in customs. Economically, men and women almost form two castes; all things being equal, the former have better jobs, higher wages and greater chances to succeed than their new female competitors; they occupy many more places in industry, in politics, etc. and they hold the most

important positions. In addition to their concrete

power they are invested with a prestige whose tradition is reinforced by the child's whole education: the present incorporates the past, and in the past all history was made by males. At the moment that women

are beginning to share in the making of the world, this world still belongs to men: men have no doubt about this, and women barely doubt it. Refusing to be the Other, refusing complicity with man, would mean renouncing all the advantages an alliance with the superior caste confers on them. Lord-man will materially protect liege-woman and will be in charge of justifying her existence:
along with the economic risk, she eludes the metaphysical risk of a freedom that must invent its goals without help. Indeed, beside every individual's claim to assert himself as subject - an ethical claim - lies the temptation to flee freedom and to

make himself into a thing: it is a pernicious path because the individual, passive, alienated and lost, is prey to a foreign will, cut off from his transcendence, robbed of all worth. But it is an easy path: the anguish and stress of authentically assumed existence are thus avoided. The man who sets the woman up as an Other will thus find in her a deep complicity. Hence woman makes no claim for herself as subject because she lacks the concrete means, because she senses the necessary link connecting her to man without positing its reciprocity, and because she often derives satisfaction from her role as Other. But a question immediately arises: how did this whole story begin? It is understandable that the duality of the sexes, like all duality, be expressed in conflict. It is understandable that if one of the two succeeded in imposing its superiority, it had to establish itself as absolute. It remains to be explained how it was that man won at the outset. It seems possible that women might have carried off the victory, or that the battle might never be resolved. Why is it that this world has always belonged to men and that only today are things beginning to change? Is this change a good thing? Will it bring about an equal sharing of the world between men and 16

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC (eco)feminist imaginaries (Space Elevators)

women or not? These questions are far from new; they have already had many answers; but the very fact that woman is Other challenges all the justifications that men have ever given: these were only too clearly dictated by their own interest. 'Everything that men have written about women should be viewed with suspicion, because they are both judge and party,' wrote Poulain de la Barre, a littleknown seventeenth-century feminist. Males have always and everywhere paraded their satisfaction of feeling they are kings of creation. 'Blessed be the Lord our God, and the Lord of all worlds that has not made me a woman,' Jews say in their

morning prayers; meanwhile their wives resignedly murmur: 'Blessed be the Lord for creating me according to His will: Among the blessings Plato thanked the gods for was first being born free and not a slave, and second, a man and not a woman. But males could not have enjoyed this privilege so fully had they not considered it as founded in the absolute and in eternity: they sought to make the fact of their supremacy a right. 'Those who made and compiled the laws, being men, favoured their own sex, and the jurisconsults have turned the laws into principles,' Poulain de la Barre continues. Lawmakers, priests, philosophers, writers and scholars have gone to great lengths to prove that women's subordinate condition was willed in heaven and profitable on earth. Religions forged by men reflect this will for domination: they found ammunition in the legends of Eve and Pandora. They have put philosophy and theology in their service, as seen in the previously cited words of Aristotle and St Thomas. Since ancient times, satirists and moralists have delighted in depicting women's weaknesses. The violent indictments brought against them all through French literature are well known: Montherlant, with less verve, picks up the tradition from Jean de Meung. This hostility seems sometimes founded but is often gratuitous; in truth, it covers up a more or less skilfully camouflaged will to self-justification. 'It is easier to accuse one sex than to excuse the other,' says Montaigne. In certain cases, the process is transparent. It is striking, for example, that the Roman code limiting a wife's rights invokes 'the imbecility and fragility of the sex' just when a weakening family structure makes her a threat to male heirs. It is striking that in the sixteenth century, to keep a married woman under wardship, the authority of St Augustine affirming 'the wife is an animal neither reliable nor stable' is called on, whereas the unmarried woman is recognised as capable of managing her own affairs. Montaigne well understood the arbitrariness and injustice of the lot assigned to women: 'Women are not at all wrong in refusing the world's rules especially since men made them without women. There is a natural plotting and scheming between them and us.' But he does not go so far as to champion their cause. It is only in the eighteenth century that deeply democratic men begin to consider the issue objectively. Diderot, for one, tries to prove that, like man, woman is a human being. A bit later, John Stuart Mill ardently defends women. But these philosophers are exceptional in their impartiality. In the nineteenth century the feminist quarrel once again becomes a partisan quarrel; one

of the consequences of the industrial revolution is that women enter the labour force: at that point, women's demands leave the realm of the theoretical and find economic grounds; their adversaries become all the more aggressive; even though landed property is partially discredited, the bourgeoisie clings to the old values where family solidity guarantees private property: it insists all the more fiercely that woman's place should be in the home as her emancipation becomes a real threat; even within the working class, men tried to thwart women's liberation because women were becoming dangerous competitors - especially as women were used to working for low salaries. * To prove women's inferiority, anti-feminists began to draw not only, as before, on religion, philosophy and theology, but also on science: biology, experimental psychology, etc. At most they were willing to grant 'separate but equal status'5 to the other sex. That winning formula is most significant: it is exactly that formula the Jim Crow laws put into practice with regard to black Americans; this so-called egalitarian segregation served only to introduce the most extreme forms of discrimination. This convergence is in no way pure chance: whether it is race, caste, class or sex reduced to an inferior condition, the justification process is the same. 'The eternal feminine' corresponds to 'the black soul' or 'the Jewish character'. However, the Jewish problem on the whole is very different from the two others: for the anti-Semite, the Jew is more an enemy than an inferior and no place on this earth is recognised as his own; it would be preferable to see him annihilated. But there are deep analogies between the situations of women and blacks: both are liberated today from the same paternalism, and the former master caste wants to keep them 'in their place', that is, the place chosen for them; in both cases, they praise, more or less sincerely, the virtues of the 'good black', the carefree, childlike, merry soul of the resigned black, and the woman who is a 'true woman' - frivolous, infantile, irresponsible, the woman subjugated to man. In both cases, the ruling caste bases its argument on the state of affairs it created itself. The familiar line from George Bernard Shaw sums it up: 'The white American relegates the black to the rank of shoeshine boy, and then concludes that blacks are only good for shining shoes.' The same vicious circle can be found in all analogous circumstances: when an individual or a group of individuals is kept in a situation of inferiority, the fact is that he or they are inferior. But the scope of the verb to be must be understood; bad faith means giving it a substantive value, when in fact it has the sense of the Hegelian dynamic: to be is to have become, to have been made as one manifests oneself. Yes, women in general are today inferior to men, that is, their situation provides them with fewer possibilities: the question is whether this state of affairs must be perpetuated. Many men wish it would be: not all men have yet laid down their arms. The conservative bourgeoisie continues to view women's liberation as a danger threatening their morality and their interests. Some men feel threatened by women's competition. In Hebdo-Latin the other day, a student declared: 'Every woman student who takes a position as a doctor or lawyer is stealing a place from us.' That student never questioned his rights over this world. Economic interests are not the only ones in play. One of the benefits that oppression secures for the oppressor is that the humblest among them feels superior: in the USA, a 'poor white' from the South can console himself for not being a 'dirty nigger'; and more prosperous whites cleverly exploit this pride. Likewise, the most mediocre of males believes himself a demigod next to women. It

was easier for M. de Montherlant to think himself a hero in front of women (hand-picked, by the way) than to act the man among men, a role that many women assumed better than he did. Thus, in one of his articles in Figaro Litteraire in September 1948, M. Claude Mauriac - whom everyone admires for his powerful originality - could* write about women: 'We listen in a tone [sic!] of polite indifference ... to the most brilliant one among them, knowing that her intelligence, in a more or less dazzling way, reflects ideas that come from us.' Clearly his female interlocutor does not reflect M. Mauriac's own ideas, since he is known not to have any; that she reflects ideas originating with men is possible: among males themselves, more than one of them takes as his own opinions he did not invent; one might wonder if it would not be in M. Claude Mauriac's interest to converse with a good reflection of Descartes, Marx or Gide rather than with himself; what is remarkable is that with the ambiguous we, he identifies with St Paul, Hegel, Lenin and Nietzsche, and from their heights he looks down on the herd of women who dare to speak to him on an equal footing; frankly I know of more than one woman who would not put up with M. Mauriac's 'tone of polite indifference'. I have stressed this example because of its disarming masculine naivety. Men profit in many other more subtle ways from woman's alterity. For all those suffering from an inferiority complex, this is a miraculous liniment; no one is more arrogant towards women, more aggressive or more disdainful, than a man anxious about his own virility. Those who are not threatened by their fellow men are far more likely to recognise woman as a counterpart; but even for them the myth of the Woman, of the Other, remains precious for many reasons;* they can hardly be blamed for not wanting to light-heartedly sacrifice all the benefits they derive from the myth: they know what they lose by relinquishing the woman of their dreams, but they do not know what the woman of tomorrow will bring them. It takes great abnegation to refuse to posit oneself as unique and absolute Subject. Besides, the vast majority of men do not explicitly make this position their own. They do not posit woman as inferior: they are too imbued today with the democratic ideal not to recognise all human beings as equals. Within the family, the
male child and then the young man sees the woman as having the same social dignity as the adult male; afterwards, he experiences in desire and love the resistance and independence of the desired and loved woman; married, he respects in his

wife the spouse and the mother, and in the concrete experience of married life, she affirms herself opposite him as a freedom. He can thus convince himself that there is no longer a social hierarchy between the sexes and that on the whole, in spite of their differences, woman is an equal. As he
nevertheless recognises some points of inferiority - professional incapacity being the predominant one - he attributes them to nature. When he has an attitude of benevolence and partnership towards a woman, he applies the principle of abstract

equality; and he does not posit the concrete inequality he recognises. But as soon as he clashes with her, the situation is reversed. He will apply the concrete inequality theme and will even allow himself to disavow abstract equality.t This is how many men affirm, with quasi-good faith, that women are equal to man and have no demands to make, and at the same time that women will never be equal to men and that their demands are in vain. It is difficult for men to measure the enormous extent of social discrimination that
seems insignificant from the outside and whose moral and intellectual repercussions are so deep in woman that they appear to spring from an original nature. * The man most sympathetic to women never knows her concrete situation fully. So

there is no good reason to believe men when they try to defend privileges whose scope they cannot even fathom. We will not let ourselves be intimidated by the number and violence of attacks against women; nor be fooled by the self-serving praise showered on the 'real woman'; nor be won over by men's enthusiasm for her destiny, a destiny they would not for the world want to share. We must not,
however, be any less mistrustful of feminists' arguments: very often their attempt to polemicise robs them of all value. If the 'question of women' is so trivial, it is because masculine arrogance turned it into a 'quarrel'; when people quarrel, they

no longer reason well. What people have endlessly sought to prove is that woman is superior, inferior or equal_ to man: created after Adam, she is obviously a secondary being, some say; on the contrary, say others, Adam was only a rough draft, and God perfected the human being when
he created Eve; her brain is smaller, but relatively bigger; Christ was made man: but perhaps out of humility. Every argument has its opposite and both are often misleading. To see clearly, it is necessary to

get out of these ruts; these vague notions of superiority, inferiority and equality that have'distorted all discussions must be discarded in order to start anew. But how, then, will we ask the question? And in the first place, who are we to ask it? Men are judge and party: so are women.
Can an angel be found? In fact, an angel would be ill qualified to speak, would not understand all the givens of the problem; as for the hermaphrodite, it is a case of its own: it is not both a man and a woman, but neither man nor woman. I think

certain women are still best suited to elucidate the situation of women. It is a sophism to claim that Epimenides should be enclosed within the concept of Cretan and all Cretans within the concept of liar: it is not a mysterious essence that dictates good or bad faith to men and women; it is their situation that disposes them to seek the truth to a greater or lesser extent. Many women today, fortunate to have had all the privileges of the human being restored to them, can afford the luxury of impartiality: we even feel the necessity of it. We are no longer like our militant predecessors; we have more or less won the game; in the latest discussions on women's status, the UN has not ceased to imperiously demand equality of the sexes, and indeed many of us have never felt our femaleness to be a difficulty or an obstacle; many other problems seem more essential than those which concern us uniquely: this very detachment makes it possible to hope our attitude will be objective. {Yet we know the feminine world more intimately than men do because our roots are in it; we grasp more immediately what the fact of being female means for a human being: and we care more about knowing iV I said that there are more essential problems; but this one still has a certain importance from our point of view: how will the fact of being women have affected our lives? What precise opportunities have been given us and which ones have been denied? What destiny awaits our younger sisters, and in which direction should we point them? It is striking that most feminine literature is driven today by an attempt at lucidity more than by a will to make demands; coming out of an era of muddled controversy, this book is one attempt among others to take stock of the current state. But it is no doubt impossible to approach any human problem without partiality: even the way of asking the questions, of adopting perspectives, presupposes hierarchies of interests; all characteristics comprise values; every so-called objective description is set against

an ethical background. Instead of

trying to conceal those principles that are more or less explicitly implied, it would be better to state them from the start; then it would not be necessary to specifY on each page the meaning given to the words: superior, inferior, better, worse,

progress, regression, etc. If we examine some of the books on women, we see that one of the most frequently held points of view is that of public good or general interest: in reality, this is taken to mean the interest of society as each one wishes to maintain or establish it. In our opinion, there is no public good other than one that assures the citizens' private good; we judge institutions from the point of view of the concrete opportunities they give to individuals. But neither do we confuse the idea of private interest with happiness: that is another frequently encountered point of view; are women in a harem not happier than a woman voter? Is a housewife not happier than a woman worker? We cannot really know what the word happiness means, and still less what authentic values it covers; there is no way to measure the happiness of others, and it is always easy to call a situation that one would like to impose on others happy: in particular, we declare happy those condemned to stagnation, under the pretext that happiness is immobility. This is a notion, then, we will not refer to. 17

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC (eco)feminist imaginaries (Space Elevators)

THIS QUESTION MUST BE THE CENTRAL STARTING POINT FOR THIS TOPICS INVESTIGATION. THE HISTORY OF US SPACE POLICY DEMONSTRATES STRUCTURAL, REPRESENTATIONAL, AND POLITICAL COMMITMENT TO THE ERASURE OF WOMEN. ANYTHING LESS THAN A DIRECT FOREGROUNDING OF THE QUESTION OF GENDER WILL ENSURE THE STATE OF DOMINATION REMAINS FIRMLY INTACT. PENLEY, professor of film and media studies at UC Santa Barbara, 1997 (Constance NASA/TREK: Popular Science and Sex in America, 55-9) McCulloughs Ms. Magazine piece also documented NASAs discrimination against the women who applied for the scientific slots in the program. In 1967, seventeen women with advanced degrees in fields directly related to space were among those reviewed by the 900-member, all-male selection panel. The women were all bypassed for eleven men, including four men in their twenties and four others who had not yet obtained doctorates. Now you might be saying to yourself, that was the bad old days, surely things are better now. But there are still many ways in which NASA is still repeating itself, unable to think about women in space. For example, mixed crews of men and women to spend lengthy amounts of time in space, on a space station or on the Mission to Mars, extensive behavioral, psychological, and physiological studies need to be done. But NASA has steadfastly refused to conduct these studies because they might involve touchy issues of sex and sexuality. One anthropologist was fired from a NASA consulting team for merely raising the importance of carrying out such studies if women are going to be part of long-range space exploration. And a 1992 New York Times article on sex in space cited the audacity of Dr. Yvonne Clearwater, head of habitabilily research at NASA's Ames Research Center, who said agency scientists and officials at work on the space station's design had an obligation "not to serve as judges of morality but to support people in living as comfortably and normally as possible. "47 A colleague, speaking on condition of anonymity, said this statement just about killed Clearwater's career. In the same article the editor of Ad Adlra, the magazine of the National Space Society, says that the topic of sexuality in space is increasingly important but "hard to discuss intelligently, given the agency's reluctance .... NASA

is so puritanical that the subject is difficult for them to broach." If NASA refuses to study contraceptive techniques in weightlessness, for example, this will ensure that women do not go into space, given the danger and inconvenience of pregnancy in an environment with so many unknown factors. People are still trying to find reasons why women are physiologically unsuited to going into space. In the fall of 1992, PBS aired a new series on space exploration.
One episode, "Quest for Planet Mars," intersperses scenes of NASA tests of men and women for a lengthy Mars voyage with scenes of a simulated trip to Mars. Toward

the end of the program, after we have been told of the two to three hours of daily exercise and the regular hormune injections that all astronauts will probably have to endure to prevent decrease in bone mass due to weightlessness, our narrator, Patrick Stewart (who plays Captain Jean-Luc Picard on Slat Trek: The Next Generatio), intones, "Tests on women are only now being done. We won't know until longer tests, perhaps on a space station, whether women lose more bone mass." The implication is that women's different physiology may once again be invoked to keep them from going into space, "But what about Sally Ride!" is the instant comeback to anyone who questions the way NASA has allowed women
to figure in the world of space. Ride, the

first American woman in space, was the very model of the coot professional. and scientifIcally accomplished astronaut, She gained, experience on two shuttle voyages, showed her technical knowledge and tenacious skepticism on the presidential commission that investigated the Challenger disaster, and went on to write Leaderdhip and Amerua'.J Filiate in Space, an important report that outlined NASA's longrange strategies and plans, An article in the Washington Post announcing Ride's surprise departure from the space program in 1987 said, however, that although she had been selected after intense competition, she was chosen (I think, like McAuliffe) because she was considered unlikely to display the kind of independence that would cause NASA political problems. But Ride did cause NASA political problems with her sudden resignation. Baffled and dismayed, NASA officials said, "We just can't
figure it out. She was a real symbol for us. She did us real proud during the hearings and we assumed she would be one of the first back in space. "As usual. Ride

shunned publicity, and said very little about her reasons for quitting. But it was not hard to surmise that she had simply lost confIdence in NASA. Mae Jemison's equally sudden departure in 1993 also surprised and even angered some NASA offIcials. She, too, had been such an important symbol for them, a major player in NASA's effort to look inclusive, to be popular. Jemison had lectured widely on the space program and was generous in giving interviews, for which she was much in demand. NASA lost Ride, Jemison, and Bondar in rapid succession following the more profound losses of Resnick and McAuliffe, In "Now Voyager," a wrenching essay on McAuliffe's death, Ellen Willis speaks of her own anger about women "Losing dpace."49 Although she grew up curious about the stars and space exploration, Willis had lost that interest until NASA enlisted McAuliffe~a woman who, like

herself, was a civilian, teacher, and mother. Willis says she was so alienated from the WASP space cowboy version of spaceflight that she missed watching the moon landing on TV: "Did I purposely decide not to watch it? did I forget? did I have a deadline?" No, she decides, like many women
she passed it up out of

anger that NASA's iconography left her no room for fantasies of women in space. Working-through Because of the way in 18

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

which particularities of McAuliffes life and death lend themselves to individual and collective fantasy, her story has become densely inscribed in science fictional,

mythical, folkloric, and

19

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC (eco)feminist imaginaries (Space Elevators)

ideological narratives about women, technology, and catastrophe. How might some of these narratives be rewritten? How can we transform the popular image of woman as the embodiment of technological disaster, as someone who has no place in space? Simply remembering McAuliffe is not enough because remembering, as we have seen, is never simple: we misremember and
disremember,

select and repress, trivialize and romanticize, We try to commemorate the dead astronauts and instead repeat the trauma. To rewrite the story of women in space, we need to work through the trauma, which involves not just recognizing the resistances to knowing but, in Freud's words, becoming "conversant" with those resistances. WHILE THE AFFIRMATIVE CLAIMS TO USHER IN A NEW FUTURE, UNHINDERED BY THE PESKY LIMITATIONS OF NATURE AND DIFFERENCE, WE MIGHT ASK, ARE THESE CALLS REALLY THAT DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER NASA PR CAMPAIGN? WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT THE FUTURE OFFERED BY THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SMOKESCREEN FOR INCREASED COMMITMENT TO MASCULINITY? AS HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE BUT USUALLY UNACKNOWLEDGED, SPATIAL UTOPIAS ARE REALLY JUST FASCIST REGIMES IN DRAG. Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.50-52) Among the qualities of utopian thought that limit the scope of feminist theory is its tendency to concretize ideas, to transform ambiguity and contingency into absolutes (Tillich 1966, 306-7). Because of that tendency, utopianism typically creates separate categories for ideas, people, and objects that disregard their connections. Therefore, fanaticism and fundamentalism are close relatives of utopianism, as they exaggerate utopianism's need for exclusivity. Because one either belongs or
does not belong in utopia, people become overdetermined by the criteria established for membership in or exclusion

from the utopian vision. (Heterotopia would also suffer from this fate: could a modernist or a romantic survive in heterotopia?) To the Shakers, there were

two kinds of people in the world: celibates and generatives. To Jim Jones~ everyone was either a friend or a foe of the Peoples Temple. There were no hybrids, no

critical friends or friendly critics. Having assigned labels, utopian thinkers may never again consider their contingency or arbitrariness. Utopian thinkers may not account for the role of metaphor in label construction or in the terminology of their belief systems. They may mistake the figurative, symbolic quality of language for the literal. In addition, the

founding ideas of utopian thought tend to become fixed and to remain unexamined, even if utopists themselves are diligently self-critical about their own adherence to
those founding principles. Thus, as we have seen, few utopian experimenters analyzed the possible unintended consequences of their fundamental worldview. At

Oneida, for example, which was famous for its members' selfcriticism, the community's reproductive system that resulted in "stirpiculture" babies was not subject to critique; the community's male leaders emphasized the presumed genetic benefits of group practices and gave little thought to their effects on the community'S young women. Such habits of utopian thought overlook the causal relationships that exist among all elements of a system and ignore the fact that any changes in a system involve many related changes, often with unintended results (Richards 1980, 33). Without such analysis, the massive social overhauls typical of utopian schemes can become dangerously unpredictable and uncontrollable. That conclusion points to utopianism's sometimes tragic irony: its present focus. Our own assumptions that modern people have surely outgrown that utopian flaw
illustrate it as well as the examples we have seen throughout the history of utopian thought and experimentation. Through the benefits of hindsight we can identify, say,

Charles Lane's blind spot about sex roles in his analysis of Abigail Alcott's excessive workload at Fruitlands. We are less able to see modern utopian pitfalls, however, as in Aaron Betsky's heterotopian vision of Los Angeles. A related flaw is utopianism's appeal to self-interest. Just as my desire for the
kitchenless house emerged when I had small children, more women of childbearing age joined the celibate Shaker societies than did men or women of any other JJge

group or social circumstance.ll Added to utopianism's present focus, its accommodation of self-interest heightens its potential for parochialism and creates the false impression that analyzing a problem is tantamount to solving it, when, in fact, understanding what is wrong does not automatically reveal what is right (Richards 1980,38).

20

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC (eco)feminist imaginaries (Space Elevators)

WE INVITE YOU TO CONSIDER FOUR DIFFERENT POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES: A. DISASTER: MASCULINE POLITICS CAROUSE PARTICIPATION BY ASSERTIONS OF DISASTERS, DISTRACTING STATES OF EMERGENCY, AND THE PROMISES OF SCIENTIFIC SLAVATION. THE ONLY TRANSFORMATION THAT WILL HAPPEN IS MORE SUBJUGATED WOMEN. Haraway 97 (Donna, Ph.D from Yale, Distinguished Professor Emerita in the University of California, Taught Womens
Studies at the University of Hawaii and

Johns Hopkins University. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse. Pgs. 41) From a millennarian perspective, things are always getting worse. Evidence of decay is exhilarating and mobilizing. Oddly, belief in advancing disaster is actually part of a trust in salvation, whether deliverance is expected by sacred or prorevelations, through revolution, dramatic scientific breakthroughs, .or religious rapture. For example, for radical science activists like
me, the capitalist commodification of the dance of life is always advancing ominously; there is always evidence of nastier and nastier technoscience dominations. An

emergency is always at hand, calling for the need for transformative politics. For my twins, the true believers in the church of
science, a cure for the trouble at hand is always promised. That promise justifies the sacred status of scientists, even, or especially,

outside their domains of practical expertise. Indeed, the promise of technoscience is, arguably, its principal social weight. Dazzling promise has always been the underside of the deceptively sober pose of scientific rationality and modern progress within the culture of no culture. Whether unlimited clean energy through the peaceful atom, artificial intelligence surpassing the merely human, an impenetrable shield from the enemy within or without, or the prevention of aging ever materializes is vastly less important than always
living in the time zone of amazing promises. In relation to such dreams, the impossibility of ordinary materialization is

intrinsic to the potency of the promise. Disaster feeds radiant hope and bottomless despair, and I, for one, am satiated. We pay dearly for living within the chronotope of ultimate threats and promises. Literally, chronotope means topical time,
or a topos through which temporality is organized. A topic is a commonplace, a rhetorical site. Like both place and space, time is never "literal," just there; chronos

always intertwines with topos, a point richly theorized by Bakhtin (1981) in his concept of the chronotope as a fIgure that organizes temporality. Time and space organize each other in variable relationships that show any claim to totality, be it the NewWorld Order, Inc., the Second Millennium, or the modern world, to be an ideological gambit linked to struggles to impose bodily / spatial / temporal organization. Bakhtin's concept requires us to enter the

contingency, thickness, inequality; incommensurability; and dynamism of cultural systems of reference through which people enroll each other in their realities. Bristling with ultimate threats and promises, drenched with the tones of the apocalyptic and the comic, the gene and the computer both work as
chronotopes throughout Modest_Witness@ Second_Millennium.

B. DOUBLE AGENTS: INVESTING OUR FUTURE HOPES IN MASCULINE SPACE FANTASY INSULATES IT FROM CRITICISM. THIS EVISCERATES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, ESTABLISHES NEW RELATIONS OF DOMINANCE AND IS THE PREREQUISTE FOR MILITARIZATION. HARAWAY, professor in the History of Consciousness program at UC-Santa Cruz, 1996 (Donna, Modest Witness: Feminist Diffractions in Science Studies, The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, 431-2)
But there were conditions for being able to establish such facts credibly. To multiply its strength, witnessing should be public and collective. A public act must

take place in a site that can be semiotically accepted as public, not private. But public space for the experimental way of life had to be rigorously defined; not everyone could come in, and not everyone could testify credibly. What counted as private and as public was very much in dispute in Boyles society. His opponents, especially Thomas Hobbes (1588-16790),
repudiated the experimental way of life precisely because its knowledge was dependent on a practice of witnessing by a special community, like that of clerics and

lawyers. Hobbes saw the experimentalists to be part of private, or even secret, and not civil, public space. Boyles open laboratory and its offspring evolved as a most peculiar public space, with elaborate constraints on who legitimately occupies it: What in fact resulted was, so to speak, a public space restricted access. Indeed, it is even possible today, in special circumstances, to be working in a top-secret defense lab, communicating only to those with similar security clearances, and to be epistemologically in public, doing leading-edge science, nicely cordoned off from the venereal infections of politics. Since Boyle, only those who could disappear modestly could really witness
with authority, rather than gawk curiously. The laboratory was to be open, to be a theater of persuasion, and at the same time it

was constructed to be one of the culture of no-cultures most highly regulated spaces. Managing the 21

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC (eco)feminist imaginaries (Space Elevators)

public/private distinction has to be critical to the credibility of the experimental way of life. This novel way of life required a special, bounded community. Restructuring that spacematerially and epistemologicallyis very much at the heart of late
twentieth-century reconsiderations of what will count as the best science. Also, displaying the labor expended on stabilizing a matter of fact compromised its status.

Unmasking the labor required to fact showed the possibility of a rival account of the matter of fact itselfa point not lost on Hobbes. Further, those actually, physically, present at a demonstration could never be as numerous as those virtually present by means of demonstration through the literary device of the written report. Thus, the rhetoric of the modest witness, the naked way of writing, unadorned, factual, compelling, was crafted. Only through such naked writing could the facts shine through, unclouded by the flourishes of any human author. Both the facts and the witnesses inhabit the privileged zones of objective reality through a powerful writing technology. The technology is the Western scientific dream machine for the escape from the utter materiality of metaphoricity, the discrediting entrapments of troping. If language could become immaterial, in all senses of the term figures and narratives could give way to explanations and facts. Ideas could not prevail until words were subdued. And, finally, only through the routinization and instutionalization of all three technologies for establishing
matters of fact could the transposition onto

nature experimental knowledge be stably effected.

C. LIMITLESS FRONTIERS INVESTMENT IN THE LIMITLESS POTENTIAL OF SPACE

IS RECIPROCALLY AN UNBRIDLED OPPORTUNITY FOR ENDLESS DOMESTICATION AND DOMINATION. IT IS THE MASCULINE DREAM PAR EXCELLENCE! Bryld and Lykke 00 (Mette, associate professor at the department of Russia and east European studies; Nina,
professor in gender and culture at the

department of gender studies of Linkoeping University, Comsodolphins: Feminist cultural studies of technology, animals, and the sacred, p. 76-78) To the Americans, the idea of the universe as 'the high frontier' or 'the new frontier' has a strongly nationalromantically coloured meaning. The frontier concept has deep roots in American history. Referring to the expansion towards the west in the nineteenth
century, 'the frontier' represents the myth of the borders to the 'Wild West', which challenged pioneers with promises of fertile land, gold and a new life. At the same time, 'the frontier' also signifies the way into a tough, dangerous and unknown world. This outlook has influenced the sense of national identify so strongly that the myth of the frontier as being indispensable was even canonized in American

historiography in the first half of the twentieth century. As the frontier disappeared into the waves of the Pacific Ocean. The American historian Frederick J. Turner set up a national monument to it, with his 'frontier' thesis.1 His argument, which became immensely popular, specified the frontier to the west as the matrix of American democracy and national character. The disappearance of the frontier, Turner warned, could seriously damage the development and identity of the nation. Seen from this perspective, the USA has been lacking a frontier that could regenerate the national spirit for many decades now. As if in a healing response to this, the master narrative of space flight came forward with alluring offers of a new mythical frontier. Under the title The High frontier: Human Colonies in Space (O'Neill 1978), a well-known professor of physics, Gerard O'Neill, impressed by
the national successes in space of the 1960s, contributed yet another enthusiastic chapter to the history of the US frontier myth. Even better, O'Neill's new frontier

wholly overcomes : the problems raised by Turner. In contrast to the old frontier, which was eventually devoured by the ocean, the new one borders onto a 'wilderness' of cosmic dimensions that is, in theory at least, open to endless expansion. To ourselves, born and raised in a small nation that has to resort to the somewhat shabby myths of the Vikings for a national-romantic icon to represent
the legendary voyage into the wild unknown, the frontier myth sounds very alien. By contrast, to our American interviewees, this myth is an

unquestionable part of their national identity. 'What has permeated the US since it was founded is going to the unknown,' JoAnn points out. She
considers the quest for the unknown, for new knowledge and adventure, to be part of her national heritage. In others, this heritage has become so much second nature

that they even consider it to be an essential characteristic of 'universal man's' biology. Dr B's version of the frontier myth goes as follows: 'Man has always moved outwards ... If there was an ocean, we sailed across it. If there was a continent, we walked across it. All this space out there ... we will somehow sail across that to get to the other physical body ... we shall go there. It's the nature of the beast.' In several discourses, a Turner-like argument pops up not only in a form aiming to highlight the frontier as a positive challenge,
but also in a negative version: what will happen to humanity if we ignore this challenge? One of several to voice this aspect, Irene strongly underlines the likelihood of

intellectual degeneration should we fail to constantly confront new horizons. As if echoing Turner, Shannon states that, since there is no more room for expansion on Earth, we must venture into outer space to regain the pioneering spirit of former times. The cosmos is now 'the natural course of advance'. A major theme in the frontier myth concerns the expansion of the territory that we, in a physical, social and scientific sense, can define as being domesticated - that is, the territory that we are able to utilize for our own purposes. An expansion into the universe will, according to some o the interviewees, solve our demographic problems; others refer to vision; of mining the Moon
and the asteroids as a means of overcoming (ht shortage of natural resources on Earth. As part of this line of utilitariain expansionist arguments, the revolution in

communication technologies which depend on orbital satellites, is also emphasized. All of these leitmotifs appear in the legitimization of space flight Co utilitarian goals. But the desire for domestication represents only one side of the frontier myth, and should by no means eliminate the existence of the frontier itself In the cosmic-scale version of the frontier myth, the universe should simultaneously be domesticated and remain a challenging gateway into the unknown. 22

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

1NC (eco)feminist imaginaries (Space Elevators)

D. DYSTOPIANISM - GENDER WILL CONTROL THE DIRECTION, USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY CONTINUED CONDENSATION AROUND THE VALUES OF . AGGRESSIVE MASCULINTIY OBSCURES STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE, CURRENT MILITARY ADVENTURISM, AND WILL CULMINATE IN TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION AND N NUCLEAR OMNICIDE Nhanenge 7 [Jytte Masters at U South Africa, paper submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
master of arts in the subject Development

Studies, ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT] Technology can be used to dominate societies or to enhance them. Thus both science and technology could have developed in a different direction. But due to patriarchal values infiltrated in science the type of technology developed is meant to dominate, oppress, exploit and kill. One reason is that patriarchal societies identify masculinity with conquest. Thus any technical innovation will continue to be a tool for more effective oppression and exploitation. The highest priority seems to be given to technology that destroys life. Modern societies are dominated by masculine institutions and patriarchal ideologies. Their technologies prevailed in Auschwitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and in many other parts of the world. Patriarchal power has brought us acid rain, global warming, military states, poverty and countless cases of suffering. We have seen men whose power has caused them to lose all sense of reality, decency and imagination, and we must fear The ultimate result of unchecked patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe and nuclear holocaust.
such power.

Such actions are denial of wisdom. It is working against natural harmony and destroying the basis of existence. But as long as ordinary people leave questions of technology to the "experts" we will continue the forward stampede. As long as economics focus on technology and both are the focus of politics, we can leave none of them to experts. Ordinary
people are often more capable of taking a wider and more humanistic view than these experts. (Kelly 1990: 112-114; Eisler 1990: 3233; Schumacher 1993: 20, 126, 128, 130).

THEREFORE WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVE: REJECT THE UTOPIAN POLITICS OF THE AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOR OF A COMMITMENT TO FEMINIST REALISM. THIS APPROACH WILL CONTINUE TO FOREGROUND THE QUESTION OF WOMAN IN CONTINUALLY NECESSARY WAYS.

Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.54-56) Utopianism's alternative-realism-contrasts with these conceptual pitfalls in various ways, as we
shall continue to explore throughout

Higher Ground. In many disciplines, realism entails subjecting ideas, Values, or rules to analytical processes that recognize changes over time. Debates over realism have demonstrated the close interconnecon of apparent
oppositions or dualities. Existentialist Paul Tillich has expressed such a
realistic view of utopianism itself. For Tillich, utopianism is both true and untrue, fruitful and unfruitful. Its truth for illich lies in its expression of humanity's inner aim and essence, the los of human existence.

Its untruth lies in its assumption of an unlienated humanity, which overlooks the inevitable "finitude and estrangement of man" from his essential being, which is ultimately unattainable. Likewise, Tillich finds utopian thinking fruitful, insofar as it opens up possibilities and provides "anticipatory inventiveness," but unfruitful insofar as it describes "impossibilities as real possibilities" and becomes wishful thinking, a self-defeating unrealism (1966, 296, 299-300). As Tillich's analysis suggests, realism can reflect utopianism's desires. Realism can be an agent for social change, but it typically starts from different premises than utopianism. Realism also seeks truth, but usually through probing and complicating its variations rather than by defending a fixed position. Realism entails validating knowledge, but it usually involves questioning rather than possessing it. Realism is more cognizant of ambiguity and contingency than utopianism tends to be. Realism enters the analysis when the arbitrary and symbolic nature of language is being explored, thereby revealing the mutability and fluidity of categories and their labels. Realism recognizes that human knowledge and depictions of truth may not constitute all knowledge and truth. Realism considers the limits to establishing truth once and for all. Realism rarely engages in prediction, as utopianism sometimes does. Since it recognizes the unknowable, it
leads us toward the visionaries whose

prophecies unnerve us or disturb the familiar rather than toward those who reinforce our preconceptions. Based on the history and uses of the term, which we will explore more fully in chapter 5, realism seems to have much to offer the task of feminist theorizing. It provides an alternative to utopianism that explores ideas' unintended consequences by probing for their traitorous propensities and recognizes that even the grandest of ideas may contain the seeds of their own destruction. Realism represents an alternative that seeks the fine line between the best and worst attributes of even our most cherished precepts.
Realism also allows us to consider the benefits of salvaging the best of what is even as we seek novelty, of drawing no hasty conclusions about what ought to be based only on knowing-or claiming to knowwhat is

wrong with the present. Realisfu leads us to disavow the discourse of perfection and attend to the task of justifying feminist knowledge claims. It encourages us to consider balancing apparently oppositional concerns rather than casting our lot too hastily

with one or the other. 23

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Apocalypse You cant listen to their tales of destruction and some technoscientific invention that will save us all. Science has taken the discourse of figural realism, and this discourse maps how we gain power and knowledge. We must overthrow this material-semiotic practice and read the maps without biases and the tales of destruction. Haraway 97 (Donna, Ph.D from Yale, Distinguished Professor Emerita in the University of California, Taught Womens
Studies at the University of Hawaii and

Johns Hopkins University. M Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse. Pgs. 10-11)

Auerbach examines Dante's development of figural realism in Tlie Divine Comedy. Dante's innovation was to draw the end of man with such extraordinary vividness

and variety "that the listener is all too occupied by the figure in the fulfillment. . . . The fullness of life which Dante incorporates into that interpretation is so rich and so strong that its manifestations force their way into the listener's soul independently of any interpretation. The image of man eclipses the image of God" (1953:176). The sense of history as a totality remains in this humanist order, and the overwhelming power of the images that promise fulfillment (or damnation) on earth infuses secular histories of progress and apocalypse. Secular salvation history depends on the power of images and /the temporality of ultimate threats and promises to contain the heteroglossia ,and flux of events. This is the sense of time and of representation that I think 'informs technoscience in the United States. The discourses of genetics and information sciences are especially replete with instances of barely secularized Christian figural realism at work. The legacy of figural realism is what puts my title's modest witness in the
sacred secular time zones of the end of the Second Millennium and the New World Order. Second Millennium is the_time machine that has to be.repro-grarnmed by

Nili's heretics, infidels, and jews, who, it is crucial to remember, "have always considered getting knowledge part of being human." Challenging the material-semiotic practices of technoscience is in the interests of a deeper, broader, and more open scientific literacy, which this book will call situated knowledges. Figuration has many meanings besides, or intersecting with, those proper to the
legacy of Christian realism.* Aristotelian "figures of discourse" are about the spatial arrangements in rhetoric. A figure is geometrical and rhetorical;

topics and tropes are both spatial concepts. The "figure" is die French term for the face, a meaning kept in English in the notion of the lineaments
of a story. "To figure" means to count or calculate and also to be in a story, to have a role. A figure is also a drawing. Figures pertain to graphic representation and

visual forms in general, a matter of no small importance in visually saturated technoscientific culture. Figures do not have to be representational and mimetic, but they

do have to be tropic; that is, they cannot be literal and self-identical. Figures must involve at least some kind of displacement that can trouble identifications and certainties. Figurations are performative images that can be inhabited. Verbal or visual, figurations can be condensed maps of contestable worlds. All language, including mathematics, is figurative, that is, made of tropes, constituted by bumps that make us swerve from hterd-mindedness.
I emphasize figuration to make explicit and inescapable the tropic quality of all material-semiotic processes, es-

pecially in technoscience. For example, think of a small set of objects into whkhJjVes_and .w_o_r]ds are builtchip, gene, seed, fetus, database, bomb,
race, brain, ecosystem. This mantralike list is made up of^imploded atoms or dense nodes that explode into entire worlds of practicevThe chip, seed, or gene is si-

multaneously literal and figurative. We inhabit and are inhabited by such figures that map universes of knowledge, practice and power. To read such maps with mixed and differentia] literacies and without the totality, appropriations, apocalyptic disasters, comedic resolutions, and salvation histories of secularized Christian realism is the task of the mutated modest witness.

24

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Beyond the Earths Mesosphere Outer space is just the continuation of empire- expansion is a removal from the globe, a masculine adventure of colonialism- actions toward space expand this network of empire Redfield 02 (Peter, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The Half-Life of Empire in Outer Space,
Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32, No. 5-6, pg 795-796, Sage Publications)

In this paper, I take a related but slightly different tack, emphasizing degrees of distance within locality, and examining

intersections of place, power and time implicit in the location and operation of a vast technical network. For if we incorporate colonial history into our considerations of science and technology, do we not always, continually, need to ask what it might mean for something to be somewhere relative to somewhere else? My focus will rest directly on the spatial edge between
metaphor and materiality used to distinguish global and local: the planet, united and bounded by its atmospheric limit, revealed and transcended by technoscience. The

general argument I will advance here is that outer space reflects a practical shadow of empire. 10 I mean by this two things. The first is that space represents a kind of stabilization of elsewhere, and its removal from the globe. From the very inception of influential modern dreams of space exploration, the masculine adventure of earthly colonialism was a constant referent, and the temporal pairing of rocket launches and the greatest anti-colonial movements only accentuated the
parallel. 11 Indeed, the realization of outer space its initial domestication if you will represents the effective provincialization of

terrestrial empire from above. Once a few white men moved beyond the atmosphere they became newly, artificially human by virtue of the nonhuman
space around them, cast as universal representatives by virtue of their transcendent, hazardous location. Once extended beyond the planet, modernity acquired the

possibility of another geographic frame, intermingled with a new temporal order. Whatever the past may have been, the future was clearly out there, and everything else a local concern. Aliens became extraterrestrials. The second way in which I want to link outer space and empire is the manner in which each enacts and represents place in terms of connection, dislocation and the possibility of an ever-longer network. Just as an imperial outpost signified not only itself but also the expansion of a metropolitan centre,
so too a satellite link is both an immediate presence and a conduit beyond the horizon. In a sense, outer space puts human place into three dimensions. This is

simultaneously a highly practical matter, involving a material assemblage of launch vehicles and a swarming of satellites, and a representational one. For looking up from the ground implies a motion away from it. In a setting marked by colonial history such a motion is not neutral, as I hope to illustrate in French Guiana. First, however, I will review some of the more obvious traces of empire in dreams of space travel.

25

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Colonization Outer space is not the liberatory frontier that we have imagined it to be; rather, contemporary discourse of sex and colonization in space radically foreclose any vision of space beyond heterosexual domination. Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, p pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295) In a twist on the "truth is stranger than fiction" maxim, this paper examines a married couple flew together on a U.S. space shuttle mission, generating a flurry of public curiosity and controversy over what the paparazzi termed "celestial intimacy." The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was bombarded with questions about heterosexual sex and

reproduction in space, topics which the agency seemed ill-equipped and unwilling to address. Not only are sex and reproduction perceived as topics which should not be discussed in polite society, they are also seen as contributing to a loss of legitimacy for NASA in an age of uncertain and everdiminishing resources. We argue that the emergent controversy over "sex in space" is shaped by intersecting and mutually reinforcing discourses about gender, sex, and reproduction in the contemporary United States. Our argument rests on three core findings. First, gender differences are constructed at multiple "spaces" within this domain; males bodies are equated with masculinity and are accepted as the norm, while female bodies are equated with femininity and are configured as problematic. Women astronauts are defined simultaneously as potential sexual partners for male astronauts and as potential reproducers in the interest of colonization. Second, sexual practices are framed exclusively within the heterosexual paradigm, which leaves few "spaces" for other sexualities. Third, sexuality is explicitly and invariably linked to reproduction, reflecting and reinforcing heterosexist assumptions about sexual behavior. Yet,
reproduction in a space environment is potentially damaging to missions because human bodies are physiologically transformed by microgravity and radiation. Thus, as

far as NASA is concerned, astronauts should neither copulate nor reproduce; within the heterosexual paradigm, preventing sex in space becomes a strategy for preventing reproduction in space. In short, contemporary accounts of sex and reproduction in space, like Star Trek and its progeny, inscribe human bodies and futures, and in so doing tell us a great deal about who "we" are at present. A key theoretical concept informing our analysis is inscription. What exactly do we mean by

"inscribing bodies, inscribing the future"? Within cultural studies, for example, inscription is defined as the act of "writing" culture onto bodies and/ or subjectivities through a variety of social, cultural, and technical practices. In this process, bodies and subjectivities are seen, read, and produced as texts (Treichler and Cartwright 1992). For example, speculative and science fiction have
been important cultural "spaces" where new possibilities and freedoms are imagined. Space is constructed in these accounts as a site at

which liberatory practices may (or may not) occur. Often, fictional humans depart a troubled Earth to begin again on another planet, although not without a fair amount of hardship and hardwork in their new, intergalactic American Dream. It is precisely this vision of possibility and freedom that draws people to science
fiction(Lefanu1989;Kuhn1990;Barr 1993)and also to the seemingly infinite possibilities offered by the space program. Yet, we argue that inscribing the future has a negative and pernicious side, as well. Contemporary discourses and practices negate many types of

future freedoms, both on Earth and in space. These inscriptions shape our lives profoundly, while they simultaneously shape what could, might, and should occur in space in an uncertain future. To cite one example, heterosexist framings preclude other sexualities by highlighting sex in space as a social and scientific problem for NASA, which must screen out homosexuality and other "deviant" practices in order to proceed with its agenda of exploration. Thus, we suggest that within these cultural "spaces," some inscriptions are disallowed while others are relentlessly pursued. Inscription, then, is a multifaceted practice imbued with both pleasures and dangers. If people are not earthbound, as aviation history and the space program have illustrated with often stellar successes, then neither is sociology. Adding
a sociological spin to inscription, we focus on the social relations within which different types of inscriptions occur. We suggest that "space" is both an

actual spatial site for certain practices and a symbolic and material screen onto which earthbound activities are projected and refracted. Yet, there is considerable traffic between Earth and space, not only in terms of shuttle and satellite missions but also symbolically
via flights of the imagination. Much of the space program actually takes place on Earth, for example in the scientific, economic, and institutional planning required for

each mission. Yet, as on Earth, humans in space interact with each other in myriad ways, solve a range of problems, cope with technical difficulties and deal with orders from Mission Control. All of this collective activity takes place within the institutional context of NASA and the U.S. space program as well as the broader social, political, and economic context of international space travel. In short, a number of dimensions of space travel are open to sociological investigation. Sociology, in our view, should not end at the Van Allen Belt, that astrophysical "boundary" of intense ionizing radiation surrounding Earth.2

26

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Colonization The characterization of colonization as both natural and essential relies on masculinist ideologies of domination and control, which exclude any consideration of the place of the feminine in our space-based future. Griffin 2009 (Penny, Senior Lecturer Convenor MA International Relations - Convenor, Postgraduate Seminar Series,
University of New South Wales, The

spaces between us: The gendered politics of outer space in Bormann, N. and Sheehan, M. (eds), Securing Outer Space. London and New York: Routledge, pp.5975.) Much US outer space discourse presents a vision of the human colonization of outer space as both natural and essential to humanity, a psychological and cultural requirement that is not merely a Western predisposition, but a human one (Crawford 2005: 260). Regulating such discourse, however, is the normative assumption that space is a masculine environment, a territory best suited to the performance of colonial conquest, and an arena for warfare and the display of military and technological prowess. Herein, man, not woman, is the human model by which to gauge those adventurous enough to engage in the space medium (see, e.g. Casper and Moore 1995). Sex is only explicitly articulated in US space discourse to signal the category of woman, and the physical and psychological constraints that womans body brings to spaceight and exploration. NASA, for example, in identifying gender related differences affecting the efcacy and effects of spaceight and travel, focus exclusively on the physiological differences between men and women (bone density, blood ow, hormonal and metabolic
differences, etc.). As Casper and Moore argue, NASAs heterosexist framings of these issues highlight sex in space as a social

and scientic problem (1995: 313). Female bodies are thus constructed against a backdrop in which male bodies are accepted as the norm, an inscription process shaped by the masculine context of space travel (ibid.: 316). By identifying only woman with sex, and the ostensibly sexualized features of womens bodies (Butler 1990: 26), a certain, heterosexist, order and identity is effectively instituted in US outer space discourse. Fundamentally, the hierarchies of power, identity and cultural and sexual assumption that infuse outer space politics are no different to those that structure terrestrial politics. As Morabito, rather worryingly claims, why expect men on the Moon to behave much better than on

Earth? (2004: 10). Such a statement, and the belief that the human colonization of outer space is natural, essential to,

and even inevitable for, humanity, are founded on a conceptualization of universal human society dependent on the kind of modern, knowledge-based economy that the US has sought to establish through technological, military and commercial expansion. Although the we in much US space discourse is intended universally, it is in effect a highly singular and culturally specic construction of identity, one deeply embedded in the liberal belief that humanity needs a sense of freedom and choice (Seguin 2005: 981); that it was our grandparents who thought exploring Africa was an adventure (Mendell 2005: 10), and not Africans themselves; that the scientic revolution sprang from the unusual pragmatic and classless entrepreneurship of US society that promoted commercialization and innovative marketing of new technology (ibid.). Something about space travel excites the human imagination
in ways that transcend mundane political objectives (Mendell 2005: 7). Contrary to this, and however apparently exciting outer space is

envisioned (as an essentially little known and unexplored frontier of human endeavour), there is actually very little about US outer space discourse that suggests humanity has transcended the gendered politics of planet Earth. To understand the reproduction of heterosexualized gender identities as a factor in US policy-making, demands, as Dean suggests, not only a shift of emphasis toward the construction of particular kinds of elite masculinities, but also consideration of the historical milieu that produced such men (Dean 2001: 4). George W. Bush has,
frequently throughout his speeches, harked back to bygone eras of masculine fortitude, resilience and vigour by, for example, invoking the crusader zeal of the Christian

Knights (2001) or the prevailing resolve of those Americans who did not waver in freedoms cause at Pearl Harbor in 1941 (Bush 2005a). In his second term inauguration speech, Bush invokes the Founding Fathers declaration of a new order of the ages and the bravery of the soldiers who died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty in his call to conquer resentment and tyranny by spreading liberty and freedom across the world. He nishes, in a turn of phrase reminiscent of Kennedys inaugural address in 1961, 5 to state that America: proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength tested, but not weary we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom (2005b). Similarly, in a 2004 speech to announce a new Space Exploration Program, President Bush calls for the US to continue its quest into outer space in the spirit of discovery that infused the journeys of the American frontiersmen (the daring, disciplined, ingenious, risktaking pioneers that Bush believes astronauts to be) who led their way into the western wilderness of eighteenth-century North America:

27

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Colonization Colonization discourse ignores the problematics of space pregnancy. Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, p pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295) Space pregnancy is also presumed to be risky, and solutions to the "problem" of female fertility include sending only men to space (which raises discrimination and equality issues), sending only post-menopausal women to space (an option rarely discussed by NASA), and researching female contraception in space in order to prevent pregnancy. The latter practice is seen by one scientist as a way of "decoupling" sex and reproduction, enabling female astronauts to be "sexual beings" while avoiding the consequences-both physiological and sociopolitical-of reproduction.28 However, this informant's "decoupling" discourse makes sense only within a heterosexist framework in which fertile females have sex with fertile males. Space pregnancy is considered physiologically (and socially) dangerous precisely because so little is known about it, and it is constructed by scientists and others as pathological in multiple ways. One informant remarked
that "childbirth is a particularly traumatic experience, there is usually some blood loss. Now, let's suppose that there are complications, don't forget you have six to eight

people in an environment no bigger than a bathroom and you have a life support system that has been designed to take care of these people." Pregnant women may have different needs than other crew members in terms of nutrition, oxygen, water, and physical space, all of which may be in short supply on long-term missions. One informant believes that space pregnancies may also threaten crew social dynamics because other crew members may resent the pregnant astronaut. Male astronauts may be "particularly resentful" as they are, in the words of an informant, "especially bad at coping with kids." In addition, animal studies have indicated that while ovulation, copulation, and fertilization may occur in space, there are potentially serious
implications for resulting offspring (Santy, Jennings, and Craigie 1989). According to one informant, a reproductive scientist, embryos and fetuses may be impaired

during space flight. The physical movement necessary for fetal development on Earth may be impossible in a weightless environment. If fetuses experience the same physiological deconditioning that adults do, this could severely impact fetal growth and development. This raises a possibility that fetuses which develop in a space environment may be unable physiologically to return to Earth once they are born. Would fiscaL material, and moral responsibility for "space babies" then fall on the astronauts who birth them, or on the country, corporation, or movie star who

sponsored the mission? Scientific accounts of sexual reproduction thus stress the problematic nature of female bodies and raise a number of intriguing questions about the construction of sex differences in outer space.

28

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Colonization Attempts to deny our reliance on the Earth are a rejection of the feminine, resulting in environmental destruction. Plumwood 93 (Val, Australian ecofeminist, Australian Research Council Fellow at the Australian National University, Ph.D @ Australian National University, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, Feminism for Today, p. 70 -71) The polarizing effect of radical exclusion facilitates the conclusion that there are two quite different sorts of substances or orders of being in the world; for example, mind and body, humans and nature. There is a total break or discontinuity between humans and nature, such that humans are completely different from everything else in nature. Radical exclusion in the human/nature case takes various forms. A major difference in kind is assumed to exist between humans and nature, and in a situation of both similarities and dissimilarities or discontinuities between humans and non-humans, it is discontinuity which is characteristically stressed in western thought. The characterization of the genuinely, properly, characteristically, or authentically human, or of human virtue, in polarized terms that exclude the natural is what John Rodman has called the Differential Imperative (Rodman 1980; Gouldner 1965:122). Here what is virtuous in the human is taken to be what maximizes human differentia, and hence what minimizes links to nature and the animal. The ideals which are held up as truly worthy of a human life exclude those aspects associated with the body, sexuality, reproduction, affectivity, emotionality, the senses and dependence on the natural world, for these are shared with the natural and animal; instead they stress reason, which is thought to separate humans from the sphere of nature. Discontinuity is obtained via
an account of human identity and virtue which eliminates overlap with the animal within, or polarises this as not truly part of the self or as belonging to a lower, baser animal part of self. The human species is thus defined out of nature, and nature is conceived as so alien to humans

that they can establish no moral communion with it (James 1896:43). This leads to an alienated account of human identity in which humans
are essentially apart from or outside of nature, having no true home in it or allegiance to it. They stand apart from it as masters or external controllers of nature.

Attempts to frame an alternative to this alienated identity tend to speak vaguely of humans as part of nature, but rarely clarify what is involved and often seem to be just reminding us of the platitude that our fate as humans is interconnected with that of the biosphere, that we are subject to natural laws. But human/nature dualism is the reason why we have to be reminded of this apparently obvious truth. The key to existential homelessness and to our denial of our dependence on nature is the dualistic treatment of the human/ nature relationship, the view of the

essentially or authentically human part of the self,

and in that sense the human realm proper, as at best accidentally connected to nature, and at worst in opposition to it. In modern times, the denial of dependence only

occasionally takes the form of denying that humans are essentially embodied or have links to (have evolved from) nature. But the failure to conceive ourselves as essentially or positively in nature leads easily into a failure to commit ourselves to the care of the planet and
to encourage sustainable social institutions and values which can acknowledge deeply and fully our dependence on and ties to the earth. Modern world-views

continue to treat links to nature as either negative or inessential constituents of the human. What is involved also in the rationalist account of human virtue is the rejection of those parts of the human character identified as feminine and with
the lower order of subsistence. This model identifies these areas also as less than fully human, and stresses ideals such as rationality, freedom and transcendence of nature which mark the situation of an elite masculine identity. This hyperseparated conception of the

human expresses the master perspective, and his desire to exclude women, slaves and animals and keep his distance from them. It is his
cultural identity which links these spheres by exclusion.

The construction of space as a hetorosexualized realm is reinforcing the gendered world. Griffin 06 (Penny, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at the University of New South Wales, Australia, Ph.D @ U. of Bristol, The Spaces Between
Us: The Gendered Politics of Outer Space March 22-25, 2006)

As Elias argues, the global sphere cannot be regarded as a gender-neutral arena, but rather, becomes a site for the production of gender identity (2004: 30). But male dominance within what we define as the international is not the only reason for thinking
about a gendered global arena, we also need to examine the impact of these masculinist assumptions (ibid.: 31). Space, constructed through a

heteronormative, heterosexual, regulatory framework, as a particular frontier to be conquered and colonised, involves particular constructions of gender identity. The result is the creation and perpetuation in angloamerican discourse of outer space as an emptiness and void; the conquest of heterosexual man over nature. Discursive hierarchies of technologically superior, conquesting performance are imbued with their everyday power through an implicitly gendered framework for understanding both the Earthly and extraterrestrial environments, and it is through gender that US political discourses of outer space have been able to (re)produce outer space as a masculinized, heterosexualized realm. 29

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Colonization The notion that we must reproduce to survive is what caused our predicament in the first place Sofia 84 (Zoe, a noted Australian cyber and cyber-gender theorist and the author of "Virtual Corporeality: A Feminist
View, Exterminating Fetuses: Abortion,

Disarmament, and the Sexo-Semiotics of Extraterrestrialism. Vol. 14, No. 2, Nuclear Criticism, pp. 55) C The absolutist logic of the Pro-Lifers for Survival line, and the dichotomies structuring the abortion debate, are symptomatic of the very mode of thought which has placed extinction within our reach: that peculiarly masculinist mode which has stubbornly devalued the visible orderings and multiplyembedded character of terrestrial life in favor of the decontextualized abstractions of Jupiter Space. The binarist logic of masculinist thought is stumped by contextual relations like that of the fetus to the woman's body, and on the subject of reproduction, it still employs an Aristotelian model which accords all of the transformative, generative power to males and reduces females to mere nurturant vessels for male seeds. 2001 is clearly working on this model: all of the embryological imagery is associated with men and their tools, and Mother Earth keeps getting left out of the picture. Pro-choice activistJanetGallaghercomplains about the level of abstractionwhich arises in discussions with pro-lifers,and observes: There'sa way in
which the fetus is discussed as though it were not within a living woman. As if that woman didn't exist. .. .9 Dr. J. C. Wilke from the National Rightto LifeCommittee

has claimed that pro-choice forces "doviolence to marriageby helping remove the rightof a husbandto protectthe child he has fathered in his wife's womb."10This statement expresses the kernel of the masculinistfertility complex, which disappears the woman/wife/mother into the protecting superwomb of patriarchalculture and accords male semen all the fertile power. This same Dr. Wilke in 1973 copyrighted a luridanti-abortionflyer containing graphic depictions of dead fetuses and sensational descriptions of unborn life. The back page of this flyer is interesting on several counts. The far right panel, which claims that "abortion-on- demand laws give to one person (the mother) the legal right to kill another (the baby) in order to solve the first person's social problem," brings forward an aspect of the abortion question which tends to be glossed under the legalist rhetoricof "choice,"namely, that social and economic conditions are so unfriendlyto children and mothers that many women feel they have no choice but to terminate their pregnancies. The flyer's middle panel, of babies dead in the garbage and the title "Humangarbage,"can be read as symptomatic of anxiety over the wastage of life which would resultfrom a

nuclear war. The New Right'srhetoricof "defense"and "protection"of fetal life is

similarlyresonent with militaristicscenarios. Butof particular interest here is the origin story which appears on the left panel. Its text is as follows: Did you "come from"a

human baby? No! Youonce were a baby. Did you "come from"a human fetus? No! Youonce were a fetus. Did you "come from"a fertilizedovum? No! You once were a fertilizedovum. A fertilizedovum? Yes!You were then everything you are today. A line is then drawn across the column, and underneath it the following words appear in heavy type: Nothing has been added to the fertilized ovum who you once were except nutrition. The fetus here is all mouth, the mother all food, and the pregnancy entirely spermatic. The line between these lastsections is particularlyinteresting,given what we already know of Dr. Wilke's attitude to fathering. The text here "drawsthe line" at a point where biological knowledge constrains it from assertingsomething it really believes. Ifwe put this line under a microscope, it would probably read as follows: Did you "come from"your father'ssperm? No! Youoncewereyourfather'ssperm. Where does the pro-lifefetus exist, if not in livingwoman's body?The frontcover of this flyer gives us one answer: the dead fetus is in the man's hands. One pro-life lawyer has been quoted as saying "thefetus might well be described as an astronautin an interuterinespace ship.""1He is correct:the fetus is a decontextualized abstractionof JupiterSpace, which here means patriarchalconsciousness. It is an overblown symbol of the parasiticmale ego, and more generally, of the corporate Superbabies which feed off the Earthwhile pretending it doesn't exist. Its associations with an anti-erotic repressive morality and pro-militarist sentiments make the movement to protect the fetal person seem less about life and more about preventing its termination: the New Right is not so much "pro-life" as "anti-abortion." Like the Star Child, the pro-life fetus arises as the negation of life's negation, through which the male ego resurrects itself as a spermatic creation. And like the Star Child, this other inhabitant of Jupiter Space may also stand for extinction. One pro-choice activist has claimed that the notion of fetal personhood is a relatively new one, which is "taking a form that has its own energy, almost like a religious cult." We look again to the film 2001 for clues to the source of this energy. The astral fetus is visually equated with the planet, and in the last frame, substituted for it: it becomes a world of its own. At one level, then, the fetus is working as a symbol for the Earth. It is a cosmic symbol. It is not entirely inappropriate that the planet be represented by a signifier of unborn life, for it presently contains all of the possibilities for future life forms. From this perspective, disarmament might be seen as an act to prevent a cosmic abortion.

30

UTNIF 2011 Gender K LINK: COOPERATION

We should approach the idealistic appeal to cooperation skeptically. Abstract appeals to

cooperation obscure the gendered origins of conflict. PETERSON, professor of political science at the University of Arizona, and RUNYAN, associate professor of political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993(V Spike and Anne, Global Gender Issues, p 14) Just as realism makes conflict more visible and idealism makes cooperation more visible, this text makes gender more visible. In the process, it exposes distortions and limitations of conventional accounts. Existing frameworks do not adequately explain the nature, sources, and levels of conflict and cooperation in world politics. In fact, one begins to see that traditional IR accounts can misread situations of conflict and cooperation by failing to analyze the difference that gender makes.

The affirmatives claims of international cooperation are nothing but cultural stereotypes meant
to placate international intrigue, relying on the subordination of women for internal stability. PENLEY, professor of film and media studies at UC Santa Barbara, 1997 (Constance NASA/TREK: Popular Science and Sex in America, 50) If the Challenger disaster has been compulsively repeated, so has the mismanagement of the meanings of women in space. To understand the treatment of McAuliffe was no anomaly or exception, it is illustrative to consider the case of Roberta Bondar, the first Canadian woman in space, whose Discovery mission was launched on
January 22, 1992. Bondar just wanted to be

seen as qualified and competent doctor-scientist-astronaut, but everyone wanted to represent something for them. NASA, in yet another effort to imbue itself with Star-Trek-like multiculturalism released a picture of Bondar dressed up in a Royal Canadian Mounties uniform posing with fellow Discovery astronaut Norman Thagard, a graduate of Florida State University, decked out as the universitys (controversial) mascot, Seminole Chief Osceola. Bondar said she didnt mind,
especially given the choice of dressing up perhaps as a beaver or as a Mountie. And though the Canadian Space Agency

strongly objected

to the photographs dissemination to the media (probably because of its cheesy chauvinism), NASA distributed it anyway. The decision to pair a stereotypically Canadianized Bondar with an astronaut costumed as an American Indian was perhaps inspired by President Bushs desire to present an image of a US-Canadian unity in the aftermath of the controversial Free Trade agreement. The president phoned Bondar as
Discovery was passing over Canada and told

her to keep up the good work and say hello to this friend Brian Mulroney.

31

UTNIF 2011 Gender K LINK: Data transparency The claim of a fully transparent system reifies hierarchical divisions between objectivity and subjectivity. Franklin, professor in the department of sociology at Lancaster University,1995 (Sarah, science as culture, cultures
of science, Annual Review of

Anthropology, 24, 166) Although a pro- and antiscience division is often drawn between critical science studies, such as the study of science as culture by anthropologists, and so-called real science undertaken by professional scientists, this is one of many divisions, or borders, defining science that are currently breaking down (92, 93, 106), Science studies has its own groupings that divide along the faultlines of "realism" vs "relativism," the view of science as knowledge or practice, the validity of constructivist or objectivist approaches to science, and the question of where science is located (124, 150), Many of the same contentious issues seen to be at stake between critical science studies and mainstream scientific practice are in fact reproduced within science studiesan isomorphism that is often least surprising from an anthropological vantage point, which would see both intellectual traditions as derivative of a shared cultural context. In other words, certain cultural values are equally invisible within both science studies and within science itself. The claim, for example, that empiricism can be unmarked, that is, can provide an evidentiary basis that "speaks for itself," is after all a point of view, and one that may be held by science studies scholars as well as by scientists themselves. Moreover, it is a point of view with a history that establishes a cultural tradition: the tradition of "value-neutrality" or transparency. To distinguish between pure and applied knowledge, between hard and soft sciences invokes not only this value system, but the hierarchical nature of it, thus exemplifying the kind of cultural fact at issue here. LINK: Debate **** And, their performance is not separate from the masculine nature of their arguments; the aggressive behavior of the aff is part and parcel of expressing the legitimacy of the speaking subject as masculine. PUWAR, senior lecturer at the University of London, 2004 (Nirmal, Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of
Place, 82-3)

In spite of the bourgeois representation of political debate as being all about disembodied reason and outside bodily

and affective particularity, theorists of embodiment, particularly feminists, have argued that the body and affectivity are actually integral to political speech and debate. Joan Landes reminds us that style and decorum are not incidental traits but constitutive features of the way in which embodied, speaking subjects establish claims of the universal in politics (1998: 144). The speech, voices, styles and decorum of the bodies that utter parliamentary speech are heavily masculinised. And, in fact, the bodily gestures, movements and enactments reveal strong traces of gentrified heroic masculinity. Despite the claims of bourgeois rationality, aggression continues to play a huge role in the performance of public debate. One
could see the Chamber as a theatre where displays of aggression are, as one MP put it, cloaked in fine sounding words for a spectatorial public performance (see Huet

1982). The two swords length and a foot apart architectural structure of the Chamber is itself combative (interestingly, there is still a rifle-range in the House). Furthermore, it is a theatricalised public sphere scripted for male performances. Tough, ruthless, aggressive behaviour is admired. Those who are able to humiliate their opponents through highly articulate performances which re-enact the violence and theatrical force found in the law courts are especially applauded. Link: Democracy

Imagining space as a frontier for democracy relies on masculine notions of freedom, ensuring domination. Brandt 06 (Stefan, Professor of North American Culture and Literature, University of Siegen, Germany, "Astronautic
Subjects: Postmodern Identity and the

Embodiment of Space in American Science Fiction", Gender Forum, Issue 16, 2006, http://www.genderforum.org/index.php?id=311) 11 This rhetoric is not only charged with images of progress, technology, and emancipation, it is also highly gendered. In his introduction to Halacy's Cyborg - The Evolution of the Superman, Clynes makes the following observation: "A new word was created in 1960 to describe a new concept for man's venture into space: Become a superman; live in space as at home - if possible,
better than home! Do not take into space earth's hindrances and encumbrances. Be a free spirit in space, weightless and not weighted down by the limitations of terrestrial ancestry." (7) The deployment of Nietzschean imagery in Clyne's statement (and, above all, in Halacy's book) is symptomatic of a

phallogocentric approach. Masculinity here functions not only as an indicator of technology and progress, but also as an agent of democracy itself. Given the background of the Cold War, the astronautic superman in 1960s cultural iconography had to be male and masculine, fighting for the tenets of Western civilization. His voyage into distant spheres is marked as evidence of his energy and will-power. Donna Haraway contends that such images echo the old myth of man as

tool-maker, according to which "man makes everything, including himself out of the world that can only be resource and potency to his project and active agency" ("Promises" 297). 32

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Development Development-especially economic development- inherently has a male bias. It does nothing to alleviate the poor women of the world and only does to steal resources from the ones who need it most. Nhanenge 2007 (Jytte, Masters of Art Degree in International Development Studies at the University of South Africa (UNISA), Ecofeminism: towards
integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and nature into development.)

From the above it follows that development devastates wholesome and sustainable lifestyles of women and traditional people in the South. It creates scarcity of natural resources and excludes an increasing number of adult and children from their entitlement to food. This leads to malnutrition, sickness, poverty, misery and death. Conclusively development has become a threat to the survival of the great maj ority in the South. Rather that being a strategy for poverty alleviation, bringing about a good life, development is creating complex crises of inequality and poverty, violence and war, environmental destruction and abuse of human rights. Those worst hit by development's destruction are women, children, traditional people, poor people and nature. If this is the outcome of development, then it
becomes urgent to analyze its underlying values in order to understand what has gone wrong and to suggest some fundamental changes. The problem is consequently

that mainstream development has failed its purpose. It set out to create a good life for people, but instead its activities have become detrimental to human and natural well-being and a risk for continuation of existence. This is where ecofeminism comes in. Since the crises caused by economic development are suffered mainly by women, poor people and nature, alleviation of the crises must include reality as it is seen from the point of view of this group. That is exactly what ecofeminism does. By its ecological and feminist focus the ecofeminist perspective becomes a countermeasure to the dominant development approach. The purpose of this study is therefore to explore development as
perceived from an ecofeminist perspective. The first task is to discover how ecofeminism views development. From the outcome of this critique, we must try to

understand why development activities have such detrimental effects on women, poor people and nature. The second task is to explore other ways of initiating social change, which can include the concerns of women, poor people and nature in the development discourse. Many development authors have critically studied development and its activities. Thus, past literature has in various ways described: how economic development cannot assist poor people; how it has marginalized women due to its male bias; and how its activities are destroying the precarious Southern natural environment. Much of this critique is
informative and of a high quality. However, only a few of them are based on an ecofeminist perspective. An ecofeminist view is unique. Due to its holistic perception, it

can combine and integrate all of the above critical issues in development. This

approach comes from the ecofeminist conviction that there exists an interconnection between the domination of women, poor people, traditional people, and the domination of nature. Or said differently, ecofeminism finds that whenever women and poor people are dominated by development, then as per definition nature is also dominated and vice versa. Thus, exploitation
of women, poor people and 4 nature are linked. This link is significant, since exploring it reveals that development is reductionist because it is

founded on a Western, patriarchal, dualised structure. This structure continuously, consistently, and unjustifiably dominates what it defines as
belonging to a subordinate category that here is called "the other". These dualised "others" include women, children, poor people, traditional people, black people and

nature. However, the heap of "others" also contains any elements considered feminine like emotion, care, intuition and cooperation; plus all qualitative issues like ethics, aesthetics, and spirituality. Literature that critique development for being a reductionist and dualised perspective is limited. Many new ecofeminist ideas and thoughts are being developed. However, to present an overview of these and to show their relevance in development has been overlooked due to the earlier negative focus. There is consequently a deficiency in the development literature when it comes to explore, gather and describe the diverse ecofeminist contribution to the development dialogue. It is this deficiency I try, in a limited way, to correct by this research. With the aim to proliferate the understanding of ecofeminism, and by that also showing its importance, this study describes what ecofeminism is; it explores what ecofeminism considers being the root causes of development's failure; and it tries to discover how ecofeminists perceive a possible non-dominant world, where the realities of women, poor people and nature are included.

33

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Development Domination means that we can never solve for the problems that the Aff claims to solve. s

Nhanenge 2007 (Jytte, Masters of Art Degree in International Development Studies at the University of South Africa (UNISA), Ecofeminism: towards
integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and nature into development.)

Domination by the Masters has distorted human knowledge of the world, which now is threatening our survival. The future therefore depends on our ability to create a truly democratic and ecological culture beyond dualism. The book
specifically focuses on the relationship between women and nature, and between ecological feminism and other feminist theories. However, it also shows how a

feminist critique of the dominant rationality can be extended to integrate theories of gender, race and class oppression with that of the domination of nature. Exploring the contribution feminist theory can make in developing better green thinking, and improved environmental philosophy, Plumwood's book challenges much existing work in both categories. It is an essential book
when one wants to understand the historical, philosophical and cultural roots of the environmental crises and the culture of denial, which blocks response to it. I was

grateful for Val Plumwood's important input about how dualism functions. It is used in chapter 4. However, other parts of her brilliant work are incorporated in chapter 6 and 7 as well. Noel Sturgeon is an assistant professor of Women's Studies at Washington State University. She is also a long time activist. Her 1997 book "Ecofeminist natures; race, gender, feminist theory and political action" demonstrates in convincing details how theory is politics and how politics is theory. The book is a critique of an ecofeminism, which is in danger of being stereotyped as an essentialist dogma, frozen at one historical moment. Instead, she advocates an evolving theory-in-practice as an important element in ecofeminism. Since she is both a scholar and an activist, she is able in her critique to offer fresh insights that will be immediately useful. Sturgeon has by Donna Haraway (book cover) been called a fierce and loving critic and a keen-eyed participant in the movements she describes. She is attentive to complex relations of power and the many forms of political action in which ecofeminism must be situated. Her book has therefore important implications for social movement theory, for anti-racist feminist theory, and for environmental studies. The book is inspiring and makes a real contribution to feminist scholarship as engaged political practice. Sturgeon's work made essential contributions to this study due to her clarity in seeing ecofeminism as "a moment"

in the development discourse. lowe chapter 6 part III, and a new understanding of essentialism to Sturgeon's excellent book. Van dana Shiva is a physicist, philosopher and feminist. She works as a director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, in Dehradun, India. Shiva is an internationally reowned ecofeminist. She has been a prominent speaker on the subject women, environment and development since the Nairobi Forum in 1985. Her book "Staying Alive; women, ecology and development" from 1989 was highly influential in shaping the debate as well as inspiring 27 alternative development thinking. Her later works has only reinforced this. Shiva focuses on the socio-economic links between the domination of women and nature. Her works fundamentally questions the Western model of development as the only possible model. Instead, she finds that development is an extension of colonialism. She perceives the Western mode of
development as violence and terrorism in theory and in practice, therefore it should more correctly be called maldevelopment. In her opinion, mal-development

rests on false, male-bias assumptions; it is bereft of the feminine ecological principles; it neglects nature's work in
self-renewal and women's work in producing sustenance. The critique of development's values has lead Shiva to redefine terms like development, progress,

sustainability, productivity, poverty and wealth. She has outlined the validity of marginal people's know ledges in the search for sustainable models in development and in environmental protection. She has illustrated that such knowledge is not primitive; it is sophisticated because it is based on generations of close observation of natural processes. An important contribution is Shiva's alternative value of poverty. She differentiates between real material poverty and culturally perceived poverty. She questions the assumptions that rural Southern people who live sustainably from natural resources are backwards compared to urban Northern people who over consume natural resources at unsustainable levels. Shiva consequently challenges the epistemological assumptions underlying the dominant development model; she highlights its violence to poor people and nature; and she denounces its destructive effects on local cultures and lifestyles. Shiva has used the Chipko movement as a basis for her analysis. In her more recent works, Shiva is focusing on the dominant powers of biotechnology. Shiva is probably the most well known ecofeminist in the development discourse. Studying her works completely changed my perception regarding my own cultural background and the development discourse it promotes. Her description of the Indian cosmology helped me to make the combination between ecofeminism and the yin and yang terminology. I find her a genius and I am grateful for sharing her insight. (Seabrook 1993: 10; Braidotti et al1994: 90, 9395, 109-110; Warren 2000:

25-26).

34

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link Economy Their discourse of economics puts a price on all material goodsresults in war and environmental destruction that causes extinction Nhanenge 7 [Jytte Masters @ U South Africa, paper submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
master of arts in the subject Development

Studies, ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT] There is today an increasing critique of economic development, whether it takes place in the North or in the South. Although the world on average generates more and more wealth, the riches do not appear to "trickle down" to the poor and improve their material well-being. Instead, poverty and economic inequality is growing. Despite the existence of development aid for more than half a century, the Third World seems not to be "catching up" with the First World. Instead, militarism, dictatorship and human repression is multiplied. Since the mid 1970, the critique of global economic activities has intensified due to the escalating deterioration of the natural environment. Modernization, industrialisation and its economic activities have been directly linked to increased scarcity of natural resources and generation of pollution, which increases global temperatures and degrades soils, lands, water, forests and air. The latter threat is of great significance, because without a healthy environment human beings and animals will not be able to survive. Most people believed that modernization of the world would improve material wellbeing for all. However, faced with its negative side effects and the real threat of extinction, one must conclude that

somewhere along the way "progress" went astray. Instead of material plenty, economic development generated a violent, unhealthy and unequal world. It is a world where a small minority live in material luxury, while millions of people live in misery.
These poor people are marginalized by the global economic system. They are forced to survive from degraded environments; they live without personal or social security; they live in abject poverty, with hunger, malnutrition and sickness; and they have no possibility to speak up for themselves and

demand a fair share of the world's resources. The majority of these people are women, children, traditional peoples, tribal peoples, people of colour and materially
poor people (called women and Others). They are, together with nature, dominated by the global system of economic

development imposed by the North. It is this scenario, which is the subject of the dissertation. The overall aim is consequently to discuss the unjustified
domination of women, Others and nature and to show how the domination of women and Others is interconnected with the

domination of nature. A good place to start a discussion about domination of women, Others and nature is to disclose how they disproportionately must carry

the negative effects from global economic development. The below discussion is therefore meant to give an idea of the "flip-side" of modernisation. It gives a gloomy

picture of what "progress" and its focus on economic growth has meant for women, poor people and the natural environment. The various complex and inter-

connected, negative impacts have been ordered into four crises. The categorization is inspired by Paul Ekins and his 1992 book "A new world order; grassroots movements for global change". In it, Ekins argues that humanity is faced with four interlocked crises of unprecedented magnitude. These crises have the potential to destroy whole ecosystems and to extinct the human race. The first crisis is the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, together with the high level of military spending. The second crisis is the increasing number of people afflicted with hunger and poverty. The third crisis is the environmental degradation. Pollution, destruction of ecosystems and extinction of species are increasing at such a rate that the biosphere is under threat. The fourth crisis is repression and denial of fundamental human rights by governments, which prevents people from developing
their potential. It is highly likely that one may add more crises to these four, or categorize them differently, however, Ekins's division is suitable for the present

purpose. (Ekins 1992: 1).

Link: Environmental Control Causes Warming Attempts to dominate nature results in the creation of an inhospitable climate Roberts 85 (Tarot scholar and a mythologist, From Eden to Eros: Origins of the Put Down of Women, Vernal Equinox
Press, p. 101-2) J.K.L.

According to Lovelock, in his Gaia hypothesis, the Earths living matter, air, oceans, and land surfaces, form a complex system which can be seen as a single organism and which has the capacity to keep our planet a fit place for life. ... I have frequently used the word Gaia as a shorthand for the hypothesis itself, namely that the biosphere is a selfregulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment. Occasionally it has been difficult, without excessive circumlocution, to avoid talking of Gaia as if she were known to be sentient. ... The notion of Gaia, of a living Earth, has not in the past been acceptable to the main science stream and consequently seeds sown in earlier times would not have flourished but instead would have remained deep in the mulch of scientific papers. 2 Gaia, then, is the collective intelligence of all the planets kingdoms: mineral, vegetable, animal, and human. That intelligence, therefore, regulates conditions for all life. But human consciousness does not seem to be aware of its contributory role in this great scheme of things. Still concerned with taming nature and dominating the planet, this same patriarchal attitude seeks to make of Mother Earth a submissive female prone to a dominant male consciousness. Yet such an attitude has

created an imbalance felt throughout all Earth. And a reaction has commenced, most apparent in what appears at first to be merely a change in the weather from hospitable to inhospitable for man. 35

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link Extinction Discourse/Space Exploration The obsession with space as the only hope to prevent extinction is rooted in a neocolonialist impulse to save a humanity implicitly coded as male one that necessitates spreading Mans seed across the cosmos Bryant 95 [William, American Studies at the University of Iowa, The Re-Vision of Planet Earth: Space Flight and
Environmentalism in Postmodern

America, American Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2: Fall 1995, https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/viewFile/2791/2750] Though originating from different directions, the stories told by both the environmentalists and the progressives were essentially Hegelian narratives aimed at a common point in the future, when "man," "humanity," "the race," "the species," is liberated from the threat of extinction. The discourse of survival drove these narratives; it was the telos which justified the telling of the stories and authorized both the tellers and their practical prescriptions.
To function properly within the narratives, however, the discourse of survival required a unified humankind typed into an

abstract, seemingly classless, raceless, genderless totality. Such a move was facilitated by a view of Earth from a perspective so distant that a real human presence could only be projected onto it by an act of imagination, and then only in a diffuse, generic form. From such a view, all people shared a common origin, existed under common conditions, and were fated to a
common futurewhich reduced on the flat disk in space into a kind of eternally present state of "being on Earth." According to Donna Haraway, this generic,

global "man" was grounded in the science and politics of post-World War II Western culture. 37 Following the rise and
dire consequences of fascism, racial and national differences ceased to be acceptable typologies for an understanding of "man." Peace and security indeed, survival

after Hiroshima, in the Cold War era, in the face of decolonization, depended on the discovery of human commonalties, on the construction of "the united family of man," a concept issuing directly from the United Nations. The U.N.'s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and theUnitedNations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization's 1950 and 1951 statements on race, Haraway writes, "attempted to build into the founding documents of a post-World War II international order" a "narrative of scientific humanism" that would unify humanity ' s sense of itself. In response, the scientific community, particularly the fields of physical anthropology and biology, endeavored to construct from newly discovered fossils of early man an original human "family," whose essence lay in cooperation rather than competitiona story that seems to parallel the "display" narrative of the U.S. manned space program. "[Bjiological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood," concluded the 1950 UNESCO statement, "for man is born with drives toward cooperation, and unless these drives are satisfied, man and nations alike

will fall." Created by science as a "natural-technical object of knowledge," universal man was thus "biologically certified for equality and rights to full citizenship." This post-World War II universal man, says Haraway, was "launched into the future and unearthed from the past." From the progressive perspective, the astronauts in their bold mission
beyond the confines of Earth were universal man; for the environmentalist, the picture of Earth from outer space was a selfportrait

of him. In some ways the construction of universal man succeeded in redressing racists (though not sexist, as Haraway points out) conceptions of "man." By the 1960s, the concept was a mainstay of liberal ideology, justifying in a new way the use of a universal "we" to describe the
generic state of human affairs. But as JeanFranois Lyotard argues, use of the universal "we" can be a kind of cultural imperialism, denying the specificity of history,

colonizing difference, and masking responsibility. 38 With the American flag planted on the moon there would seem to be little doubt about the neo-colonial intentions behind the space program, but environmentalist ideology also advanced a kind of neocolonialism. Anxieties about separation from nature, owing to a perception of technology run amok, permeated the environmentalist discourse. But to whom did
these anxieties belong? As Haraway argues, "It is [European and Euro-American "generic" man] who has been excluded from

nature.. .he is being thrown out of the garden by decolonization and perhaps off the planet by its destruction in ecological devastation and nuclear holocaust." It was not the Third World that needed to reconnect with the natural environment, that needed a reconstituted human/nature relationship via a re-visioned Earth, but technological, Western, scientific man, who seemed able to stave off his ultimate expulsion from the garden only by recolonizing the planet as a whole, by turning it into a mirror image of himself. The discourse of survival was not about survival for its own

sake. Rather, it directed both the environmentalist and progressive narratives toward some resolution of events that would leave universal man in a happier, more secure state. The hurdle set before universal man from both perspectives was the

looming decadence of his natural environment. The teleology of the progressives was obvious: universal man could escape

decadence via the "great opening-out of the mind and spirit" afforded by space exploration; he could ensure the perpetuation of his species by depositing his seed upon unknown worlds. But the environmentalist story, too, was guided by a
metanarrative of progress. The revisioned Earth implied the avoidance of complete, self-inflicted decadence, a move toward maturity, and then perhaps toward

salvation. The mind and spirit of universal man opened out upon the planet itself by way of his reconstituted relationship with it.

36

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Frontier The Desire to expand into space is only to domesticate it Bryld and Lykke 00 (Mette, associate professor at the department of Russia and east European studies; Nina,
professor in gender and culture at the

department of gender studies of Linkoeping University, Comsodolphins: Feminist cultural studies of technology, animals, and the sacred, p. 76-78) To the Americans, the idea of the universe as 'the high frontier' or 'the new frontier' has a strongly nationalromantically coloured meaning. The frontier concept has deep roots in American history. Referring to the expansion towards the west in the nineteenth
century, 'the frontier' represents the myth of the borders to the 'Wild West', which challenged pioneers with promises of fertile land, gold and a new life. At the same time, 'the frontier' also signifies the way into a tough, dangerous and unknown world. This outlook has influenced the sense of national identify so strongly that the myth of the frontier as being indispensable was even canonized in American

historiography in the first half of the twentieth century. As the frontier disappeared into the waves of the Pacific Ocean. The American historian Frederick J. Turner set up a national monument to it, with his 'frontier' thesis.1 His argument, which became immensely popular, specified the frontier to the west as the matrix of American democracy and national character. The disappearance of the frontier, Turner warned, could seriously damage the development and identity of the nation. Seen from this perspective, the USA has been lacking a frontier that could regenerate the national spirit for many decades now. As if in a healing response to this, the master narrative of space flight came forward with alluring offers of a new mythical frontier. Under the title The High frontier: Human Colonies in Space (O'Neill 1978), a well-known professor of physics, Gerard O'Neill, impressed by
the national successes in space of the 1960s, contributed yet another enthusiastic chapter to the history of the US frontier myth. Even better, O'Neill's new frontier

wholly overcomes : the problems raised by Turner. In contrast to the old frontier, which was eventually devoured by the ocean, the new one borders onto a 'wilderness' of cosmic dimensions that is, in theory at least, open to endless expansion. To ourselves, born and raised in a small nation that has to resort to the somewhat shabby myths of the Vikings for a national-romantic icon to represent
the legendary voyage into the wild unknown, the frontier myth sounds very alien. By contrast, to our American interviewees, this myth is an

unquestionable part of their national identity. 'What has permeated the US since it was founded is going to the unknown,' JoAnn points out. She
considers the quest for the unknown, for new knowledge and adventure, to be part of her national heritage. In others, this heritage has become so much second nature

that they even consider it to be an essential characteristic of 'universal man's' biology. Dr B's version of the frontier myth goes as follows: 'Man has always moved outwards ... If there was an ocean, we sailed across it. If there was a continent, we walked across it. All this space out there ... we will somehow sail across that to get to the other physical body ... we shall go there.

It's the nature of the beast.' In several discourses, a Turner-like argument pops up not only in a form aiming to highlight the frontier as a positive challenge,
but also in a negative version: what will happen to humanity if we ignore this challenge? One of several to voice this aspect, Irene strongly underlines the likelihood of

intellectual degeneration should we fail to constantly confront new horizons. As if echoing Turner, Shannon states that, since there is no more room for expansion on Earth, we must venture into outer space to regain the pioneering spirit of former times. The cosmos is now 'the natural course of advance'. A major theme in the frontier myth concerns the expansion of the territory that we, in a physical, social and scientific sense, can define as being domesticated - that is, the territory that we are able to utilize for our own purposes. An expansion into the universe will, according to some o the interviewees, solve our demographic problems; others refer to vision; of mining the Moon
and the asteroids as a means of overcoming (ht shortage of natural resources on Earth. As part of this line of utilitariain expansionist arguments, the revolution in

communication technologies which depend on orbital satellites, is also emphasized. All of these leitmotifs appear in the legitimization of space flight Co utilitarian goals. But the desire for domestication represents only one side of the frontier myth, and should by no means eliminate the existence of the frontier itself In the cosmic-scale version of the frontier myth, the universe should simultaneously be domesticated and remain a challenging gateway into the unknown.

37

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Frontier Astronauts are seen as white, male adventurers Bryld and Lykke 00 (Mette, associate professor at the department of Russia and east European studies; Nina,
professor in gender and culture at the

department of gender studies of Linkoeping University, Comsodolphins: Feminist cultural studies of technology, animals, and the sacred, p. 56-57) Prr strange, otherwWplaces far from home, which test the ability of the protagonist to overcome great dangers and meet incredible challenges. Together, the two genres give a clue to the analysis of the conqueror-protagonist of the space fable. As described by Vladimir Propp (1975), whose fairy-tale theory strongly influenced structuralism and semiotics (Greimas 1983), the questing hero is the protagonist of one type of fairy-tale. He is the kind of hero whose project generates the course of events of the story. In the fairy-tale magic helpers endow him with three important modalities or action-generators will, knowledge and know-how so that he can accomplish the project successfully. When the fairy-tale scheme is transferred to the adventure story, the questing hero is made the standard protagonist and at the same time inscribed in a modern cult of supermen, who by individual per-sonality, and not because of magic helpers, are empowered by invincible will, knowledge and know-how. It is obvious that the protagonist of the adventure story shares these features with the hero of the space fable. Whether posing as soldier-hero who plants the Stars and Stripes in the lunar soil or as Soviet 'conqueror' who has left the 'cradle' of Mother Russia far behind, he incarnates the questing adventure hero. In his analysis of the modern adventure story, literary scholar Martin Green (1990, 1991, 1993) critically describes it as a tale about the white, male hero, who embarks on dangerous journeys for nationalistic and imperialist purposes. He traces the genre back to Robinson Crusoe and discusses various
types, for example the frontiersman stories (well known in both American and Russian literature). He defines adventure stories as modern fairy-tales. They are, he

writes, `folktales of white nationalism and empire' (Green 1990: 4), allied to a specific kind of modern masculinity that flows from the 'high-spirited' experience of exerting power 'beyond the law, or on the very frontier of civilization' (Green 1991: 3). The adventure story represents a 'liturgy of masculinism' (Green 1990: 6), sti intersecting with a 'liturgy for the cult of potency and potestas th management of force, the exertion of power, material and
moral' (Lciseleial Green's description fits well as a characterization of the space fab". It le 5). sustains the suggestion that the adventure story

and the fairy-tale are both part of the underlying script that created the image of the astro_ and cosmonaut supermen. Like Green's adventure heroes, the astro- or cosmo, nauts perform as mythic national romantic heroes, acting beyond the frontiers of civilization in the

wilderness of hostile space, allegedly (in of the American and Russian space fable is strikingly masculine. The flags to mark their presence in the new territories.'

Furthermore, the hero peace for all mankind', although always carrying with them

their natigorneaalt 'first steps' of the human journey into the cosmos (the first human in space, the first humans on the Moon, and so on) are, over and over again, in history books, space museums, etc., celebrated as having been taken by 'men of the right stuff' (Wolfe 1988).

38

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Link: Gender Invisibility

The gender neutrality of the 1AC reifies masculine spaces, reproducing war and aggression.
PETERSON, professor of political science at the University of Arizona, and RUNYAN, associate professor of political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993(V Spike and Anne, Global Gender Issues, p 34-5)
In IR the concept of "political actor" -the legitimate wielder of society's power-is derived from classical political theory. Common to constructions of

"political man" -from Plato and Aristotle to Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau-is the privileging of man's capacity for reason. This unique ability distinguishes man from other animals and explains his pursuit of freedom-from nature as well as from tyranny. Feminists argue that the models of human nature underpinning constructions of "political man" are not in fact gender neutral but are models of "male nature, " generated by exclusively male experience. They are not universal claims about humankind but masculinist claims about gendered divisions of labor and identity that effectively and sometimes explicitly exclude women from definitions of "human," "moral agent," "rational actor," and "political man." Conceptually, "woman" is excluded primarily by denying her the rationality that marks "man" as the
highest animal. Concretely, women have historically been excluded from political power by states' limiting

citizenship to those who perform military duty and/or are property owners. Under these conditions, most women are structurally excluded from formal politics, even though individual women, in exceptional circumstances, have wielded considerable political power. In this century, women have
largely won the battle for the vote, though definitions of citizenship continue to limit women's access to public power, and their political power is circumscribed by a

variety of indirect means (discussed elsewhere in this text). Most obvious are the continued effects of the dichotomy of public-private that separates men's productive and "political" activities from women's reproductive and "personal" activities. These constructions-of power, "political man, " citizenship, public private, and so on-reproduce, often unconsciously, masculinist and androcentric assumptions. Sovereign man and sovereign states are defined not by connection or relationships but by autonomy in decision-making and freedom from the power of others. Security is nnderstood not in terms of celebrating and sustaining life but as the capacity to be indifferent to "others" and, if necessary, to harm them. Hobbes's androcentrism is revealed simply when we

ask how helpless infants ever become adults if human nature is universally competitive and hostile. From the perspective of child-rearing practices, it makes more sense

to argue that humans are naturally cooperative: Without the cooperation that is required to nurture children, there would be no men or women. And although Aristotle acknowledged that the public sphere depends upon the production of life's necessities in the private sphere, he denied the power relations or politics that this implies. Gender is most apparent in these constructions when we examine the dichotomies they (re)produce: politicalapolitical, reason-emotion, public-private, leaders-followers, active-passive, freedom-necessity. As with other dichotomies, difference and opposition are privileged and context and ambiguity are ignored. The web of meaning and human interaction within which political man acts and politics takes place remains hidden, as if irrelevant. The point is not that power-over, aggressive behavior, and life-threatening conflicts are not "real" but that they are only a part of a more complicated story. Focusing on them misrepresents our reality even as it
(to some extent

unnecessarily) reproduces power over, aggressive behavior, and life-threatening conflicts.

39

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Gendered Language Male-gendered generics exclude women even if not intentionally -- free-association studies prove Chew 07 (Pat K. Chew, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh, and Lauren K. Kelley-Chew, candidate for B.S.,
Stanford University. "Subtly sexist

language", Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, Vol. 16, pg 643 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1285570) A common explanation for using male-gendered generics, such as his, he, and words with the suffix --man, is that the words are intended to and understood to be inclusive of both men and women; that is, they are not intentionally sexist or exclusionary. n17 A classic defense was given by William Strunk and E.B. White in an early edition of their widely used and admired book, The Elements of Style: "The use of he as pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language. He has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circumstances. . . . It has no pejorative connotations; it is never incorrect." n18 While Strunk and White were generally correct about the convenience and historical origins of he as a generic for individuals of both genders, they were mistaken about the lack of gender association and its impact. n19 Many social scientists have concluded that when we read, hear, or use male-gendered generics, we are much more likely to think of [*649] "maleness." n20 These researchers found
in a variety of settings that, in comparison to the use of more gender-inclusive terms such as he or she or humankind, the use of male-gendered words triggers in both

the communicator and the audience a male image. n21 Thus, using male-gendered generics excludes or at least diminishes the prominence of women in our cognitive associations. Furthermore, as we will subsequently discuss, using male-gendered generics has identifiable effects. To illustrate, in one study, individuals were asked to recite sentences that contained either he, he/she, or they as generic pronouns. n22 The study participants were then asked to verbally describe the images that came to mind. Those who read he had a disproportionate number of male images, even though the readings expressly referred to people of either gender.
n23 In another experiment, participants were induced to complete sentence fragments using masculine or unbiased generics, after which they were asked to visualize the

sentence and to give a first name to the person they visualized. n24 Results indicated that using masculine generics generated more male-biased imagery in the mind of the user. In yet another study, [*650] participants who were asked to create photo collages for textbook chapters selected more photos of males when chapter titles included man in the title (for example, economic man) than when the titles did not contain man in the title (for example, economic behavior). n25 Finally, McConnell and Fazio found that individuals were more likely to describe the "average person" in an occupation as male when that occupation's title was male-gendered (e.g., city councilman rather than member of city council or city councilperson). n26 These

studies and other empirical research confirm that male-gendered generics are not actually gender-neutral, prompting their labeling as pseudo-generics or false generics. In this way, malegendered generics are sexist because those who use them and those who hear them tend to exclude women or at least be biased toward men, even though their conscious intentions are perhaps to be inclusive. Male-gendered generics reinforce gender stereotypes -- studies prove Chew 07 (Pat K. Chew, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh, and Lauren K. Kelley-Chew, candidate for B.S.,
Stanford University. "Subtly sexist

language", Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, Vol. 16, pg 643 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1285570) Even more to the point, evidence also exists that the use of male-gendered words influences the way we think of others.
Psychologists Allen McConnell and Russell Fazio designed an experiment to consider whether gender-marked language affects our perceptions of others' personal

attributes. n35 Study participants read three vignettes, each describing an executive in a business situation that involved a give-and-take process to reach a compromise agreement with an opposing party. All participants read the same vignettes, although the business executive's title varied in different versions among Chairman of the Board of Directors (man-suffix condition), Chair of the Board of Directors (no-suffix condition) or Chairperson of the Board of Directors (person-suffix condition). The vignettes also varied the executive's gender identification. In one vignette, there was no gender identification and, in subsequent vignettes, the executive was identified as a woman or as a man. After reading the [*652] vignettes, participants answered a series of questions about the executive's personality. n36 The researchers found clear evidence that title suffixes influence the assessment of the executive's personality traits. Use of the Chairman title resulted in the executive being described more consistently in stereotypically masculine terms (rational, assertive, independent, analytical, intelligent) and less consistently in stereotypically female terms (caring, emotional, warm, compassionate, cheerful). In contrast, use of the Chairperson title resulted in the executive being described with more stereotypically female qualities and less consistently with stereotypically masculine attributes. n37 This pattern was
consistent across all three vignettes even though the executive's gender identification varied. McConnell and Fazio provide a range of explanations for these results. One

is that individuals might associate someone who uses the title Chairperson with a particular personality profile (politically left-of-center, independent, or feminine) even though there is no specific evidence supporting that association. Another explanation is that seeing the title Chairman repeatedly primes the reader to make the association of Chairman with man (as described in the research above), and then to link it to

stereotypically male traits. This priming process overrides the fact that the executive's gender is not identified (as
in one vignette) or is female (as in another vignette). n38 The study participants' own attitudes may also help explain these outcomes, as we will subsequently describe. While we might not yet understand why, it appears that gendered titles affect our perceptions of people and that

those perceptions are consistent with gender stereotypes.

40

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Gendered Language The sexism of a speaker is manifested through their gendered language -- studies prove Chew 07 (Pat K. Chew, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh, and Lauren K. Kelley-Chew, candidate for B.S.,
Stanford University. "Subtly sexist

language", Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, Vol. 16, pg 643 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1285570) For example, Janet Swim and her colleagues have explored whether modern sexist beliefs predict individuals' detection and use of sexist language. n43 In one research project, participants completed a packet of [*654] questionnaires in which various research instrument were embedded. n44 In addition to completing an instrument measuring modern sexist beliefs such as those listed above, participants indicated their personal definitions of what constituted sexist language, n45 and they demonstrated their ability to detect sexist language including male-gendered generics. The research results showed significant connections between individuals' attitudes and their ability to detect
the use of sexist language. Those who endorsed modern sexist beliefs were less likely to detect sexist language and to define as sexist the types of language that have been defined as sexist in the research literature. n46 In comparison, those who disagreed with modern sexist beliefs were more

likely to define sexist words as sexist and detect their use. n47 In a subsequent study, the same researchers found that those who endorsed modern sexist beliefs were more likely to actually use sexist language, while those who did not endorse these views were less likely to use sexist language and more likely to
use nonsexist language. n48 Thus, it appears that one's beliefs about gender issues affects whether one believes malegendered

language and other sexist language is indeed sexist, and whether one uses malegendered language or more gender-neutral word alternatives.

Male-gendered generics exclude women, assign masculine characteristics, and reveal personal sexism, even if unintentionally -- studies prove Chew 07 (Pat K. Chew, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh, and Lauren K. Kelley-Chew, candidate for B.S.,
Stanford University. "Subtly sexist

language", Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, Vol. 16, pg 643 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1285570) The discussion above on existing empirical research offers substantial evidence that using male-gendered generics is a form of subtle sexism, even though the user does not necessarily have sexist intentions. First, while grammarians may claim otherwise, those who use male-gendered generics such as he and words with the suffix -man are much more likely to exclude women in their cognitive associations. Thus, when people hear the word businessman, most are likely to visualize a male business person, not a female one. Second, gendered language
reinforces traditional gender stereotypes. Thus, when the title Chairman is used, listeners and readers associate the

designated

person with stereotypically masculine characteristics, even though the executive's gender is not specified.
Abandoning the use of Chairman, therefore, would presumably preclude those gendered associations for both women and men executives. Finally, individuals may use

male-gendered generics for a variety of reasons, including totally innocuous ones. However, there is evidence that individuals who have beliefs that generics and not find it problematic.

researchers think condone the unequal [*656] treatment of women and men are particularly likely to use male-gendered

Subtle sexism leads to blatant sexism -- even seemingly small discursive elements have damaging psychological impacts Chew 07 (Pat K. Chew, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh, and Lauren K. Kelley-Chew, candidate for B.S.,
Stanford University. "Subtly sexist

language", Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, Vol. 16, pg 643 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1285570) Given what social scientists have found about the meaning and effects of malegendered generics and other subtly sexist language, the legal community's ongoing use of this language effectively reinforces our acceptance of its debilitating messages about women. Women are [*676] disadvantaged when malegendered generics such as chairman, businessman, congressman, and he are used to refer to both women and men. The communicator and the receiver automatically imagine men and stereotypically male characteristics, making it more
difficult to see women in those roles. Although these messages are often communicated unconsciously, they can result in

very real and damaging effects. Employers and clients may be less likely to see women as successful professionals assuming leadership roles. Faculty and classmates may be less likely to see women as worthy law students and future lawyers. Women themselves may begin to believe the underlying message that there is a mismatch between who they are and their chosen career path. Likewise, women may internalize the idea that they are not capable law students, lawyers, faculty, or judges. n110 In these profession, therefore, requires us to take affirmative steps toward an alternative nonsexist norm.

and other ways, subtly sexist language can have significant harmful effects. The legal community's commitment to women entering law schools and succeeding in the

41

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Gendered Language Gendered language psychologically impacts women Chew 07 (Pat K. Chew, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh, and Lauren K. Kelley-Chew, candidate for B.S.,
Stanford University. "Subtly sexist

language", Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, Vol. 16, pg 643 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1285570) Everyday sexism has psychological ramifications for women. In one study, college students kept track for two weeks of everyday sexism, including traditional gender role stereotyping, demeaning and derogatory comments and behaviors, and sexual objectification.
n27 The women's reporting of more sexist incidents was associated with their increased anger, more depression,

and lower self-esteem. n28 Other research demonstrates the subtle deleterious effects of sexist language on the self-concepts and attitudes of both men and
women. n29

Link: Hegemony

Corporations & Hegemony are based on hero perceptionsalso only way to solve environment
through localizations Liftin 97 (Karen, U. of Wash., Dept. of Poli-Sci, Ph.D @ UCLA, A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites,
Frontiers: A Journal of Women

Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, Intersections of Feminisms and Environmentalisms, pp. 2647. University of Nebraska Press)
Global corporatization is one of the dangers of the "global view" afforded by remote sensing, which brings us to the fifth assumption. At first glance, the

assumption that a global perspective is necessary appears indisputable. After all, if problems like climate change, deforestation, desertification, and ozone depletion are global in scope, then we must take a global view in order to solve them. And if these environmental problems are simply the "negative externalities "of a global economy, then a global view seems inescapable. To some extent, all of this is true, but it overlooks the dangers implicit in globalism-particularly the conceptual and pragmatic links between hegemony and globalism. In an unequal world, globalism-including global science-is all too likely to mean white, affluent men universalizing their own experiences. Global problems are amenable to large data banks, to Big Science, to grand managerial schemes. As
we saw earlier, the view from space renders human beings invisible, both as agents and as victims of environmental

destruction. It also erases difference, lending itself to a totalizing vision. The "global

view" cannot adequately depict environmental problems be-cause the impacts of these problems vary with class, gender, age, and race. The very abstractness of the global
view may thwart efforts to heal natural systems. Charles Rubin echoes this sentiment, suggesting that the global view removes environmental problems from the realm

of immediacy where meaning-ful action is possible and most likely to be effective. Rubin goes so far as to reject the term "the environment" because, by essentially referring to "everything out there," it simultaneously serves to distance people from the local places where they live even as it erects an artificial totalizing structure.53Rubin's claim about the concept of
"environment"can be equally applied to "the global view": Both seem to include just about everything except the particularism of place. Ronnie Lipschutz extends this

line of reasoning, suggesting that if place is a critical con-stitutive element of identity, then environmental degradation is not likely to be resolved by embracing the place-eradicating "Blue Planet" image. Rather, it is in the local realm, which is laden with cultural and personal meanings, where most women live their lives and where environmental healing is most likely to occur.54 According to Joni Seager, the "globalview"
is especially problematic for women: The of women on the frontlines should us our notion experience help change of what environmental destruction looks like: it is

not big, flashy,of global or if it manifests Environmental is proportions, global, locally. Degradation pretty mundane-it occurs drop by drop, tree by tree. This fact is discomfit- to scientificand environmental whose prestige depends on solving "big" problems in heroicways.55

42

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: International Relations

IR is a gendered discourse built on the invisibility and marginalization of women. Steans 06 (Jill, Senior Lecturer in International Relations Theory , Department of Political Science and International
Studies, University of Birmingham, Gender

and international relations: issues, debates and future directions, p. 36) In the first part of this chapter, realism serves as the point of departure in understanding the place of gender in the theorization of the state in IR. To a great extent, the invisibility or marginalization of gender is the study of IR is a consequence of the methodological individualism in realism. Ann Tickner argues that an ontology based on unitary states operating in the asocial, anarchical world has provided few entry points for feminist theories, since these were grounded in an epistemology that took social relations as its central category of
analysis. Realism has been a particular target of feminist critique because it has been an influential indeed for a long time

dominant approach within IR and has provided a common-sense view of the world for practitioners as well as theorists in IR. As Ann Tickner argued in her critique of realist discourse, the most dangerous threat to both a man and a state is to be like a woman because women are weak, fearful, indecisive, and dependent stereotypes that still surface when assessing womens suitability for the military and conduct of foreign policy today. Feminist work has contributed to a reconceptualization of the state as a dynamic entity that is made and remade through discourses and practices that embed and reproduce both gendered understandings of the world and particular kinds of gender relations in the world of international politics. Accordingly, the second part of the chapter moves beyond critique to set out the various ways that gender is at work
in the practice of state-making, specifically in the construction of identities and in the boundaries of political community. The third section of this chapter focuses on

the gendered conceptions of citizenship.

43

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: NASA NASAs conception of gender difference reinscribes the notion of the female body as problematic and thus requiring control and domination. Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Fransisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, p pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295) Feminist studies of science and technology include theoretical and substantive work on the construction of gendered difference(s), including sexed and gendered bodies (Laqueur 1990; Terry 1990), reproductive theories (Tuana 1989), skeletons
(Schiebinger 1987), sex hormones (Oudshoorn and Van Den Wijngaard 1991), and a range of other sites. In all of these examples, differences become reified

through scientific representations and practices and are subsequently linked to gender(ed) inequities. We suggest that

gender differences are also constructed assiduously across multiple sites in the space domain. This occurs through a process of inscription, in which genders and gendered sexualities are constructed through material and symbolic practices centered on women's bodies. Female bodies are constructed against a backdrop in which male bodies are accepted as the norm, an inscription process shaped by the masculine context of space travel. More explicitly, space travel can be interpreted as a historically masculine project in that rocket design has in some ways modeled male anatomy. Space flight, in our reading, becomes the realization of penetration and colonization fantasies about the future. 10 This spirit of masculinity permeates almost all aspects of the space program including long-term political goals, engineering designs, assumptions about crew behavior, and life-sciences research protocols. The masculine "nature" of space flight creates an institutional and ideological framework within which women not only are excluded but also are configured as highly problematic by virtue of their gender, bodies, sexualities, and reproductive capacities. Female bodies thus become the target of a range of practices within NASA aimed at reconfiguring women to fit into the space program. Below, we point to some specific
ways in which women's bodies are inscribed through discourses of sexual difference. We begin with a short story about tampons on the space shuttle. During a presentation, an informant relayed the following story:

Informant: One time I asked Shirley Parker,11 she is the director of the medical program [at NASA headquarters], and one day I asked her, do those women use Tampax or do they use pads? About four weeks later, I finally got this stuffy letter back saying I want you to know these women use tampons. I said thank you very much Shirley, it took four weeks to tell me that. Later during an

interview, we returned to the topic of tampons. Our transcript reads: MC: And tampons, that was so funny! Informant: Yeah, but you know, think about the storage. And you can't just jettison, a little thing flying around up there can be dangerous. You know they track space junk, it pits, it can destroy the spaceship. MC: Imagine some alien race finding this tampon floating in space some day, it will be like, what is this? Informant: Can you imagine? This life form, look it's got carbon in it, it's got nitrogen in it, it's got ... MC: That's right, they would think it was a life form! Informant: But I think the major issue she is reacting to, again, she is very protective of her crew, and these women are extremely, number one, they've had to work very, very hard to get on the astronaut core. And they don't want to be derailed now, they have worked so hard to get there, and they're so sensitive to not measuring up about the issue of being female. And that yes, women are different and they do have cycles and it's been my impression that the women on the astronaut corps have tried to minimize the differences [our emphasis]. As the tampon story illustrates, bodies are key sites at which gender differences are constructed in this domain. Women are seen as being different from men not only physiologically but also in terms of being taken seriously in a masculine environment. Yet. an important issue undergirding the tampon story is retrograde menstruation, a condition causing endometriosis in which menstrual blood reverses direction in a weightless environment and gets lodged in the uterus. Thus, although "periods" are one site of constructed gendered differences, menstruation contains potentially dangerous consequences for women's health in a space environment. While we can and should be
concerned about physiological constraints of space travel on women's bodies, it is critical to be suspicious of how these

problems are interpreted and handled by NASA. Gender differences emerge in other sites, as well. For example, pregnancy is seen as affecting female astronauts exclusively, despite the fact that sperm is still a necessary component of fertilization. This assumption leads to scientific research in which only female contraception is at issue. One scientist's research, for example, is geared toward preventing space pregnancies and controlling female hormones through contraceptive technologies. This type of research leads to another site for construction of sex differences-hormones. According to one [female] informant, women "are not stable entities," reflecting an egregious assumption that men are somehow more stable. Another important question regarding sex differences is who gets studied. Because only male astronauts went to space until the past decade, only male physiology (in both animals and humans) was studied. Male physiology has come to be seen as the standard by which female bodies have been evaluated and, unsurprisingly, found to be different. Thus, the prospect of long term multigendered missions has made salient a host of issues related to bodies in space-including sex, reproduction, and pregnancy-all of which are constructed
"scientifically" against the male norm as "female" problems. Constructions of social and cultural differences between men and women are also common in this domain.

According to one informant, "women and men have

different brains" and, therefore, "think differently." Ironically reflecting cultural feminist assumptions, this scientist believes that women "think more broadly then men do and see things more clearly," which purportedly makes them better researchers. Multigendered crews are considered more harmonious, and performance levels are claimed to be better, if men and women are balanced in numbers. This raises the question of what types of work are expected of different crew members. More specifically, are women astronauts presumed to be better at emotion work (Hochschild 1983) or managing interpersonal relations than men? Further, if balance is better, why are there usually only one or two women among five to seven crew members on space missions? Female astronauts thus have dual pressures operating on them. On
one hand, they are judged by NASA engineers as problematic because their bodies differ from the male standard. Female

bodies are defined as introducing contamination, or at least uncertainty, into an otherwise "stable" environment; their bodies must be configured to fit into the system in order to maintain mission homeostasis. Female astronauts must also prove that they are just as capable as men and should not be treated differently. According to one scientist, they prefer to be identified as "just another piece of hardware" to avoid being gendered.12 Yet on the other hand, they are judged negatively by other NASA staff when they do not behave or act like women in essentialized ways. One consultant described the conflicting position in which female astronauts are placed by remarking, '1 feel sorry for women who can't enjoy the fact that they're female." Another stated that "some women are uncomfortable with their own sexuality .... They deny that they are different from
men." Even if female astronauts themselves strive to avoid constructions of difference, discourses and practices

within the space program continually inscribe bodies as gendered and female bodies as problematic. 44

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: NASA NASA can only cope with the notion of sexuality through compulsory heteronormativity. Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Fransisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, p pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295) There is a wide array of physical mental, and spiritual practices which fall under the rubric of human sexuality, including (but not limited to) masturbation, heterosexual intercourse, viewing or writing erotica, oral and anal sex, and sadomasochistic activities. Given this range of practices, pondering sexual inscriptions in space might suggest titillating opportunities for future expressions of desire. For example, many a science fiction writer has filled his or her
multigalactic creations with erotic (re)visions of sexual possibilities (Russ 1975; Piercy 1991; Datlow 1992). However, here on Earth, NASA's

negligible institutional attention to issues of human sexuality fails to consider the range of sexual possibilities.
Quite the contrary. Because NASA constructs human sexuality as inextricably connected to reproduction, sexuality in

space is framed and reified to mean only heterosexual penis-vagina intercourse. As explored below, historically, NASA has resisted discussing the potential reconfigured sexual practices which a physically and socially innovative space environment may permit or encourage. As our aim is to analyze NASA's responses to questions concerning human
sexuality in space, here we focus on how the agency has constructed sex in space and some possible implications of these limited constructions.14 Ironically, exploring

the terrain of lesbian and gay studies has been tremendously useful in developing our interpretive framework. Struggling to resist canonization, lesbian and gay studies can be defined as "focusing on the cultural production, dissemination, and vicissitudes of sexual meanings. Lesbian and gay studies attempts to decipher sexual meanings inscribed in many different forms of cultural expression while also attempting to decipher cultural meanings inscribed in discourse and practices of sex" (Abelove, Barale, and Halperin 1993). We draw on these theoretical tools to analyze sexual inscriptions in space. In September 1992, the first married couple went on a NASA mission amid a flurry of media attention. The couple, married in secret, disclosed their newlywed status to NASA only after their selection and training for the mission. According to informants, NASA subsequently decided it would be too costly to reorganize the flight crew. Yet the fact that NASA even

considered reorganizing the mission indicates its nervous anticipation of the ensuing controversy. Several articles in
daily newspapers attempted to address the unique social issues (such as privacy and sexual activity) implied by NASA's "decision" to include spouses on the same

mission.1s It was only after NASA admitted to sending the first married astronauts into space together that newspapers had the revelation: there is a possibility of sexual activity in space! Heterosexist assumptions undergirding this
coverage are evident. Many other extended and cramped space explorations preceded the 1992 flight, but these were

predominately "manned." The media and NASA have chosen to frame sex in space as conceivable only when conception is a possibility. Not only does this ignore the prospect of lesbian or gay activity in space, but it also does not address unmarried sexual activity, as mixed-gender crews have been going to space for several years now. Heterosexual sex was described in these initial news articles through pop psychological discourse; one psychiatrist remarked "sex is a normal part of human
behavior. It happens in offices. It happens in the Antarctic. It happens where you have males and females together." Does this inscription of the future help create a

"space" where only certain types of sexual relations will be tolerated, understood, accepted, and/or possible? Although to our knowledge NASA has no written policy on homosexuality in, the space program, organizational strategies can be seen as indicators of a latent agenda. Instead of operating under a "don't ask, don't tell" military modeL NASA officials asked a flight crew surgeon, also a psychiatrist, if there was a way to screen out homosexuals. Replying that homosexuality was not a "psychiatric disorder," the surgeon stated that screening would be impossible. She also suggested during an
interview that "there are probably thousands of high-achieving military homosexuals in NASA" Sexuality tropes such as these are prevalent in space discourses and

many have become mythologized within the NASA community.

45

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: NASA NASA is a total institution whose ideology reinscribes notions compulsory heterosexuality and makes it unable to cope with the possibility of sexual violence in space. Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, p pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295) NASA, as a total institution, demands that astronauts subscribe to certain rules and discursive dictums. Even though these rules may be linked to critical issues concerning their survival, they are developed within a highly ideological milieu. NASA both exists as part of a broader social domain in which there are enduring beliefs concerning sexuality and also produces particular belief systems about sexuality. In addition, NASA as an institution exerts a great deal of control over what activities can be considered and pursued in the space environment, particularly in the "closed" space of a shuttle. What is witnessed in NASA's management of media attention is an effort to maintain ideological control over definitions of human sexuality; these definitions will precede us into the future. In short, privacy discourses used to divert continuing discussions of sexual desires and practices in space maintain a belief in the private, secret, and off-limits nature of human sexuality. As suggested above, ingenious and determined
crew members may create an inmate culture around sexuality, thus resisting NASA's limited vision and daring to express counter-hegemonic desire. For example, in an

environment of negotiated "group sex," astronauts may reconstruct notions of romantic and/or sexual desire as not necessarily requiring spontaneity. These interstellar expressions of desire, including those which might lead to pregnancy, would likely require significant bodily manipulations and reconfigurations. For example, lovemaking in zero gravity is likely to bring a great many reactions, with couples catapulting off the walls and floors, and careening into the airlocks of their tiny cubicle during the heat of passion" (Walter 1992:145). As we explore below, in confronting the adverse conditions of space, NASA has experimented with manipulating gendered bodies and, in doing so, has reconstructed sexuality and reproduction. Sex and reproduction are discussed within space discourses as if they were inevitable: If you can do it in the back seat of a '57 Chevy, you can do it anywhere" and "when people have sex, the woman is going to get pregnant." Yet, these activities may in fact be highly problematic in space,

not only socially as we have discussed but also physiologically. A number of scientists (Smith 1990; Fowler 1991; David 1992) have argued that there are often very serious problems affecting human bodies in space, and that almost all of the human body's functions and processes may be affected. More specifically, space motion sickness, muscle atrophy, bone loss, and an array of other problems have all been recorded
during space flights (Fowler 1991). Of course, since much of this data is based on flights in which mostly men served as crew members, its relevance to female bodies is questionable. As one might expect, such major

physiological changes have potentially serious consequences for the short- and long-term health of crew members. Yet, questions are raised not only about the damaging effects of travel and/or habitation in space but also about potential problems when astronauts reenter Earth's atmosphere and "normal" levels of gravity. Most scientists seem to agree that the major causes of physiological problems are microgravity and radiation (Monga and Gorwill 1990), from which the space shuttle and space suits can only minimally protect astronauts.22 However, because there have not until recently been extensive long-term flights (at least in the U.S. program), data on these problems are limited. To some degree, NASA is operating blindly with inadequate experiential data and no solid scientific evidence about the long-term impacts of space travel and habitation. In answer to the question of whether astronauts can survive several months in weightlessness without physical deterioration that would endanger a mission or their health, the response from a growing choir of space life scientists is a collective "we don't know." Interestingly, it is life scientists who may be most committed to getting a space station built, as it will likely provide an opportunity to conduct serious experiments on space physiology.23 Related to these physiological changes is a host of psychological problems, including loneliness, boredom, homesickness, and so on, especially when astronauts "suddenly realize they're a long way from home with people that they're not getting along with" (Smith 1990). Chandler (1989) points to anxiety, sleep disturbances, territorial behavior, withdrawal, and depression as possible responses to the stresses resulting from prolonged confinement and isolation. They suggest that impaired cognition, motivation, and performance may result in lowered morale, mission failure, and even death. They also cite data from both U.S. and Russian missions which detail "psychological" problems, including a Skylab mission in which astronauts refused to work for a day because they were annoyed with NASA, diaries of Soviet cosmonauts which revealed feelings of boredom and depression during a 34-week mission, and reports from Soviet and Czech cosmonauts of interpersonal tension among crewmates related to lack of privacy and sociopolitical differences. These accounts raise compelling questions about the limits of the "complementary sexes" model proposed by NASA as leading to more harmonious, productive work. Psychological disturbances raise the specter of sexual violence, racial violence, and other serious interpersonal conflicts resulting from stress induced by long missions. It is somewhat disturbing to us that sexual behavior in space is assumed to be "total consenting adult

free-choice sex." Given contemporary gendered power dynamics, this seems naively idealistic. Yet, an interesting research question is presented by the possible effects of weightlessness on expressions of sexual and other types of violence. For example, how would physical/bodily deterioration affect an individual's capability to overpower, force, and/or injure another
astronaut? What does force look like in a O-gravity context? Despite these concerns, issues of sexual violence are rarely raised with respect to long-term traveL and

when we mentioned this possibility to informants they seemed vaguely puzzled. Because of these physiological and psychological effects, humans are seen as "a frustrating piece of hardware for the engineers to deal with." Humans are "messy" and cause endless misery for NASA engineers who often "have their hands full keeping human beings alive." Yet, the impact of space travel on bodies suggests that humans are anything but another piece of hardware.24 Human bodies represent biological constraints on space travel just
as space travel reconfigures bodies. Not only must NASA keep this particular piece of hardware alive, but human bodies must also be controlled in order to enable

effective space travel. Therefore, the agency must investigate the effects of flight on human bodies in order to continue sending people to space, a task it seems to undertake only as a necessary evil. As one informant remarked, "there's extraordinary science to be done, but not in the life sciences. The only purpose of life-sciences research is presumably to gauge the effect of long-term missions on human beings."

46

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: NASA The treatment of sex in space by NASA and the media reinforces heteronormativity by assuming only heterosexual, procreative sex occurs Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295) In September 1992, the first married couple went on a NASA mission amid a flurry of media attention. The couple,
married in secret, disclosed their newlywed status to NASA only after their selection and training for the mission. According to informants, NASA

subsequently decided it would be too costly to reorganize the flight crew. Yet the fact that NASA even considered reorganizing the mission indicates its nervous anticipation of the ensuing controversy. Several articles in

daily newspapers attempted to address the unique social issues (such as privacy and sexual activity) implied by NASA's "decision" to include spouses on the same

mission. It was only after NASA admitted to sending the first married astronauts into space together that newspapers had the revelation: there is a possibility of sexual activity in space! Heterosexist assumptions undergirding this coverage are evident. Many other extended and cramped space explorations preceded the 1992 flight, but these were
predominantly "manned." The media and NASA have chosen to frame sex in space as conceivable only when

conception is a possibility. Not only does this ignore the prospect of lesbian or gay activity in space, but it also does not address unmarried sexual activity, as mixed-gender crews have been going to space for several years now. Heterosexual sex was described in these initial news articles through pop psychological discourse; one psychiatrist remarked "sex is a normal part of human
behavior. It happens in offices. It happens in the Antarctic. It happens when you have males and females together." Does this inscription of the future

help create a "space" where only certain types of sexual relations will be tolerated, understood, accepted, and/or possible? Although to our knowledge NASA has no written policy on homosexuality in the space program, organizational strategies can be seen as indicators of a
latent agenda. Instead of operating under a "don't ask, don't tell" military model, NASA officials asked a flight crew surgeon, also a psychiatrist,

if there was a way to screen out homosexuals. Replying that homosexuality was not a "psychiatric disorder," the surgeon stated that screening
would be impossible. She also suggested during an interview that "there are probably thousands of high-achieving military homosexuals in NASA." Sexuality

tropes such as these are prevalent in space discourses and many have become mythologized within the NASA community.

NASA stays in the public eye by perpetuates the sex-in-space controversy so that

funding comes easier Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295) As this informant hinted, NASA must position and keep itself in the public eye. Hilgartner and Bosk (1988) described the dynamic and
competitive processes which bring certain policy issues into the finite "carrying capacity"'7 of the nation's attention span. NASA, like other federal agencies,

struggles for its share of the limited resources allocated to scientific and social problems, about which priority decisions must be made. Can or should NASA try to use the media focus on sex in space to its advantage? Although it is clear that NASA does not want to
taint the image of professional NASA scientists as highly educated women and men dedicated to their work, the agency certainly uses media

attention to remain in the public carrying capacity. Perhaps media attention to the broader goals of the space program is an unintended
consequence of the way NASA has handled the sex controversy. Yet, NASA may be seen as partially responsible for the media frenzy by making certain aspects of missions so mysterious while foregrounding other issues. In other words, NASA may be an ambivalent participant in seducing the media

by not explicitly revealing sexual information. By simultaneously releasing nonsexual data and withholding sexual information, NASA stripteases the media into wanting more. Yet, the way the media addresses sexuality and space travel often
frustrates or "trivializes" NASA as an organization. For instance, one NASA informant feels the media taint the "scholarly approach" of scientific research on sexuality

in space because the media is "obnoxious and only interested in the prurient aspects" of NASA's studies.'8 These reactions are related to privacy discourses deployed by NASA and other actors.

47

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: NASA NASA only considers sexuality in a reproductive context, which reduces women to the role of babymaker and discourages all other types of sexual expression Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295) In short, NASA has chosen to define reproduction and sexuality as synonymous and interchangeable. A simplified
relationship would look like this: sexuality = men fucking women = reproduction. There are two contradictory readings here. First, NASA's long-term political goals include colonization of space as discussed earlier, which requires propagating the human species in a space environment. Given current

reproductive conditions, female bodies are a necessary "space" for the creation and maintenance of fetuses. In such a reading, heterosexual sex becomes a necessary means through which reproduction is accomplished, especially given the limited use of assisted reproductive technologies in space. In this framing, NASA's reluctance to talk about sex seems somewhat puzzling. If the agency wants to colonize, it needs women and it needs heterosexual sex. Yet a second reading, drawing on the above data on reproduction, tells us that there is a fundamental problem with NASA's colonization goals. At this particular historical moment,
reproduction in space is highly uncertain and NASA fears its physiological and social consequences. But if reproduction in space becomes a viable

practice, then women will become commodities, valued for their role in potential colonization. Historically, colonizing activities on Earth have generally required women's participation in masculine voyages of discovery and conquer. It is possible that in future colonization efforts, heterosexual intercourse would be encouraged while other expressions of desire might be actively discouraged. Thus, NASA's activities may create a "brave new world" shaped by the
sexual and reproductive traffic in women (Rubin 1975).

The use of sex in space explicitly discriminates against women and says men are the norm. Griffin 06 (Penny, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at the University of New South Wales, Australia, Ph.D @ U. of Bristol, The Spaces Between
Us: The Gendered Politics of Outer Space March 22-25, 2006)

Sex is only explicitly spoken of in US space discourse to signal the category of woman, and the physical and psychological constraints that womans body brings to spaceflight and exploration. NASA, for example, in identifying gender-related differences affecting the efficacy and effects of

spaceflight and travel, focus exclusively on the physiological differences between men and women (bone density, blood flow, hormonal and metabolic
differences, etc.). As Casper and Moore argue, NASAs heterosexist framings of these issues highlight sex in space as a social are

and scientific problem (1995: 313). Female bodies are thus constructed against a backdrop in which male bodies accepted as the norm, an inscription process shaped by the masculine context of space travel (ibid.: 316). By identifying
only woman with sex, and the ostensibly sexualised features of womens bodies (Butler, 1990: 26), a certain, heterosexist, order and identity is effectively

instituted in US outer space discourse.

48

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: NASA

The affirmative merely a reworking of NASAs utopian yearnings; although NASA cannot fulfill
any of our fantasies, it remain the space for us to force through a better world, but to no avail. PENLEY, professor of film and media studies at UC Santa Barbara, 1997 (Constance NASA/TREK: Popular Science and Sex in America, 12 -16)
NASA's polysemous meanings can still be mobilized to rejuvenate the near-moribund idea of an ideal future toward which

dedicated people could work. But it takes a lot of doing. To keep those meanings mobilized NASA seems to have adopted the
the Apollo 11 moon landing, former astronaut Buzz Aldrin was

film industry's summer blockbuster approach. During the summer of 1994, the twenty-fifth anniversary of
everywhere, talking about the mission (but Alan Shepard beat him to the Home Shopping Network). Although the fIrst man on the moon, the modest and self-effacing Neil Armstrong, resisted serving as NASA's poster boy

for manned spaceflight, there were innumerable books, journalistic retrospectives, videos, and television specials that endlessly replayed NASA's most glorious triumph. But dearly this celebration was shot through with nostalgia for what may never be again. The following summer it was director Ron Howard's turn to evoke those heady times, and he did so spectacularly with the blockbuster film Apollo 13. Ironically, though, Apollo 13 was able to showcase NASA's best qualities only by reproducing the agency during its most severe crisis,
Using only duct tape and gumption, NASA teamwork turned doom into deliverance, saving the lives of three stranded astronauts, not to mention the future of the entire

Apollo program. By heroicizing the astronauts and the Mission Control team that saved them, the film inadvertently suggests what NASA critics have said all along: the space agency is good at crisis management but lacks a strategic vision, the kind of conceptualizing that goes into long-term planning and effective communication of its mission to the public. But at least Apollo 13
believes in NASA as a crucial site of utopian ideas and yearnings. The utopic image of NASA shown in Apollo 13 was a far cry from that

seen in Capricorn One, a 1978 film that depicts an agency so underfunded yet bloated, so chaotic and incompetent that it

has to fake a Mars landing in a movie studio, knowing it does not have the resources and technology to pull off the real thing but desperately needing the spectacle of a successful mission to regain popular support and federal funding. Ron Howard's film, by contrast, recreates an era when NASA appeared faultless and heroic, even though its usefulness as one of the main ideological weapons in the Cold War was rapidly ebbing. Whether NASA could still translate utopian idealism into scientific accomplishment was the question at the center of much of the media coverage of Apollo 13. Critics were
sharply divided over the role the film would play in "garnering public support for future space science and exploration, particularly at a time when congressional budget cuts were defunding research, education, and

environmental programs, Some felt that the film's reminder of NASA's glory days and the poignant concludingwords~when Tom Hanks, America's most popular actor ruminates, "I wonder if we'll ever go back there and I wonder who they will be?" ~ would renew public interest and support for the space program. This is clearly what the White House had in mind when it invited Hanks to a Capitol Hill reception just days before a House debate over funding for the space station. In his real-life role Hanks insisted that he was not lobbying for NASA but nevertheless made a pitch for the space station, saying "I would like to be able to stand out in my backyard one night with my kids and look up at the space station Freedom as it goes by." A nearby White House offIcial winked and called Hanks "our secret weapon." And indeed the ploy seems to have worked since the House subsequently defeated two straight attempts to kill the space station~the last one by the widest victory margin in years. 3 More skeptical critics of the film, however, saw Apollo
13 as simple nostalgia-mongering, pitched to a public that loves the retro chic value of the seventies, but has no real

interest in furthering scientifIc discovery. These critics pointed out that while audiences were thronging to Apollo 13 hardly anyone was paying attention
to the real action going on in real space, the historic docking of the American space shuttle ALlanlu and the Russian space station Mil'. People these days, the critics

concluded, prefer their reality digitized and imagineered. The cynical reception of Apollo 13 demonstrated that despite the public's enthusiasm for the space heroics of Tom Hanks, NASA's ability to serve as a utopian referent has considerably weakened. In
fact, it is astonishing that

NASA can generate any positive spin at all, since one lingering effect of Apollo 13 was to remind viewers that when NASA fails, it does so spectacularly. And there is not always a nice, heroic save as with the Apollo 13 debacle. The reality of NASA's past record is more disastrous: the 1967 Apollo fire that killed three astronauts on the launchpad, the disappearance of the Mard
Obdelwr, the faulty Hubble lens, Galileo's stuck antenna and broken tape recorder, aud of course the Challenger explosion. The credibility of NASA has

also been damaged by its own bombast and broken promises, the fraudulent billing and shoddy work of its corporate

contractors, the dramatic aging of its work force, its laughably out-of-date technology, and an awkward and inefficient bureaucracy. Thus NASA's summer blockbuster for 1996 was a sort of "hail-Mary pass: the startling announcement that NASA scientists had found the first real proof of life on Mars. President Clinton called the discovery "one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has
ever uncovered." And of course, NASA Chief Daniel Goldin immediately exploited the event to campaign for resuscitating the budget-doomed Mission to Mars. But skeptics worried that NASA had once again released

premature and hyperbolic conclusions and that this hasty political deployment of merely suggestive findings might result in the biggest scientifIc embarrassment since the initial (and erroneous) reports of cold fusion seven years before. (Meanwhile, Independence Day, the blockbuster fIlm of summer 1996, simply mocked the hapless space agency's anachronistic right-stuff image: the hero fighter pilot who saves the world from alien invasion dreams of being an astronaut but, as one of his buddies reminds him, NASA would

never accept an astronaut whose fiancee is a stripper.) Why, then, does NASA remain a repository for utopian meanings? Obviously public attitudes toward NASA are not based solely on scientific
achievement or political spin control.

We process our knowledge of NASA in a variety of more or less unconscious ways, ranging from simple displacement to outright denial. A lot of this individual and collective refashioning of NASA's meanings tends to be wish-fulfilling, to produce the NASA we want, not the one we have. And here the stuffy space agency is aided (again, more or less unconsciously) by an increasing symbolic merging with its
hugely popular fIctional twin, Star Trek. Together they form a powerful cultural icon, a force that I call "NASA/TREK." This new

entity NASA/TREK shapes our popular and institutional imaginings about space exploration by humanizing our relation

to science and technology. It also gives us a language to describe and explain the world and to express yearnings for a different and better condition; it is, then, a common language for utopia. How did this improbable symbolic merging occur? What kind of new story about the world of space (and this world) does the NASAITREK narrative tell? What controls this mutated semi-fictional space saga? If it omits or distorts certain important ideas, can it be rewritten? And, if 49

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

so, by whom?

50

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Link: NASA/ISS/Apocalypse

The affirmatives attempt to mobilize space as the location of global harmony is merely a utopian
vision. PENLEY, professor of film and media studies at UC Santa Barbara, 1997 (Constance NASA/TREK: Popular Science and Sex in America, 20-21) Why would a button-down agency like NASA want to take on the trappings of a popular phenomenon like StarTrek? (Or, for that matter, vice versa?) To ask this question is to ask whether NASA should itself aim to be popular culture, Literary theorist
Fredric Jameson points out that American science fiction generally shows an affinity for dystopian rather than utopian futures, often featuring fantasies of cyclical

regression or totalitarian empires. Our love affair with apocalypse and Armageddon, he says, results from a degeneration of the utopian imagination. If Star Trek stands out as a rare utopian scenario of our scientific and technological future, it makes perfect sense that NASA would want to align itself with that hugely popular story of things to come. For another thing, the fate of the space station most likely depends on its supporters' ability to ensure that future through successfully weaving the need for such a facility into the NASA/TREK scenario (along with, of course, a great deal of bald faced porkbarrelling by legislators from Southern California and the Houston area, where the components will be built). Even some of the harshest critics of the space station believe its construction should be supported insofar as it would contribute to a new era of international cooperation, especially with the former Evil Empire. Ironically, the original Star Trek series implied such cooperation had already been achieved by including (controversially in 1966) a Russian from a peaceful Earth among its crew. More practical considerations are also relevant, such as the desire to stabilize the Soviet aerospace industry to lessen its temptation to sell dangerous technology to other countries. But the ideological and utopian considerations are important too: the world could use an orbiting icon symbolizing the peaceful collaboration of old enemies~especially since we know that icons do not just "symbolize" but have their own determining effects

on social reality. The answer to the question about whether NASA should be trafficking in the popular, then, depends on the job it seems to be doing of writing its own script. A look at one of NASA's biggest public relations stunts, the Teacher in Space program, shows just how badly the agency has botched that script in the past, Ideally, by examining this extreme instance of NASA's failure to be popular we can begin to understand the kind of work - historical, empirical, political, cultural~ that would be necessary for any possible rewrite in the future. Link: Nuclear War
The obsession with nuclear war is used to further Masculine threat construction in the world. Leading to more and

more masculine ideologies. Caldicott, Helen. founded the US-based Nuclear Policy Research Institute [Missel E Envy. 1986. Pg 238.]
As soon as the girl delivers and becomes a mother, she turns into a woman overnight, emotionally mature and extremely

responsible for this new life. Almost always, the boy remains an emotional child and often runs away from his responsibilities by leaving
his wife and baby. As I observed many couples it seemed to me that often these men never mature. They continue to flirt with

death, playing with dangerous toys-motorbikes, race cars, weapons, and war. The hideous weapons of mass genocide

may be symptoms of several male emotions, reflecting inadequate sexuality, a need continually to prove virility, and a primitive fascination killing. I recently watched a filmed launching of an MX missile rose slowly from the ground, surrounded by smoke and flames,
elongated into the air. It was a very sexual sight indeed; more so when armed with the ten warheads it will explode with the almighty orgasm. The names used

by the military are laden psychosexual overtones: missile erector, thrust-to-weight ratio, laydown, deep penetration, hard

line, and soft line. A McDonell Douglas advertisement for a new weapons' system proudly pronounced that it can "shoot down whatever's up, and blow up
whatevers down." Sexual inadequacy in a powerful leader is illustrated by following example: Hitler once invited a young woman to his room He stuck out his arm in a

Nazi salute and in a booming voice I can hold my arm like that for two solid hours. I never tired. . . . My arm is like granite-rigid and unbending, Goring can't stand it. He has to drop his arm after half an hour of this salute. He's flabby, but I am hard

51

UTNIF 2011 Gender K LINK: POLITICS REDUCING POLITICS TO POLITCAL CAPITAL OR STATE RELATIONS OBSCURES A MORE FUNDAMENTAL GENDER DYNAMIC TO POLITICAL ACTION. THIS ONLY WORKS IN SERVICE OF PRESERVING THE POWER OR ELITE POLICYMAKERS PETERSON, professor of political science at the University of Arizona, and RUNYAN, associate professor of political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993(V Spike and Anne, Global Gender Issues, p 32) Politics itself has to be redefined in view of the wide range of political activities in which women are highly involved. No longer can politics be defined narrowly as an activity of govenmental officials and elite influence peddlers, or popular participation be reduced to voting and membership in political parties. Instead, politics is
about differential

access to resources-both material and symbolic-and how such power relations and structures are created, sustained, and reconfigured. According to this broader definition, politics operates at all levels,
ranging from the family and community to

the state and the international sphere. All people act politically in their everyday lives. When feminists claim that the "personal is political," they mean that all of us are embedded in various kinds of power relationships and structures that affect our choices and aspirations on a daily basis and that, most important, are not natural (apolitical) but are subject to change, Recognition of gender inequality as a global phenomenon with global implications challenges traditional definitions of IR. Sarah Brown argued that "the proper object and purpose of the study of international
relations is the identification and explanation of social stratification and of inequality as structured at the level of global relations:J13 Compared to a standard definition,

Brown's draws greater attention to political, economic, and social forces below and above the level of the state, thereby revealing the greater complexity of international politics, which cannot be reduced to the actions of state leaders and their international organizations. It also highlights inequality as a significant source of conflict in international relations in addition to, but also in
tension with, notions about the inevitable clash of states with differing ideologies and interests. Finally, it speaks to global patterns of inequality

operating across states, creating divisions among people along not just national lines but also gender, race, class, and culture lines. The corollary of this is that people are finding common cause with each other across national boundaries and, thus, creating a different kind of international relations, or world politics, from that of

elite policymakers.

POLITICS IS EXCLUSIVELY DEFINED BY MASCULINE VALUES.

PETERSON, professor of political science at the University of Arizona, and RUNYAN, associate professor of political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993(V Spike and Anne, Global Gender Issues, p 33) Masculinism pervades politics. Wendy Brown wrote: "More than any other kind of human activity, politics has historically borne an explicitly masculine identity. It has been more exclusively limited to men than any other realm of endeavor and has been more intensely, self-consciously masculine than most other social practices."14 of its inability to be accurately
understood when separated from these relationships.

52

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Peacekeeping

The masculine politics embodied in US policy is shown through the assertion of power
MacDonald 07 (Fraser, Lecturer of Geography at the University of Edinburgh, Anti-Astropolitik outer space and the
orbit of geography

www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/rmg/geography/papers/anti-outerspace.pdf) )

In post-Cold-War unipolar times the strategic rationale for the United States to maintain the prohibition against weaponizing space is diminishing (Lambakis, 2003), even if the rest of the world wishes it otherwise. In 2000, a UN General Assembly resolution on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space was adopted by a majority of 1630 with 3 abstentions: the United States, Israel and the Federated States of Micronesia (United Nations, 2000). Less than two
months later, a US Government committee chaired by Donald Rumsfeld5 issued a report warning that the relative

dependence of the US on space makes its space systems potentially attractive targets; the United States thus faced the danger, it argued, of a Space Pearl Harbor (Rumsfeld, 2001: viii). s must ensure continuing superiority (Rumsfeld, 2001: viii).
was qualified by obligatory gestures towards the peaceful use of outer space but the report left little dAs space warfare was, according to the report, a virtual

certainty, the United Stateoubt about the direction of American space policy. Any difficult questions about the further militarization (and even weaponization) of space could be easily avoided under the guise of developing dual-use (military/civilian) technology and emphasizing the role of military applications in peacekeeping operations.
Through such rhetoric, NATOs satellite-guided bombing of a Serbian TV station on 23 April 1999 could have been

readily accommodated under the OST injunction to use outer space for peaceful purposes (Cervino et al., 2003). Since that time new theatres of operation have been opened up in Afghanistan and Iraq, for further trials of space-enabled warfare that aimed to provide aerial omniscience for the precision delivery of shock and awe. What Benjamin Lambeth has called the accomplishment of air and space power has since been called into question by the all too apparent limitations of
satellite intelligence in the tasks of identifying Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction or in stemming the growing number of Allied dead and wounded from modestly

armed urban insurgents (Lambeth, 1999; Graham, 2004; Gregory, 2004: 205).For all its limitations, even this imagery has been shielded from independent scrutiny by the military monopolization of commercial satellite outputs (Livingstone and Robinson, 2003). Yet, far from undermining Allied confidence in satellite imagery or in a cosmic view of war (Kaplan, 2006), it is precisely these abstract photocartographies of violence detached from their visceral and bloodied

accomplishments that have licensed, say, the destruction of Fallujah (Gregory, 2004: 162;Graham, 2005b). There remains, of course, a great deal more that can be said about the politics of these aerial perspectives than can be discussed here (see, for instance, Gregory,2004; Kaplan, 2006).

53

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Satellites

Space surveillance technology leads to the militarization of daily life and enhances existing
masculine dominance MacDonald 07 (Fraser, Lecturer of Geography at the University of Edinburgh, Anti-Astropolitik outer space and the
orbit of geography

www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/rmg/geography/papers/anti-outerspace.pdf)

The geopolitical effects of reconnaissance from space platforms are by no means confined to particular episodes of military conflict. Like the high-altitude spy plane, its Cold War precursor, satellite surveillance also gives strategic and diplomatic powers. Unlike aerial
photography, however, satellite imagery is ubiquitous and high-resolution, and offers the potential for real-time surveillance. The emerging field of

surveillance studies, strongly informed by critical geographical thought, has opened to scrutiny the politics and spaces of electronic observation (see, for instance, the new journal surveillance and Society). The writings of Foucault, particularly those on panopticism, are an obvious influence on
this new work (Foucault, 1977; Wood, 2003), but they have seldom been applied to the realm of outer space. As Foucault pointed out, the power of

Jeremy Benthams panopticon prison design is enacted through the prisoner subjects internalizing the disciplinary gaze: the presence of the gaoler was immaterial, as the burden of watching was left to the watched. Similarly,

the power of panoptic orbital surveillance lies in its normalizing geopolitical effects. If the geopolitics of surveillance is particularly evident

at the level of the state, it applies also to the organization of the daily activities of its citizens (Molz, 2006). GPS technology is perhaps the most evident incursion of space-enabled military surveillance systems into everyday life, becoming an indispensable means of monitoring the location of people and things. For instance, the manufacturer Pro
Tech, riding the wave of public concern about paedophilia in Britain, has developed systems currently being trialled by the UK

Home Office to track the movements of registered sex offenders (see also Monmonier, 2002: 134). Somewhat predictably, given the apparent crisis in the spatialities of childhood (Jones et al., 2003), children are to be the next subjects of satellite surveillance. In December 2005, the company mTrack launched i-Kids, a mobile phone/GPS unit that allows parents to track their offspring by PC or on a WAPenabled mobile phone. Those with pets rather than children might consider the $460 RoamEO GPS system that attaches to your dogs
collar, should walkies ever get out of hand. It will surprise no one that the same technology gets used for less savoury purposes: a Los Angeles stalker was jailed for 16

months for attaching a GPS device to his ex-girlfriends Downloaded from car (Teather, 2004). What is more startling, perhaps, is that one does not need to be a

GPSuser to be subject to the surveillant possibilities of this technology. Anyone who leaves their mobile phone unattended for five minutes can be tracked, not just by the security services, but by any individual who has momentary access to enable the phone as a tracking device. For the purposes of a newspaper story, the Guardian journalist Ben Goldacre stalked his girlfriend by registering her phone on one of many
websites for the commercial tracking of employees and stock (Goldacre, 2006). The exercise revealed how easily everyday technologies like the mobile phone can be reconfigured for very different purposes. Even this

modest labour in tracking a mobile phone will become a thing of the past. Phones will be more specifically configured as a tracking device: Nokia is due to release a GPS phone in 2007, while the Finnish company Benefon has already launched its Twig Discovery, a phone that has a finder capability that locates and tracks other contacts in your address book. Should the user come within range of another contact, the phone will send a message asking whether you are willing to reveal your location to this contact. If both parties are agreeable, the phones will guide their users to each other. In this way, the gadgetry of space-enabled espionage is being woven into interpersonal as well as interstate and citizenstate relations. If the movements of a car can be tracked by a jealous boyfriend, they can also be tracked by the state for the purposes of taxation: this is surely the
future of road tolls in the UK. A British insurance company is already using satellite technology to cut the premiums for young drivers if they stay off the roads between

11pm and 6am, when most accidents occur. Information about the time, duration and route of every single journey made by the driver is recorded and sent back to the company (Bachelor, 2006). The success of Geotechnologies will lie in these ordinary reconfigurations of life such as tracking parcels, locating stolen cars, transport guidance or assisting the navigation of the visually impaired. Some might argue, however, that their impact will be more subtle still. For instance, Nigel Thrift locates the power of new forms of positioning in precognitive sociality and prereflexive practice, that is to say in various kinds of culturally inculcated corporeal automatisms (Thrift, 2004b: 175). In other words, these ociotechnical changes may become so incorporated into our unconscious that we simply cease to think about our position. Getting lost may become difficult (Thrift,
2004b: 188). Perhaps we are not at that stage yet. But one can easily envisage GPS technologies enhancing existing inequalities in

the very near future, such as the device that will warn the cautious urban walker that they are entering a bad neighbourhood. In keeping with the logic of the panopticon, this is less Big Brother than an army of little brothers: the social life of he new space age is already beginning to look quite different. And it is to this incipient militarization of everyday life that the emerging literature on military geographies (Woodward, 2004; 2005) must
surely turn its attention. Mention must also be made of geofencing technologies. This is not merely a matter of tracking dogs, children or friends, but an even more active expression of geographic power. Take, for example,

the case of networked cows.6 Zack Butler, an academic computer scientist at the Rochester Institute of Technology, has pioneered a form of satellite herding technology which would allow a farmer to move livestock by means of virtual fences controlled by a laptop computer: basically we downloaded the fences to the cows Butler told the New Scientist (2004).Each cow wears a collar with a GPS cowbell that activates a particular electric or sound stimulation which discourages the animal from proceeding in a given direction whenever it arrives at the virtual fence. It is of passing interest to learn that Butler also compares this new era of satellite-guided farming to playing a computer game. This may be a relatively minor example, but it gives some indication of the potentially wide array of applications that await geofencing technologies. 54

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Satellites

The AFF leads to total control and domination of society

Liftin 97 (Karen, U. of Wash., Dept. of Poli-Sci, Ph.D @ UCLA, A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites,
Frontiers: A Journal of Women

Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, Intersections of Feminisms and Environmentalisms, pp. 2647. University of Nebraska Press) The miniaturization of the earth made possible by satellite photography appeals to the managerial impulse; the "blue-and-white Christmas ornament" can be "managed" far more easily that a world of 5.5 billion people and thou-sands of cultures. The distinctive combination of will-to-power and the sense of the earth's fragility that typifies the remote sensing project is expressed in the words of astronaut "Buzz"Aldrin: "The earth was eventually so small I could blot it out of the
universe by holding up my thumb."60 From space, the ultimate domination of the earth, or at least the illusion ofit, becomes

possible. While it is the earth that is objectified by the planetary gaze, ultimately "managing planet earth" will mean controlling human behavior, not the earth itself. Ecosystems will respond in various ways to changes in human behavior, but they will only be vicariously "managed." It is people, even as they are rendered invisible by the planetary gaze, who will be managed. The science and technology of remote sensing perpetuate the knowledge/power nexus with respect not only to human domination of nature, but also to social control. Thus, the
six assumptions implicit in the project of global environmental monitoring by satellite turn out to be plagued with internal

inconsistencies, pa-rochial biases, and moral difficulties. Neither the science nor the technology of Earth remote sensing is neutral. The vast
quantities of data generated by satellites are unlikely to lead to either scientific certainty or rational policy. Indeed, EOS technology, at least as presently constituted, seems to reinforce the drive to industrialization and the interrogatory approach to nature that lie at the heart of modernity.

The global view that it purports to provide may become a totalizing perspective that omits human agency and substitutes the vantage point of a tech-nical elite for the collective experiences of the diversity of human beings.
EOStechnology, like other photographic technologies, is a voyeuristic endeavor that maximizes the distance between subject and object-in this case, between the

observing human and Earth'sdynamic processes. Finally, the language of plan-etary management that pervades discussions of EOS suggests that the disciplin-ary power inherent in the managerial impulse is at the heart of the remote sens-ing project.

55

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Science Science caused a shift in thinking that considered a feminine nature as under man's power Cuomo 98 (Chris J., Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Feminism and Ecological Communities:
An Ethic of Flourishing, pg 27)

In The Death of Nature, Carolyn Merchant illustrates how, historically, conceptualizations of nature in science and religion have dramatically shaped the form and force of human impact on natural entities and communities. Merchant and others identify Baconian thought as the culmination of a gradual, multifaceted shift from thinking of nature as imbued with spiritual force to thinking of it as inert matter. This shift interwove with and enabled the development of forms of science unhindered by a previous tendency to respect, however fancifully, many aspects of nonhuman organic life. The turn away from seeing nature as enchanted, mysterious, and fecund, enabled the development of scientific systems that regarded natural entities and phenomena as under the jurisdiction of man. As a result, technology, science, and
ther material practices and institutions instrumentalized nonhuman entities. That is, they defined and interacted with the natural world primarily as an instrument for

human manipulation, consumption, and speculation, as a sphere of being in which nothing possesses the special qualities that would make it worthy of moral respect. They thereby strengthened stalwart conceptual divisions between human and nonhuman reality, and the devaluation of nature. But, of course, Baconian science did not occur in a social vacuum. Placing the work of this father of modern science in its political and economic context, Merchant also
traces the ways in which his descriptions and metaphors were influenced by violence against women, specifically the

inquisition of women accused of witchcraft throughout Europe during the early seventeenth century. "For you have but to follow and as it were hound nature in her wanderings, and you will be able when you like to lead and drive her afterward to the same place again. Neither am I of opinion in this history of marvels that superstitious narratives of sorceries, witchcrafts, charms,
dreams, divinations, and the like, where there is an assurance and clear evidence of the fact, should be altogether excluded . . . howsoever the use and practice of such

arts is to be condemned, yet from the speculation and consideration of them . . . A useful light may be gained, not only for a true judgment of the offenses of persons charged with such practices, but likewise for the further disclosing of the secrets of nature. Neither ought a man to make scruple of entering and penetrating into these holes and corners, when the inquisition of truth is his whole object as your majesty has shown in your example." (1980: 168) By investigating the ways in which negative constructions of femininity and hence womens subordinate roles, identities, and material circumstances were interwoven with the devaluation of nature, historical work sets the stage for ecofeminist philosophical inquiry. It also

lends support to feminists long-standing tendencies to draw attention to connections among male-dominated science, technology, the destruction of the natural world, and the oppression of women and members of other feminized, naturalized, and subjugated groups whose instrumental use is emphasized and abused by men with power. At the same time, any explanatory theory that mines history for hidden causal connections
and conceptual linkages runs the risk of oversimplifying an impossibly complex story.

56

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Science Science is socially constructed from an androcentric standpointfaith in it causes masculine elites to dominate others through arbitrary ideas of truth Campbell 9 [Nancy D. Campbell, associate professor in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Reconstructing

Science and Technology Studies Views from Feminist Standpoint Theory, Frontier: a Journal of Womyns Studies, Volume 30, Number 1, 2009 Muse] Science and technology are socially constructed is the central tenet of the anthropological, historical, and sociological imaginaries from
which STS flows. If even science, technology, and knowledge are socially and culturally constructed, so the logic

goes, then they could be reconstructed otherwise. The mutually co-constituted character of bodies, the sciences that claim to make sense of them, and the technologies that act upon and within them are shown to be social (and thus mutable) rather than natural, innate, or essential. Pervasive throughout STS runs an anti-essentialist acknowledgement
that science and technology are culturally embedded, symbolically meaningful, and shaped by specific social forces and cultural imperatives. Now

encompassing a vast literature documenting the social construction of everything from obviously gendered technologies such as contraceptives and new reproductive technologies to those less obviously but clearly uneven in their gendered effects such as bicycles, laboratories, or microwave ovens, the field has gone well beyond its initial insight into social construction.3 Some scholars in this field rely

on the metaphor of shaping, rather than the more popular social construction, in part because the latter is too prone to the misconception that there was nothing real

and obdurate about what was constructed.4 To focus attention on social inequality, feminists tend to emphasize that social construction is real in its material effects: In developing a theory of the gendered character of technology, we are inevitably in danger of either adopting an essentialist position that sees technology as inherently patriarchal, or losing sight of the structure of gender relations through an emphasis on the historical variability of the categories of womyn and technology.5 Within
STS, science and medicine comprise a domain in which a host of political problems can get worked outthe nature of social justice, the limits and possibilities of

citizenship, and the meanings of equality and difference at the biological as well as social levels.6 Academic constructions of bodily difference and group difference, as well as those that activists put into play, are debated with nearly the same intensity in STS as by feminists. Science and technology, far from being politically neutral, are shown to be part of the conceptual practices of power that sustain the ruling relations.7 [End Page 2] Recently, an explicitly normative and even prescriptive reconstructivist agenda
has emerged within Science and Technology Studies. Proponents argued for rapprochement between the academic and activist wings of the field in a reconstructivist manifesto appearing in the flagship journal Social Studies

of Science under the title Science Studies and Activism: Possibilities and Problems

for Reconstructivist Agendas.8 Urging scholars to take up positions of thoughtful partisanship based on a normativeeven activist stance on the inclusion of relevant communities in the making of technoscience, the authors acknowledged that everyone involved in or implicated by technoscientific enterprises faces certain perennial problems. These include uncertainty, disagreement, and ongoing social conflict, all of which inevitably permeate the social construction of technology. Instead of turning to a strategy of false neutrality, the reconstructivists believe that the inherent partisanship of technological decision making and scientific prioritizing should be much more openly acknowledged than it currently is. Explicitly siding with what they call the have-nots in opposition to government, business, and technoscientific elites,9 reconstructivist Edward J. Woodhouse laid out conceptual guidelines for a multipartisan science that share a deep resonance with what feminist standpoint theorists have been arguing forbut reconstructivists lack the language developed in feminist epistemology. Based in a political science tradition that emphasizes inequality because it negatively affects the intelligence of democracy,10 reconstructivists adopted the modest goal of simply expanding the discursive space for creative constructionists within their own field. They did not rule out strategic alliances but simply sought to expand the discursive space for their project within interdisciplinary STS. They did not peer deeply into the constitution of have-nots or elites, although when pressed they might well reply that the maldistribution of the costs and benefits of technoscience occurs along various axes of difference including, but not limited to, race, class, and gender in much the same way that feminists might. However, multiple categories of difference remain un-or underspoken in reconstructivist thought. Thus, despite the basic convergence between feminist and reconstructivist thought, feminists are likely to have difficulty hearing the reconstructivists because of their tendency to speak in general rather than specific terms. The reconstructivist tendency to speak in terms of generality rather than specificity arises from the attempt to make a case that applies to everyone anywhere. This universalizing tendency can be glimpsed in the list of the tenets of reconstructivism shown in Figure 1, which reflects a major current of reconstructivist thought on incentivizing the production of more relevant social science and more usable knowledge.11 [End Page 3] The immediate feminist impulse is to ask two questions: Relevant for whom? Usable by whom? To these questions reconstructivists reply on topical grounds, acknowledging the epistemological inadequacy of their answers: Despite the postmodernist and related efforts to attend to excluded or marginalized social groups, there still is a long way to go before one could say that there is anything like an even-handed treatment within STS of [End Page 4] genders, ethnicities, countries, and other categories on which marginalization occurs. Upper-middle-class professional womyn of the sort who might be disadvantaged by gendering of
recruitment and advancement in science and engineering probably are getting about their fair share of study these days, but poorer womyn . . . surely are not. And the

deeper insights of feminist theory rarely get applied concretely to science and technology policy outside the

reproductive and medical fields.12 [End Page 5] While we may disagree with the sentiment that any womyn get their fair share of study or decry the
nonspecific language of poorer womyn, the impulse to direct inquiry toward those excluded or marginalized aligns with feminist goals. Social inequality

shapes not only what science is done and how it is done, according to reconstructivists, but what science remains undone.

David J. Hess defines this problem in the following terms: Because political and economic elites possess the resources to water and

weed the garden of knowledge, the knowledge tends to grow (to be selected) in directions that are consistent with the goals of political and economic elites. When social movement leaders and industry reformers who wish to change our societies look to Science for answers to their research questions, they often find an empty spacea special issue of a journal that was never edited, a conference that never took place, an epidemiological study that was never fundedwhereas their better funded adversaries have an arsenal of knowledge to draw on. . . . [T]he science that should get done does not get done because there are structures in place that keep it from getting done.13 Similarly, feminists have called for new ways of knowing and new institutional practices amenable to the project of undone science. By
subjecting the reconstructivist project to friendly feminist scrutiny, I seek to further its reach and amend its charter to the extent possible. e

57

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Space Space as a location of discourse on sexuality inscribes compulsory heterosexuality. Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, p pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295)
We have argued that gender, sexuality, and reproduction are imbricating and mutually constitutive discourses within

the U.S. space program. Within the masculine framework of space flight, gender differences are constructed and deployed across multiple sites. Female bodies are essentialized in opposition to a male norm, leading to notions of masculinity and femininity as "natural" categories. These differences are construed as fundamental and constrain the ways sexuality and reproduction are understood and explored. Sexuality is discursively located in complementary male and female bodies, reflecting and reinforcing the heterosexual paradigm. Reproduction is then articulated as a natural and inevitable outcome of sexual activity defined in terms of male-female intercourse. On their surface, these constructions are consistent with NASA's longterm goals of colonizing space. Yet, because reproduction is physiologically
problematic and because sexuality means many different things despite NASA's narrow ideological framing, sex and reproduction are contested and will likely remain

so in the future. We have also suggested that these discourses are situated within a broader set of practices in which human bodies and futures are inscribed. These include scientific research, mission planning, public relations activities, crew management, and other key sites. Inscription is a powerful tool for analyzing the dynamic, porous relationship between Earth and space, including the activities and meanings which mediate the symbolic and vehicular traffic. Space is alive with possibilities, yet it is also an embattled domain and no future is certain. What
we have attempted to show in this paper is that conservative theories and praxis on Earth propel us towards some futures while eclipsing the possibility of others.

Space activities are extensions of terrestrial power relations MacDonald 07 (Fraser, Lecturer of Geography at the University of Edinburgh, Anti-Astropolitik outer space and the
orbit of geography

www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/rmg/geography/papers/anti-outerspace.pdf)

My basic claim, then, is that a geographical concern with outer space is an old project, not a new one. A closely related argument is that a geography of outer space is a logical extension of earlier geographies of imperial exploration (for instance, Smith and God lewska, 1994;Driver, 2001).

Space exploration has used exactly the same discourses, the same rationales, and even the same institutional frameworks(such as the International Geophysical Year,195758) as terrestrial exploration. Like its terrestrial counterpart, the move into space has its origins in older imperial enterprises. Marina Benjamin, for instance, argues that for the United States outer space was always a metaphorical extension of the American West (Benjamin, 2003: 46). Looking at the imbricated narratives of colonialism and the Arianne space programme in French Guiana,the anthropologist Peter Redfi eld makes the case
that outer space reflects a practical shadow of empire (Redfi eld, 2002: 795; see also Redfi eld, 2000). The historian of science Richard Sorrenson, writing about the ship as geographys scientific instrument in the age of high empire, draws on the work of David DeVorkin to argue that the V-2 missile was its natural successor (Sorrenson, 1996: 228; see also DeVorkin, 1992). A version of the V-2 the twostage Bumper WAC Corporal became the first earthly object to penetrate outer space, reaching an altitude of 244 miles on 24 February 1949 (Army Ballistic Missile

Agency, 1961). Moreover, out of this postwar allied V-2 programme came the means by which Britain attempted to reassert its geopolitical might in the context of its own ailing empire. In 1954, when America sold Britain its first nuclear missile a refined version of the WAC Corporal its possession was seen as a shortcut back to the international stage
at a time when Britains colonial power was waning fast (Clark, 1994; MacDonald, 2006a). Even if the political geography literature has scarcely engaged with outer

space, the advent of rocketry was basically Cold War (imperial) geopolitics under another name. Space exploration then, from its earliest origins to the present day, has been about familiar terrestrial and ideological struggles here on Earth.

58

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Space

The AFFs deployment of space is masculine and enforces hierarchies of power. Griffin 06 (Penny, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at the University of New South Wales, Australia, Ph.D @ U. of Bristol, The Spaces Between
Us: The Gendered Politics of Outer Space March 22-25, 2006)

Outer space represents in every possible sense the discursive collisions of culturally configured ideas concerning what is essentially and definitively human. As Goh states, outer space is an arena of growing economic and technological importance. It is also a developing theatre of military defence and warfare (2004: 259). The line distinguishing the various components of the outer space whole is vague, and is particularly obscured, in anglo- american, neoliberal discourse, by the tacit but pervasive heteronormativity that drives US outer space politics. Above all, US outer space discourse is driven by the belief that outer space can be conquered, that those at the cutting edge of its exploitation are the visionaries and entrepreneurs that will pave the way to tourists, explorers, TV crews and to, as Morabito claims, dubious characters such as, perhaps, bounty hunters (2004: 10). Underlying such discourse exists the basic assumption that space is a masculine environment, a territory for colonial conquest, and an arena for warfare and the display of military and technological prowess. Herein, man, not woman, is the human model by which to gauge those adventurous enough to
engage in the space medium. Fundamentally then, the hierarchies of power, identity and cultural and sexual assumption

that infuse outer space politics are no different to those that structure terrestrial politics.

Space Exploration creates an ideal human which is a masculine body and judges woman by the standard of masculinity. Griffin 06 (Penny, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at the University of New South Wales, Australia, Ph.D @ U. of Bristol, The Spaces Between
Us: The Gendered Politics of Outer Space March 22-25, 2006)

Humans, argues Crawford, bring speed, agility, versatility and intelligence to exploration in a way that robots cannot, justifying to many the employment of astronauts as field scientists on other planets (Crawford, 2005: 252). The consistent discursive articulation of outer space as a frontier, a threshold for human intervention

requiring the utmost in human performance, depends on a regulatory framework wherein humanity is able to consistently and without obstacle (material, psychological or otherwise) seize the challenge of exploiting and controlling its natural environment and resources. Rarely conceived of purely in technological, aphysical terms, space is a politics (in US discourse) entirely constituted in reference to the physical attributes of the (neoliberally) human. Within the heteronormative, heterosexual, regulatory frameworks of space discourse, the ideal, space-able, individual is constructed and reproduced within an unspoken but unequivocal heteronormative framework of reproductive sexuality, as a model that others should approximate: a person, evolved of heterosexual binaries; who is reactive but calm, reproductive but sexually restrained, agile but not hyperactive, versatile but not
sexually ambiguous, rational but not mechanical. Located within a masculine context, such a framework has only solidified the

sense of male bodies existing as the norm against which female bodies are evaluated, and male physiology the standard by which female bodies are judged.

Space politics are gendered to legitimize militarization and privatization of space. Griffin 06 (Penny, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at the University of New South Wales, Australia, Ph.D @ U. of Bristol, The Spaces Between
Us: The Gendered Politics of Outer Space March 22-25, 2006)

This paper has argued that sex, gender and sexual practice are discursively constituted to render the apparently ungendered discourse(s) of outer space exploration and colonisation coherent. Gender is made intelligible in US outer space discourse in order to preserve an essentially heteronormative, regulatory public/private distinction that allows for both increased the militarisation of space, while serving neoliberal, anglo- american ideals of marketization, privatization, deregulation and flexibilization. This public/private binary creates a troubled relationship between sex, gender and the politics of (re)production in outer space. Sex invariably appears (if indeed it does appear) in outer space politics as a category pertaining only to the lives and bodies of women,
as fixed, binary, and biologically and physically constant.

59

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Space competition Space races and leadership is the epitome of masculinity. Griffin 06 (Penny, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at the University of New South Wales, Australia, Ph.D @ U. of Bristol, The Spaces Between
Us: The Gendered Politics of Outer Space March 22-25, 2006)

This regulatory masculinism has undoubtedly resulted in the overwhelming dominance of male astronauts in space. Although the first American female went into space in 1983, in 2001 of an active astronaut corps of 158, only 35 were women (NASA Press Release, 2001), and of the 2004 class of astronauts, only two of eleven were female (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov). But the predominance of male astronauts also stems from the gendered nature of space
discourse itself. The Space Age that began with the Cold War Space Race has been coded (heterosexually)

masculine, dependent on a foundational ideology of masculine prowess realised through gendered assumptions of physical and technical expertise, strength, endurance and intelligence. The portrayal of the earliest astronauts as popular heroes in the US media, and beyond, sedimented an image of masculine achievement that, although highly contingent on the militarised aggressivity of Cold War discourse at that time, has proved enduring. Armstrongs famous announcement that the Apollo 11 moon landing was one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind thus in this instance speaks more specifically than universally, a continuation of the Western historys overarching belief in mens natural ability, indeed prerogative, to conquer for the good of everyone.

60

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Space Exploration The politics necessary to expand space exploration subordinates social programs and a path dependency that cannot admit any questioning of whether or not we should be in space at all. Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender

Studies, Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, N No. 2, pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295)
This article would be incomplete without some discussion of the broader political framework of space travel within which discourses of gender, sex, and reproduction

are situated. The prior Republican and the current Democratic administrations have, across two decades, reaffirmed a Presidential "Prime" Directive on national space policy by reissuing the following statement: "a fundamental objective guiding space activities has been, and continues to be, space leadership." This is a problematic goal, however, given a number of setbacks in the space program in recent years, including the explosion of the
Challenger, the disappearance of the Mars Observer, and controversy over the malfunctioning Hubble space telescope launched in 1990. Presently, it is unclear what

effects the foiled Mars probe will have on the 1996 scheduled (but unfunded) twoyear Mars mission. Yet, a humorous depiction of the missing Mars Observer on the back of a milk carton, usually reserved for exploited and/or missing children, ironically demonstrates the displacement and replacement of certain social issues by others. Such representations are situated within the crisis of shrinking federal allocations to the space program (Anderson1994; Kay 1994). Also unclear at the
present time is how controversy over the Hubble telescope will affect NASA in the long run. During the three-and-a-half years the $1.6 billion telescope was

transmitting blurry images to Earth, NASA was on the receiving end of intense criticism as well. After the 1993 Endeavour mission in which astronauts successfully repaired the telescope, NASA apparently enjoyed a resurgence of public confidence and legitimacy. According to Senator Barbara Mikulski, Chair of the NASA budget subcommittee, this new-found support might help the agency's reputation in Congress and win approval for the $30 billion international space station (Wilford 1994). Implementation of Space Station Freedom, with a projected completion date of the year 2000, has the potential to phenomenally impact the life sciences, future space habitation, and NASA's reputation. Yet, space travel and/or colonization are more complicated than a "simple" organizational or federal decision regarding exploration and institutional expansion. Just as the fabulous seven astronauts/pilots
from The Right Stuff quipped "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" (Wolfe 1979), NASA must continue to obtain and secure funding for these

very expensive missions, as the Mars Probe and Hubble telescope snafus illustrate.6 Fundraising often means developing collaborative enterprises with space programs in other countries. Due to

long-range planning and financial commitments which are necessary precursors to any NASA mission, the organization often finds itself in a position of follow-through on space missions from which it cannot easily extricate itself. The European Space
Agency (ESA) and the agencies of the Federal Republic of Germany (DARA), Canada (CSA), Japan (NASDA), and the former Soviet Union are all major investors in

the planning of Space Station Freedom. These international alliances in the postFordist economy have already consolidated the decision for future space exploration and colonization. Indeed, international commitments are so deeply entrenched that one informant remarked, somewhat aptly given our topic, "even if we wanted to we couldn't pull out." It is ironic that space, defined in the 1950s and 1960s as a site of Cold War military conflict, has become a site of postmodern international political and economic cooperation.7 While space has often been conceptualized as
that which will make our world bigger, space now has the potential to also make the world smaller by reconfiguring capitalism and nationalism. Potential colonization

leads to new markets to be explored and developed in a post-Fordist, transglobal economy. The fact-based fiction depicted in the PBS video Living and Working in Space postulates some potential future marketing schemes, including the ''Baby Bubble," a uteruslike technology attached to ''Mom'' and designed to tow a floating baby or small child; genetically engineered food like the ''Mousepotato'' that "will suit up and come directly to you;" hydroponic food grown without soil; hologram faxes; and "Astrotels" billed as economic places to stay. Just think of the possibilities for intergalactic commodity fetishism!8 These political and economic issues are closely linked to constructions of sex and reproduction in space as social and scientific issues. For example, a reproductive biologist and NASA consultant began a 1992 talk by asking, "Do we belong in space? Should we reallocate earthly resources by exploring the outer limits of space?" This existential and political question, juxtaposed with another NASA consultant's disappointment in the space program's "overdue" galaxy colonization, illustrates the concerns and desires of those working in the space program. In one informant's words, '1f we can't conceive and reproduce [in space], how will we ever colonize?" A prominent biologist (Grobstein 1988:162) echoed these sentiments and situates contemporary debates on
the status of the "unborn" within future reproductive scenarios involving space travel and habitation: "The earthly stew, within its existing confines, is showing signs of

unhealthy fermentation and rising pressure. The pressure might be relieved, before it becomes explosive, by broadened perspectives that direct it outward to the openness of space." There is a fascinating subtext operating in Grobstein's account related to intersections of gender, race, sex, science, bodies, reproduction, and colonization.9 As Jennifer Terry (personal correspondence) has suggested, metaphors of rising pressure suggest a hydraulic model of sexual desire. But whose pressure is rising-that of the libidinous individual or that of the anxious society? And, is this

pressure mainly related to biological reproduction or to sexual pleasure? Ironically, physiological problems of space travel may constrain any plans to commence human colonization of space. For the immediate future, reproduction may well be confined to Earth, suggesting an ironic image of the Van AlIen Belt as a postmodern birth control technology. Such desires and fears about reproduction lead to definitions of sexuality in which only relations between fertile males and females are considered salient. Next, we
explore discourses of gender, sex, and reproduction as they operate to inscribe certain futures while precluding others.

61

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Space Exploration and Development The desire to control and develop space both rely on hetero-masculinist tropes of war-fighting and aggressive competition. Griffin 2009 (Penny, Senior Lecturer Convenor MA International Relations - Convenor, Postgraduate Seminar Series,
University of New South Wales, The

spaces between us: The gendered politics of outer space in Bormann, N. and Sheehan, M. (eds), Securing Outer Space. London and New York: Routledge, pp.5975.) tropes of masculinization and feminization. First, the USs ability to control space capabilities depends upon assumptions of dominance and inherent superiority that revolve around the (gendered) signier of the USs role as classic or active warghter: assumptions including the need for speed and watchfulness (real time space surveillance), agility and technical superiority (timely and responsive spacelift), enhanced protection (of military and commercial systems), robustness and efcient repelling capabilities (robust negation systems), precision force and enhanced sensor-to-shooter capabilities. Just as Presidents Kennedy and Johnson summoned the spectre of an active, robust, potent American with the Pilgrim and pioneer spirit of

The gendered assumptions that underlie this rhetoric are tacit but striking, and depend on two distinct, heteronormative,

initiative and independence (Kennedy, quoted in Dean 2001: 180), so George W. Bush calls to those able to show daring, discipline, ingenuity, and unity in the pursuit of great goals, the risk takers and visionaries of

whom America is so proud (Bush 2004). Second, in establishing its (heterosexually masculine) credentials, the USs techno-strategic
discourse recongures all other space-able nations as subordinate, constructing a binary, heterosexual relationship of

masculine hegemony/feminine subordination. Tellingly, US Space Command cites the forging of global partnerships as essential to protecting US national interests and investments, where such partnerships are at the behest of the US, with those that partner the US warghter little more than passive conduits for US opportunity and commerce (Joint Vision 2020). This warghting discourse is not, of course, the only construction of outer space to possess discursive currency in the US. Space exploration, as Crawford argues, is inherently exciting, and as such is an obvious vehicle for inspiring the public in general, and young people in particular (2005: 258). Viewed predominantly as a natural extension to the so-called evolution of military and commercial arts in the Western hemisphere, human, technological expansion into outer space is justied in terms of scientic, commercial and military global entrepreneurship. Conquering the nal frontier of
outer space is increasingly seen as crucial to a states pre-eminence in the global economy (cf. Joint Vision 2020).

International alliances in the post-

Fordist economy have already consolidated the decision for future space exploration and colonization (Casper and
Moore 1995: 315). In a particularly dramatic turn of phrase, Seguin argues that [m]ankind [sic] now stands at the threshold of long-duration space habitation and

interplanetary travel (2005: 980). Similarly, Manzey describes human missions to Mars less as contingent future events, but as the inevitable consequences of technological progress (Manzey 2004: 781790). Space, once dened as a powerladen site of Cold War military conict, has also which will make our world bigger, with space discovery expanding human knowledge, space is also conceived of as that which will make the world smaller, in neo-liberal globalization terms, by reconguring capitalism and nationalism (Casper

become a site of international political and economic cooperation. Often conceptualized in expansionist terms, as that

and Moore 1995: 315). The US warghting discourse is also at odds with much so-called space law, in particular the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which denes space as the province of all mankind and asks that states

act with due regard to the corresponding interests of States Parties to the Treaty (Brearly 2005: 1617). Within the US itself, congressionally-led efforts to discuss and minimize the threats posed by human-made debris caught in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), of which there is somewhere in the region of 2,300 metric tons (ibid.: 9), appear ill-matched with clear efforts by US government to increase the weaponization of space. The US cooperates, to a limited extent, in perpetuating a sustainable space environment for its satellitebased systems, to which space debris undoubtedly poses a threat, because this is of direct individual benet to US commercial interests. The US refuses, however, to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), prohibiting all use of nuclear explosions in space, since this constitutes a restriction of its ability to develop and test new weapons. US critics of the CTBT contend that ratifying the treaty would undercut condence in the US deterrent, and thus increase the incentive for rogue states to obtain nuclear weapons (Medalia 2006: 13). All this is not to
argue that dominant scientic and commercial justications for space exploration, which are perhaps less overtly

related to the militarization of space (for example, concerning advances in medicine, molecular and cellular biology, geology, weather forecasting, robotics, electronics and so on), do not in their basic assumptions also embody a gendered sense of mans natural right to colonize so-called unknown territory (see, e.g. Morabito 2005). The quest for knowledge remains deeply embedded in Western accounts of the need for space colonization (as Bushs 2004 speech makes clear), rationalized from humanitys so-called natural desire to explore and conquer (cf. Bush 2004; Crawford 2005; Mendell 2005).
Crawford, in proposing a case for the scientic and social importance of human space exploration, suggests that, there are reasons for believing that as a species Homo sapiens is genetically predisposed towards exploration

and the colonisation of an open frontier. Access to such a frontier, at least vicariously, may be in some sense psychologically necessary for the long-term wellbeing of human societies. (Crawford 2005: 260) Similarly, NASAs website claims that from the time of our birth, humans have felt a primordial urge to explore, to blaze new trails, map new lands, and answer

profound questions about ourselves and our universe (www.nasa.gov).

Much commercial gain already depends on the exploitation of outer space, but there is undoubtedly more to be made of

spaces resources: asteroidal mining, for example; the extraction of lunar soil oxygen; the mining of very rare Helium-3 from lunar soil as fuel for nuclear fusion reactors; or space, and particularly the Moon, as a tourist venue, offering all kinds of new sporting opportunities (Morabito 2005: 57). But the lines distinguishing the various components of space (to borrow the language of the then USSPACECOM) a medium to be exploited; the passive receptacle of US terrestrial force. As Goh states, outer space is an arena of growing economic and technological importance. It is also a developing theatre of military defence
and warfare (2004: 259). US outer space discourse is driven by the belief that outer space exists to be conquered (and that it

the outer space whole are vague, and are particularly obscured by the tacit but pervasive heteronormativity that makes of

rarely ghts back), that those at the cutting edge of its exploitation are the visionaries and entrepreneurs that will pave

the way to tourists, explorers, TV crews and to, as Morabito claims, dubious characters such as, perhaps, bounty hunters (2004: 10). 62

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Spaceflight T The gendered iconography of spaceflight is still apparent today Bryld and Lykke 00 (Mette, associate professor at the department of Russia and east European studies; Nina,
professor in gender and culture at the

department of gender studies of Linkoeping University, Cosmodolphins: Feminist cultural studies of technology, animals, and the sacred, p. 90) Our questions on space flight and gender thus generate response patterns in which cultural and gender differences interfere. But these very different answers confirm, each in its own way, that the iconography bonding the extraordinary will, knowledge and know-how with 'men of the right stuff is still brooding over space flight. That space flight represents a cultural enclave where the heroic master narrative of the masculine superhero has been able to survive unchallenged far longer than in many other places is confirmed by
the interviews we conducted at the Space Camp for youngsters that is located near the Kennedy Space Center. Almost onethird of the children aged ten to thirteen at the camp are girls. According to the staff, there is little difference/between the two sexes in their response to Space Camp

activities; both are equally eager to learn and discuss what it means to be an astronaut. However, the girls are often surprised when they are confronted with the masculine iconography on display, so distinctly genderized that it can neither be hidden nor explained away. Since the space heroes are men, the girls who are interested in space flight have difficulties with role models. One of the teachers, Debbie, says that this collision between the traditional iconography and the girls' search for role models has the effect of
making some of them very gender-conscious. She illustrates this with an anecdote: T used to give a lecture about this space suit from the Apollo mission. We talk about

the little portable bag, the urine collector. And, well, this is a man's bag, because women did not go to the Moon, and sometimes they [the girls] arc startled by that.' Space Flight Degrades the body to an object to be exploited Bryld and Lykke 00 (Mette, associate professor at the department of Russia and east European studies; Nina,
professor in gender and culture at the

department of gender studies of Linkoeping University, Cosmodolphins: Feminist cultural studies of technology, animals, and the sacred, p. 114-115) As the space body exposed its flesh and intestines to the devices of innumerable medical tests, examinations, adjustments, probes and the like as it was inserted into the electronic and mechanical systems of the space capsule, it began to seem like a machine in its own right. The way in which the astronautic body was fragmented and transformed into numbers and statistics exemplifies this configuration of body and machine. It
also came to tickle the popular imagination as this totally decomposed body accompanied the presentation of its owneroccupier, the space hero himself, to the public."

Thus the rate of the space man's heart before, during and after the flight, his pulse,

weight, lung capacity, blood pressure, respiration oral temperature, blood count, the colour and gravity of his urine, and so on and on ... all of this was carefully registered and, especially hi the USA, made a question of national interest. Strikingly, this act of decomposing the body became a counterpart to the reduction of a machine into small, separate parts or, as Romanyshyn has cleverly pointed out, i<> the dissection of a dead body, a corpse (Romanyshyn 1989: 17). However, this analogy overlooks an important point. What the medical electronics involved in rendering the astronaut body fit for cosmic adventures is mechanically translating, by means of so many numbers and figures, is not the language of other machines or of decomposed corpses: what it electronically signifies is rather the disjointed grammar of organic speech. What it translates and interprets into the depersonalized lin;*o of science is nothing if not the vague murmuring of organisms in change: the whispering of blood particles, the susurration of cells, of muscles and organs at work. It is the speech of a body that, transformed into a posl-(hu)man cyborg, can only be rendered intelligibly and functionally alive through technology. Inspected and explored for diseases and organic mal-functions, the astronaut becomes so dissolved in bodily fragments and in multiple voices that the boundaries of that strategic and heroic assemblage called self appear to be thoroughly transgressed (Haraway 1991: 212). Consequently, the image of the autonomous and transcendent astronaut, a cybergod in waiting, easily merges with counter-images of earthly shadow figures that conjure up the spectres of degradation, fragility and dependence; images such as the mock doubles of Hispanic Jose, Seagull Tereshkova, and also the chimps, monkeys and mongrel bitches of earlier flights - that is, the non-straight, the effeminate male, the hysterical woman and the domesticated

animal. These symbolic carriers of 'weak' nature(s) performed actively in the phantasmagorical show that, in the first decade of space flight, brought into locus the representations, not only of a divinely strong and self-reliant steel man, but also of a vulnerable and mortal cyborg body, completely unable to function on its own. In this performance, the space man was not the manly conqueror and explorer, taking other territories and bodies into his possession; rather, his own body had become possessed by everybody. Thus, in his book on the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon,
\orman Mailer locates a binary opposition between the masculinity of the space heroes with their elevated images

as stainless steel men and the pictures of their manipulated bodies which were not only possessed and (sexually) abused by technology, science and the penetrating scientific gaze, but were even laid open for public entry. The objectifying, dissecting and knowing vision of Mailer himself provides evidence of this transgression: They were virile men, but they were prodded, probed, tapped into, poked, flexed, tested,

subjected to a pharmacology of stimulants,

depressants, diuretics, laxatives, retentives, tranquilizers, motion sickness pills, antibiotics, vitamins and food which was designed to control the character of their

faeces. They were virile, but they were done to, they were done to like no healthy man alive. (Mailer 1971: 48)

63

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

64

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Space Privacy Space discourse perpetuates sex as a contamination to a professional's image Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295) Even if an ingenious crew could figure out ways to "do it," there is some doubt that NASA would discuss publicly any data gleaned from such activity. .The second type of privacy discourse is thus related to the mythic custom in which many Americans learn, think, and talk about (or around) sex. There is a quality about discussions of sex and their alleged threat to privacy that pollutes the pure, uncontaminated image of the space professional. This threat to professionalism is illustrated in the comments of a NASA consultant: "You know, these are highly committed, professional, academic nerdy scientists like myself, who value their privacy as citizens ... and they don't want to be made into spectacles." This informant believes it is NASA's duty to protect the sexual privacy of the crew from the media. In this framing, sexuality is inscribed as pure spectacle -- prurient, entertaining, and clearly not serious. NASA hides research findings about female crew members for "privacy," but in fact this shields the agency from having to face the possibility of women in space not conforming to gender norms Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology from University of California, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean,
Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies,

Purchase College in New York, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2, pg. 311-333 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389295) Finally, privacy discourse is ostensibly used to protect the identities of particular crew members in research protocols. Since there is only a handful of female astronauts, maintaining confidentiality in scientific studies is extremely difficult, if not impossible. As one consultant speculated, what would happen if research showed that a female astronaut had extremely high levels of testosterone and the media picked up on this "deviation" from "accepted" norms of womanhood? This deployment conflates the gender, sexuality, and physiology of "normal" female
bodies. Thus, NASA, fearing the possibility of sex/gender transgression, insists that research findings could be

traced back to the individual subject. While allegedly protecting the identities of crew members, this privacy discourse also serves to shield the agency itself from any negative publicity a "masculine" female crew member might arouse.

Link: Surveillance Military expansion in space is the dark side of scientific endeavors MacDonald 07 (Fraser, Lecturer of Geography at the University of Edinburgh, Anti-Astropolitik outer space and the
orbit of geography

www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/rmg/geography/papers/anti-outerspace.pdf) In this discussion so far, I have been drawing attention to geographys recent failure to engage outer space as a sphere of inquiry and it is important to clarify that this indictment applies more to human than to physical geography. There are, of
course, many biophysical currents of geography that directly draw on satellite technologies for remote sensing. The ability to view the Earth from

space, particularly through the Landsat programme, was a singular step forward in understanding all manner of Earth surface processes and biogeographical patterns (see Mack, 1990). The fact that this new tranche of data came largely from military platforms (often under
the guise of dual use) was rarely considered an obstacle to science. But, as the range of geographical applications of satellite imagery have increased to include such

diverse activities as urban planning and ice cap measurements, so too has a certain reflexivity about the provenance of the images. It is not enough, some are realizing, to say I just observe and explain desertification and I have nothing to do with the military; rather, scientists need to acknowledge the overall context that gives them access to this data in the first place (Cervino et al., 2003:236). One thinks here of the case of Peru, whose US grant funding for agricultural use of Landsat data increased dramatically in the 1980s when the same images were found to be useful in locating insurgent activities of Maoist Shining Path guerrillas
(Schwartz,1996). More recently, NASAs civilian Sea-Wide Field Studies (Sea-WiFS) programme was used to identify Taliban forces during the war in Afghanistan

(Caracciolo, 2004). The practice of geography, in these cases as with so many others, is bound up with military logics Beck,2003, for a case study of GIS in the service of the war on terror).

(Smith, 1992); the development of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) being a much-cited recent example (Pickles, 1995; 2004; Cloud, 2001; 2002; see

65

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Survivalism

The Affs reasoning behind protecting human life is flawed; they are not helping with the real problems through their own contradictions t

Sofia 84 (Zoe, a noted Australian cyber and cyber-gender theorist and the author of "Virtual Corporeality: A Feminist
View," Exterminating Fetuses: Abortion,

Disarmament, and the Sexo-Semiotics of Extraterrestrialism. Vol. 14, No. 2, Nuclear Criticism, pp. 55) It seemed at first that a contradiction existed between the ruling conservatives' interest in military escalation and their espoused desire to protect fetal life, but both positions turn out to be articulations of the collapsed future. The "always already" in the cult of fetal personhood is identical to the "bound to be" in the ideology of progress; each is part of the ideological apparatus of exterminism, which collapses the future onto the present and prepares for the ultimate science-fiction spectacular, where the future evaporates into a fireball or freezes to double-death in a nuclear winter. The apparent contradiction of the prochoice antinuclear position similarly disappears when we recognize each as a struggle to pry open the futureless spaces of futurism and open up the pluripotent space of the future conditional. A nuclear war, like a pregnancy, can be averted. If we let our actions be guided by the desire to let new life into the world, and bear a parental responsibility for all of our creations, children might again have the comfort of growing up on stories of a world without end, and the future may well manage to skirt its way gingerly around the decaying remains of experiments in celestial physics which were fortuitously aborted before going apocalyptically awry.

Link: Objectivity The AFFs assumption of facts makes discussion 1-sided Campbell 9 (Nancy D., Professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Ph.D @ University of California-Santa Cruz, 2009.

Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies.

Reconstructing Science and Technology Studies. Views from Feminist Standpoint T Theory. Volume 30, Number 1) Striking resonances and parallels between post-positivist, feminist, and reconstructivist agendas include the following. Facts are constructed and are thus not determinative of the forms that social interactions and negotiations take. Negotiating the conceptual practices of power or ruling relations inevitably involves conflicting and partial perspectives. Coping with disagreement is a necessary part of social and political life (including those parts of it that shape decisions about what kinds of
technoscientific innovation to pursue). Science is not about closure but about interpretive flexibility in the face of the ongoing production of uncertainty. Thus coping

with uncertainty will inevitably challenge those for whom science raises more questions than it answers. Reconstructivists argue that reconstructivism starts from the premise that better design of sociotechnical life ought to be built directly into scholarly inquiry. Notions of better and worse inevitably involve a partisan component. . . . 22 Similarly, Haraways work on situated knowledges acknowledges the inevitably partial and partisan processes by which
knowledge claims are produced and negotiated.23 Weaving together the strands of similarity between feminist and

reconstructivist science and technology studies reveals a tapestry against which the knowledge production projects of each stand out more clearly.

66

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Objectivity Scientific objectivity relies on the myth of distance to claim objectivity and authority: this representational strategy deny women and objects any agency. Haraway 92 [Donna, professor in the History of Consciousness Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz,
Ph.D @ Yale, The Promises of Monsters:

A Regenerative Politics For Inappropriate/d Others, in Cultural Studies, eds. LAWRENCE GROSSBERG, CARY NELSON, PAULA A. TREICHLER, PP. 295-337, http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-thepromises-of-monsters-a-regenerative-politics-for-inappropriated-others/] Who speaks for the jaguar? Who speaks for the fetus? Both questions rely on a political semiotics of representation.35 Permanently speechless, forever requiring the services of a ventriloquist, never forcing a recall vote, in each case the object or ground of representation is the realization of the representative's fondest dream. As Marx said in a somewhat different context, "They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented."36 But for a political semiology of representation, nature and the unborn fetus are even better, epistemologically, than subjugated human adults. The effectiveness of such representation depends on distancing operations. The represented must be disengaged from surrounding and constituting discursive and
non-discursive nexuses and relocated in the authorial domain of the representative. Indeed, the effect of this magical operation is to

disempower precisely those-in our case, the pregnant woman and the peoples of the forest-who are "close" to the now-represented "natural" object. Both
the jaguar and the fetus are carved out of one collective entity and relocated in another, where they are reconstituted as objects of a particular kind-as the ground

of a representational practice that forever authorizes the ventriloquist. Tutelage will be eternal. The represented is reduced to the permanent status of the recipient of action, never to be a co-actor in an articulated practice among unlike, but
joined, social partners. Everything that used to surround and sustain the represented object, such as pregnant women and local people, simply disappears or re-enters the

drama as an agonist. For example, the pregnant woman becomes juridically and medically, two very powerful discursive realms, the "maternal environment" (Hubbard, 1990). Pregnant women and local people are the least able to "speak for" objects like jaguars or fetuses because they get discursively reconstituted as beings with opposing "interests." Neither woman nor fetus, jaguar nor Kayapo Indian is an actor in the drama of representation. One set of entities becomes the represented, the other becomes the environment, often threatening, of the represented object. The only actor left is the spokesperson, the one who represents. The forest is no longer the integument in a coconstituted social nature; the woman is in no way a partner in an intricate and

intimate dialectic of social relationality crucial to her own personhood, as well as to the possible personhood of her social-but unlike- internal co-actor.37 In the liberal logic
of representation, the fetus and the jaguar must be protected precisely from those closest to them, from their "surround." The power of life and death must be delegated

to the epistemologically most disinterested ventriloquist, and it is crucial to remember that all of this is about the power of life and death. Who, within the myth of modernity, is less biased by competing interests or polluted by excessive closeness than the expert, especially the scientist? Indeed' even better than the lawyer, judge, or national legislator, the scientist is the perfect representative of nature, that is, of the

permanently and constitutively speechless objective world. Whether he be a male or a female, his passionless distance is his

greatest virtue; this discursively constituted, structurally gendered distance legitimates his professional privilege, which in these cases, again, is the power to testify about the right to life and death. After Edward Said quoted
Marx on representation in his epigraph to Orientalism, he quoted Benjamin Disraeli's Tancred, "The East is a career." The separate, objective world-

non- social nature-is a career. Nature legitimates the scientist's career, as the Orient justifies the representational practices of the
Orientalist, even as precisely "Nature" and the "Orient" are the products of the constitutive practice of scientists and orientalists. These are the inversions that have been

the object of so much attention in science studies. Bruno Latour sketches the double structure of representation through which scientists establish the objective status of their knowledge. First, operations shape and enroll new objects or allies through visual displays or other means called inscription devices. Second, scientists speak as if they were the mouthpiece for the speechless objects that they have just shaped and enrolled as allies in an agonistic field called science. Latour defines the actant as that which is represented; the objective world appears to be the actant solely by virtue of the operations of representation (Latour, 1987, pp. 70-74, 90). The authorship rests with the representor, even as he claims independent object status for the represented. In this doubled structure, the
simultaneously semiotic and political ambiguity of representation is glaring. First, a chain of substitutions, operating through inscription devices, relocates power and

action in "objects" divorced from polluting contextualizations and named by formal abstractions ("the fetus,'). Then, the reader of inscriptions speaks for his docile constituencies, the objects. This is not a very lively world, and it does not finally offer much to jaguars, in whose interests the whole apparatus supposedly operates. In this essay I have been arguing for another way of seeing actors and actants- and consequently another way of working to position scientists and science in important struggles in the world. I have stressed actants as collective entities doing things in a structured and structuring field of action; I have framed the issue in terms of articulation rather than representation. Human beings use names to point to themselves and other actors and easily mistake the names for the things.
These same humans also think the traces of inscription devices are like names-pointers to things, such that the inscriptions and the things can be enrolled in dramas of

67

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Objectivity substitution and inversion. But the things, in my view, do not pre-exist as everelusive, but fully pre-packaged, referents for the names. Other actors are more like tricksters than that. Boundaries take provisional, neverfinished shape in articulatory practices. The potential for the unexpected from unstripped human and unhuman actants enrolled in articulations-i.e., the potential for generation- remains both to trouble and to empower technoscience. Western
philosophers sometimes take account of the inadequacy of names by stressing the "negativity" inherent in all representations. This takes us back to Spivak's remark

cited early in this paper about the important things that we cannot not desire, but can never possess-or represent, because representation depends on possession of a passive resource, namely, the silent object, the stripped actant. Perhaps we can, however, "articulate" with humans and unhumans in a social relationship, which for us is always language-mediated (among other semiotic, i.e., "meaningful," mediations). But, for our
unlike partners, well, the action is "different," perhaps "negative" from our linguistic point of view, but crucial to the generativity of the collective. It is the

empty space, the undecidability, the wiliness of other actors, the "negativity," that give me confidence in the reality and therefore ultimate unrepresentability of social nature and that make me suspect doctrines of representation and objectivity. My crude characterization does not end up with an "objective world" or "nature," but it certainly does insist on the world. This world must always be articulated, from people's points of view, through "situated knowledges" (Haraway, 1988;
1991). These knowledges are friendly to science, but do not provide any grounds for history-escaping inversions

and amnesia about how articulations get made, about their political semiotics, if you will. I think the world is precisely what gets lost in doctrines of representation and scientific objectivity. It is because I care about jaguars, among other actors, including the
overlapping but non-identical groups called forest peoples and ecologists, that I reject Joe Kane's question. Some science studies scholars have been terrified to criticize

their constructivist formulations because the only alternative seems to be some retrograde kind of "going back" to nature and to philosophical realism.38 But above all people, these scholars should know that "nature" and "realism" are precisely the consequences of representational practices. Where we need to move is not "back" to nature, but elsewhere, through and within an artifactual social nature,
which these very scholars have helped to make expressable in current Western scholarly practice. That knowledge-building practice might be articulated to other

practices in "pro-life" ways that aren't about the fetus or the jaguar as nature fetishes and the expert as their ventriloquist.

68

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Technology

We need to understand technology before we can exploit it---Tickner 92 [J. Ann. Gender in International Relations. Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security Columbia University

Press. pp 127]
Like certain feminists, many ecologists are critical of modern society, given its dependence on an excessive appropriation of nature's resources. They suggest that the

values of modern society are based on an incomplete model of humanity that emphasizes instrumental rationality, production, and consumption at the expense of humaneness, creativity, and compassion. "Economic man" is a compulsive producer and consumer, with little thought for ecological constraints. Modernization, which has legitimized these destructive behaviors, has led to a loss of control over science and technology that is causing severe environmental stress today.56 Modernization, a product of the European Enlightenment, is now being reproduced in the Third World, where development projects often further strain limited environmental resources and reproduce
inequality. Irene Dankelman and Joan Davidson claim that science's manipulations of nature, manifested in projects such as the Green Revolution, threaten the natural

environment and marginalize poor people. As modern techniques are used to increase crop yields, water supplies begin to suffer from contamination from fertilizers and pesticides, making them less available for drinking. Modernization of agriculture in the Third World has encouraged monoculture and cash cropping, which makes women's tasks of feeding families more difficult. The authors point out that the ecological damage caused by modernization often falls most heavily on women in their role as family providers.57 Ecologists are critical of environmental management in general. They
claim that management techniques grow out of the reductionist methodology of modern science that cannot cope

with complex issues whose interdependencies are barely understood. Such methodologies, evident in the use of computer models, perpetuate the dominating, instrumental view of nature that attempts to render it more serviceable for human needs and that leaves hierarchies-- feminists would include gender hierarchies-- intact. A mechanistic view of nature leads to the assumption that it can be tinkered with and improved for human purposes, an assumption that is increasingly being questioned as negative consequences of projects such as high-yield agriculture are becoming more evident. Ecologists believe that only when knowledge is demystified and democratized, and not regarded as solely the possession of "experts," can an ecologically sound mode of existence be implemented.

Technology is a mechanism of domination.

Wajcman 4 (Judy. Head of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, formerly a Professor of
Sociology at ANU, Visiting Professor

at the Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business and the Oxford Internet Institute, Also a Professor in the Gender Institute at London School of Economics and P Political Science. TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 21-22)
Embedded in the radical feminist approach is a conception of technoscience as intrinsically patriarchal. For example, Maria Mies argued that it

makes absolutely no difference whether it is women or men who apply and control this technology; this technology is in itself an instrument of domination, 'a new. stage in the patriarchal war against women'. Technology is not neutral but is always based on 'exploitation of and domination over nature, exploitation and subjection of women, exploitation and oppression of other peoples'.10 Mies argued that this is the very logic of the natural sciences and organisms, the dissection and analysis of these organisms down to their smallest elements, in order to reassemble them, according to the plans of the male engineers, as machines. Reproductive and genetic technologies are about

its model is the machine. For her the method of technical progress is the violent destruction of natural links between living

conquering the 'last frontier' of men's domination over nature. In a similar vein, eco-feminists analysed military technology and the ecological

effects of other modern technologies as products of a violent patriarchal culture. Technology, like science, is seen as an instrument of male domination of women and nature. After the Scientific Revolution, Western culture ceased to view the earth as an organism to be nurtured and instead treats nature as a machine to be exploited in the name of progress. The mechanical framework, with its associated values of abstract reason, order and control, sanctioned the management of both nature and society. The eco-feminist critique identified the harnessing of technology as fostering domination and, as Rachel Carson highlighted, as potentially destructive to the health of communities.11 Above all, the critique pointed to technology as the instrument for reorganizing the modes of interaction with the natural environment. In the process, nature would be called into the service of mankind, with men established as producers, women recast as the 'hewers of wood1 and 'fetchers of water', men bequeathed the benefits of nature's bounty and women's
labours marginalized and made more onerous.

69

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

70

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Techno-Reproduction Techno-Reproductive and masculinist discourses provide an illusion of nonresponsibility to the moral and physical implications of the way we think. This turns their case because it further entrenches the world into this illusion; where nobody can realize the harms caused by the patriarchy in the world. p

Sofia 84 (Zoe, a noted Australian cyber and cyber-gender theorist and the author of "Virtual Corporeality: A Feminist
View, Exterminating Fetuses: Abortion,

Disarmament, and the Sexo-Semiotics of Extraterrestrialism. Vol. 14, No. 2, Nuclear Criticism, pp. 175) By taking seriously the perverse fertility metaphors which pervade masculinist discourse, and which are embodied in the global anti-art of the state of Pure War, we empower ourselves with some embarrassingly vivid descriptions for the obscene practices and deadly monuments which presently pass themselves off as the rational, the practical, and the glamorously extraterrestrial .We might call on the cannibals of Jupiter Space to feed themselves on their own tools, and demand that the Supermothers take better care of their ghastly creations. We might warn the Pac-Men, those radiant incorporating heads who have our futures all scoped and scooped out for us, that if they don't start cleaning up all that waste they'd like to pretend they haven't created, we Earthlings will teach them some home truths about the role of recycling in the uroboric economy. While we might reclaim the future conditional tense and technological fertility metaphors from science fiction, we find little saving power in its extraterrestrialism. True, the distant view of the world may help us appreciate its finitude, and the continued failure to find life in space may eventually help us revalue our own world's uniqueness. But meanwhile, simulations of extraterrestrialism falsely promise escape from the exterminist effects of corporate practice. The transport and communications devices which allow the cannibalization and representation of the world at a distance; those skyscraping wombs-with-a-view which isolate the heads from the untidy bodies of the lands and peoples below; the many social strategies which separate the bland corporate

clones from the poor, the young, the colored, the pregnant; the refined jargons like nukespeak which gloss over the gruesome bodily realities of megadeath and cancer; the special effects which separate, or gloss over the slippages between, the shiny goods and the slimy bads of industry: all of these are examples 12Schellp, . 175.of extraterrestrialism encoded into distancing devices which provide the illusion of escape from the moral implications and physical effects of the techno-reproductive choices we make.

71

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Tech/Science/Economy No solvency and only a risk of a turn to econwestern scientific calculations obscure the root cause of their impacts and make them inevitable Nhanenge 7 [Jytte Masters @ U South Africa, paper submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
master of arts in the subject Development

Studies, ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT] The four crises are difficult to resolve individually because they are interlinked and they therefore reinforce each other. Wars usually give the effect of poverty, environmental damage and repression. Poverty often results in environmental damage and can lead to revolts and
repression. Destruction of nature causes poverty, social upheaval and repression. Abuses of human's rights are entangled in all

of the other crises. In addition and paradoxically, mainstream development activities, meant to ameliorate poverty in the South, often also lead to environmental damage, human's rights abuses, increased poverty and violence. Thus, the four crises function in a web-like
fashion and are difficult to ameliorate individually. Should positive changes be made it is necessary to look beyond a treatment of each crisis towards a more

fundamental process of overall healing. Hence, the crises may more correctly be seen as a symptom of a more fundamental systemic "dis-ease". (Ekins 1992: 13). Hazel Henderson (Capra 1989: 248) agrees with Ekins. The major problems of our time cannot be understood in
isolation. Whether a crisis manifests itself as poverty, environmental degradation, war or human rights abuses does

not matter. The underlying dynamics are the same. Thus, the crises are interconnected, interdependent and all are rooted in a larger systemic crisis. Each crisis is therefore only a different aspect of the same crisis: a crisis of perception. It derives from the fact that the
Western world subscribes to an outdated, reductionist world-view. Modern science, technology, government structures, development

agencies and academic institutions are all using a fragmented methodology, which has proven to be inadequate in
dealing with a systemically interconnected world. Thus, many scientifically educated people cannot understand and hence resolve systemic crises. Most leaders also

fail to see that the problems are inter-linked. They therefore cannot recognize that their preferred reductionist economic solutions have disastrous consequences elsewhere in the social and natural system. The main aim for politicians, economists and

development experts is to maximize economic growth, but they cannot perceive that this negatively affects women,

Others, nature and future generations. (Capra 1982: 6; Capra 1997: 3-4). 2.6.1. Modernity; a reductionist perception of reality Richard B. Norgaard
has arrived at a similar conclusion in his book "Development betrayed; the end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the future". He argues that the reasons

behind the environmental crises relates to the Western philosophy of life. A good life is seen to be modern and progressive. Modernity promised that humanity with its superior science could control nature that all could have material abundance through scientific technology and that life could be administered effectively by rational social organisation. The combination would lead to peace on Earth where all would be part of the new, collective, modern culture. However, modernity betrayed development. Instead of unity, it led to material madness, inequalities, depletion of natural resources, degradation of the environment, increase in number

of wars and refugees and a bureaucratic deadlock where governments cannot find rational solutions to the crises. (Norgaard 1994: 1-2). The problem is that modernism is based on some false beliefs about scientific technology, social structure and environmental interaction. It is assumed that progress will come about as a linear process. Thus improved science will promote improved technology, which leads to better rational social organisation, and increased material well-being. This is perceived as an eternal activity, all

determined by science. However, such a view is too simple. Progress cannot continue forever since the means, our natural resources, are finite. We do not have an eternal source of energy, with which economists seem to calculate. Thus in the name of progress we

are depleting our natural resources and destroying the planet Earth. In the end, modernity's progress will terminate our existence. (Norgaard 1994: 32-34, 54-56). More fundamentally, the crises relate to the philosophical premises underlying the Western metaphysical and epistemological world-view. Norgaard (1994: 62) calls them for atomism, mechanism, universalism, objectivism
and monism. In brief, they translate reality as follows: Systems (for example social or natural ones) consist of unchanging parts, the sum of which equals the whole.

The relationship between the parts is fixed and possible changes are reversible. Although systems may be diverse and complex,

they all are based on a limited number of underlying universal laws, which are unchanging and eternal. These laws can be understood by observing the systems from the

outside. The knowledge derived at is objective and universal. Hence, this is the only one way to understand systems. When a system's laws
are known, its actions can be predicted and the system can be controlled. In this way, the system can be manipulated to benefit human beings. (Norgaard 1994: 6266).

72

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Utopianism

Utopian thinking and practice leads to short-sided action and has negative consequences
Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.5-7)
It is tempting to think that more recent feminist theorizing, with its greater sophistication and more careful attention to matters of race, class, sexuality, and other

markers of difference among women, has outgrown utopianism. Such a conclusion, however, is itself utopian, since only in utopia is the present or future necessarily an improvement over the past. Higher Ground argues that sensitivity to difference and other advances in feminist thinking have not, in fact, eliminated utopianism from feminist thought, nor have they obliterated its problematic influence. Today's utopianism, as we shall see, has its own characteristics and produces its own negative consequences. For example, recent ideas about differences among women sometimes both reify and idealize particular groups, demonize others, and privilege certain standpoints for knowledge. Although the locus of privilege has changed, those are traditional utopian ideas in modern dress. While they are not equivalent, utopian practice can, of course, produce utopianism, and vice versa. That is, fascination with utopian practices can easily lead to utopian thinking. I have made this transition myself, so I know its appeal as well as its pitfalls. Years ago, I became convinced that feminism could best be advanced by the widescale construction of
kitchen less houses, connected in clusters to communal dining facilities. Such a model was one proposal of the domestic feminists of the 1920S, with whom Charlotte Perkins Gilman, also the author of numerous utopian

fictional works, was associated. Not coincidentally, my conviction about the kitchenless house developed when I had two hungry toddlers hanging on my legs as I prepared dinner every evening, still dressed in the workingwoman's clothes and shoes I had no time to change. I committed the metonymic fallacy of thinking that all women's "liberation" depended on the kind of change in domestic life that might appeal to certain professional women with small children. My love of utopia had become utopianism. Like Friedan, I could not recognize the limits of my views. I might have been right about a particular solution for myself or a particular group of women, at least during a certain
phase of life, just as Friedan was right to identify careers as one way for educated women to pursue self-fulfillment and contribute to society. But like Freidan I was

wrong to think that my ideas were fundamental to feminism for all women-or even to my own life-for all time.
Indeed, a kitchenless house did not appeal to me for very long and would now not suit me at all. Such myopia translates into another utopian

fallacy, the "present focus," which is the weak underside of the utopian genius for social critique. Social criticism is often
perversely tied to the situation it analyzes. Even when social criticism is accurate it may not be comprehensive. Friedan's analysis of the "feminine mystique" was insightful, but it missed lots of women who were already

working and overlooked the significance of many other factors besides the boredom of housewives that produced women's unhappy lot in the I950S and I96os. Friedan needed to consider work structures, employment prospects, credit and wage policies, women's educational opportunities, the availability of birth control and child care, cultural prohibitions against "unfeminine" behavior, and other aspects of 1963 society, many of which were as invisible to contemporary eyes as the "problem with no name." Likewise, my obsession with domestic architecture prevented me from seeing additional important factors contributing to women's (and even my own) role stress, such as androcentric work structures that ignore all workers' domestic responsibilities. Simply undoing or reversing the situations that we observe and critique can exacerbate rather than solve the larger problem of which they are a part.

Utopianism has empirically failed and further reinforced gender inequality

Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.35-36)
Many utopian communities recognized that gender equity was a major social problem and dedicated themselves to

some version of female emancipation, although rarely to suffrage, since their goal was typically social isolation rather than political participation.
Charles Fourier, for example, whose ideas about organizing work around human passions led to the founding of twenty-two independent, mostly unsuccessful

phalanxes in Europe, Latin America, and the United States, wrote in 1841 that "'the extension of women's rights is the common foundation of all social progress.'''4 Other utopian social designs promoted women's education, dignity, and full partnership in the operation of a community. Clothing reform and sensitivity to the prevailing sexism of nineteenth-century life gave hope to women who joined such utopian communities (Kesten 1993, 94) But despite their rhetoric and good intentions, few experimental communities successfully enacted gender equity. Indeed, the ironic utopian present focus frequently further enshrined the conventional sexual division of labor and promoted time-honored sexual stereotypes in such communities, just as it limited utopists' ability to enact racial justice. Thus, most gender reforms in utopian communities
were more symbolic than genuine (Kesten 1993, 98-100). Few women held leadership positions in mixed-sex societies, and very few communities were established by

women in their own behalf. An example of utopia's mixed success with effecting gender justice is New Harmony, which was founded by Robert Owen in 1825 in part to promote women's economic independence through education, egalitarian marriages, and sensible clothing. Owen supported simple

divorce procedures and eschewed what he called irrational religion, which he regarded as a key source of women's subordination. But Owen's vision was restricted by the blinders of his era. Regarding women as morally

superior to men, like most of his mainstream peers, Owen tended to see them as delicate and not quite human. Thus, even though he understood women's historical disadvantages and sought to overcome them, Owen nevertheless concluded that they were unfit to govern society equally with men

(Kolmerten 1990, 71-76). The fact that Owen's son, Robert Dale Owen, became an effective advocate for women's rights in the Indiana Legislature, working for married women's property rights and liberalized divorce laws, illustrates a ripple effect from at least a few utopian attempts at significant social reform. That his efforts succeeded only after New Harmony folded, however, suggests that the small experiments were, at best, catalysts for gradual social change (Holloway 1951, II4). Gender reforms in some communities, such as
Oneida, actually increased women's subordination to men because female empowerment was equated solely with

liberal sexual practices that men typically controlled. Indeed, the failure of sexual emancipation efforts like Oneidan complex marriage and
Mormon polygamy to achieve gender equity may help explain why women utopists were more likely than men to join celibate communities. Celibacy actually proved

to be a much stronger equalizing force between the sexes than any other form of sexual experimentation in utopian communities (Kitch I989b, 12559). The many broken promises to women in the utopian movement with regard to gender equity may well have caused its collapse at the end of the nineteenth century (Kesten 1993, 112). 73

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Link: Utopianism
Despite the apparent benefits of Utopianism, its negative effects are especially harmful to women.
Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.41-42) If there is such a utopian impulse, it reflects utopianism's most positive side-its power to fight despair and unhappiness, however
defined, while promoting positive values, however defined. Unshackled from original sin by the eighteenth century, utopianism has provided a

plausible theory of a plastic rather than a predetermined human nature (Walsh 1962, 70). Utopianism leads us to believe that societies can be good, that they can and should be harmonious, unified, and peaceful. From utopianism we learn to attribute war and injustice to a poor environment rather than to human nature, and to counteract such evils with environmental change. AThoreau excepted, utopianism valorizes group life and human perfectibility. It imagines that better societies or social organizations, even if they are antiorganizations, will produce better people,
and that individuals will be happy if society is good and arranged to promote happiness (Kanter 1972, 3334; Walsh 1962, 71). For many of us, such aspects of

utopianism are very appealing. Also appealing is utopianism's capacity to critique existing societies, governments, and cultural mores in compelling ways. Bellamy denounced greed; the Shakers opposed slavery; the Oneidans criticized religious intolerance and
supported religious diversity, even including Judaism (Nordhoff [1875] 1966,270). By the same token, the utopian impulse led many utopian thinkers, especially after

1800, to decry divisive sectarianism and denounce the oppression of women. Many attacked the evils of alcohol consumption, drug and tobacco use, and irresponsible sex. Indeed, through such critiques, utopians have often been ahead of their time. Despite such attractions, however, there are other, more troubling aspects of the utopian impulse-of utopianism as a worldview and an approach to social change-that cannot be ignored. One especially troubling aspect of utopianism is its "present focus," which, as we have seen, is the
underside of its talent for social critique. While resisting the present, utopianism often remains, firmly and paradoxically,

attached to it. The failed promises of many utopian communities to women provide a stunning illustration. Thus, while communities touted sexual equality, they often perpetuated the conventions of their own era in their treatment of actual women, as in the maddening sexual stereotyping in various community newspapers, such as Hopedale's Mammoth and the Fourierist
Phalanx (Kesten 1993, 104-5). Women were typically relegated to domestic work in most communities, despite rhetoric

about shared labor or gender equality.

Utopianism overlooks human complexity, and ignores conflicting problems Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.45-46) Utopianism can also provoke disaster because it depends on models and plans that rarely encompass the complexities of human needs and behavior. When utopian models categorize, divide, and oppose ideas and people to fit their worldview, they inevitably overlook important connections among those same ideas and people. By the same token, when utopian models ignore or rationalize contradictions and conflicts within their views or romanticize their goals, they can miss the problems most in need of solution. For example, the postmodernist "heterotopia" relies upon a vision of balance among diverse ethnic and racial groups that underestimates the hatred, misunderstanding, and deadly competition for scarce resources underlying diversity in American life.

74

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Link: Utopianism
Utopianism controlling nature rejects all opposition rather than recognizing problems
Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.47-48) G Despite utopianism's inability to foresee all consequences, utopian thought may endeavor to predict the future by drawing prescriptive social maps that transform the game of life-with its twists, turns, surprises, and unknowns-into a kind of ritual, whose outcomes can be anticipated and controlled. Ironically, such maps, coupled with the
typical utopian "discourse of perfection," actually become apolitical, in that they reject conflict, as in race relations, and ignore the

processes by which it might be resolved. The utopian desire to control outcomes typically excludes strategies of peaceful opposition and dissent, measured negotiation, and persistent political pressure (Bleich 1989,24; Walsh 1962, 60). Few utopias contain opposition parties, let alone protesters. Indeed, more common in historical or fictional utopian communities is banishment of people who will not or cannot conform to the group. The Shakers, for example, thought
members who criticized by way of life had low motives, and they expected such critics to ve if they could not "gradually work in with us" (Nordhoff [1875] 66, 159).

The Icarians punished transgressions of the "principles, s an,d regulations of the Community" by "public censure, by depation of civil rights, or by the exclusion of the transgressors" (Hinds 73, 73) In general, utopianism assumes that disagreement reflects error of the dissident rather than flaws in the utopian vision.

Utopianism categorizes people, is shortsighted, and appeals only to selfinterest.

Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.50-52) G Among the qualities of utopian thought that limit the scope of feminist theory is its tendency to concretize ideas, to transform ambiguity and contingency into absolutes (Tillich 1966, 306-7). Because of that tendency, utopianism typically creates separate categories for ideas, people, and objects that disregard their connections. Therefore, fanaticism

and fundamentalism are close relatives of utopianism, as they exaggerate utopianism's need for exclusivity. Because one either belongs or
does not belong in utopia, people become overdetermined by the criteria established for membership in or exclusion

from the utopian vision. (Heterotopia would also suffer from this fate: could a modernist or a romantic survive in heterotopia?) To the Shakers, there were

two kinds of people in the world: celibates and generatives. To Jim Jones~ everyone was either a friend or a foe of the Peoples Temple. There were no hybrids, no

critical friends or friendly critics. Having assigned labels, utopian thinkers may never again consider their contingency or arbitrariness. Utopian thinkers may not account for the role of metaphor in label construction or in the terminology of their belief systems. They may mistake the figurative, symbolic quality of language for the literal. In addition, the founding ideas of utopian thought tend to become fixed and to remain unexamined, even if utopists themselves are diligently self-critical about their own adherence to
those founding principles. Thus, as we have seen, few utopian experimenters analyzed the possible unintended consequences of their fundamental worldview. At

Oneida, for example, which was famous for its members' selfcriticism, the community's reproductive system that resulted in "stirpiculture" babies was not subject to critique; the community's male leaders emphasized the presumed genetic benefits of group practices and gave little thought to their effects on the community'S young women. Such habits of utopian thought overlook the causal relationships that exist among all elements of a system and ignore the fact that any changes in a system involve many related changes, often with unintended results (Richards 1980, 33). Without such analysis, the massive social overhauls typical of utopian schemes can become dangerously unpredictable and uncontrollable. That conclusion points to utopianism's sometimes tragic irony: its present focus. Our own assumptions that modern people have surely outgrown that utopian flaw
illustrate it as well as the examples we have seen throughout the history of utopian thought and experimentation. Through the benefits of hindsight we can identify, say,

Charles Lane's blind spot about sex roles in his analysis of Abigail Alcott's excessive workload at Fruitlands. We are less able to see modern utopian pitfalls, however, as in Aaron Betsky's heterotopian vision of Los Angeles. A related flaw is utopianism's appeal to self-interest. Just as my desire for the kitchenless house emerged when I had small children, more women of childbearing age joined the celibate Shaker societies than did men or women of any other JJge group or social circumstance.ll Added to utopianism's present focus, its accommodation of self-interest heightens its potential for parochialism and creates the false impression that analyzing a problem is tantamount to solving it, when, in fact, understanding what is wrong does not automatically reveal what is right (Richards 1980,38).

75

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Link: Utopianism
Utopianism depends on faulty epistemologies, just like astrology
Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.50-52)
Finally, utopianism entails certain epistemological implications through its particular approaches to the acquisition

and validation of knowledge. We shall consider more of these implications in chapter 3. For now, we can note the ways that utopian thought can depend on an epistemological loop, in which ideas build on particular, often insufficiently examined or limited premises. At its most extreme, this problem generates coherentism, a system in which beliefs are justified by their relationship to other held beliefs and knowledge claims rather than by their relationship to evidence or anything that can pass for "truth" (Duran 1991, 13). Although such systems may present an internal logic and may be valid, they can and often do lead to errors and
falsehood. Indeed, coherent systems have no particular relationship to truth, because the premises on which they are based can be either true or false, valid or invalid,

sound or unsound. Our fervent belief in them does not guarantee their validity (ibid., 30-32). When constructed on erroneous premises, coherent conceptual systems can lead to disastrous mistakes. Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a classic

example of an invalid closed conceptual system. Having swallowed the fraudulent tailors' claim that their cloth would be invisible to anyone unintelligent or unsuited

for his or her job, the townspeople, nobles, and king all claimed to be able to see it. That there was no cloth to see was difficult to establish, since no one wished to reveal him- or herself as unsuitable or otherwise unintelligent. Astrology is another example of a closed conceptual system. It depends on an initial faith in the influence of stars and planets on human life, a belief that prevents believers in astrology from noticing how generalized horoscopes are and how adaptable to a wide variety of circumstances.

Utopianism reinforces gender stereotypes

Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.77) Another aspect of the utopian present focus is its unwitting incorporation of prevailing gender stereotypes, and conventions. For example, although startling for its time on soine levels, Gilman's Herland also clearly reflects many nineteenth- and early twentiethcentury conventions, such as "woman's sphere," "feminine nature," and the "eternal feminine." Herlanders'

monosexuality can even be read as a valorization offemale sexlessness, the virtues of which were implicit in late-Victorian sexual
ethics (Bartkowski 1989,26,31). By the same token, romantic turn-of-the-century ideas about domestic womanhood led utopian fiction writer Helen Winslow, in A WVman for Mayor (1909), to abort Mayor Gertrude Van Deusen's political career on account oflove. Gertrude does not seek re-election as mayor because an

appropriate male candidate, her fiance, appears on the scene. Even though Gertrude has previously disparaged a purely intimate, narrowly focused domestic life, the novel suggests that she lives happily ever after because "the loving heart of the woman was to stand alongside the strong desire of the man" (Kolmerten 1994, 118). Another sign of present focus in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century works are representations
of the era's racist and anti-Semitic views, for which modern critics find themselves apologizing.

Genderrolesandcharacteristicsarereinforcedbyutopianism
Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.92-93) G Underlying assumptions that gender or sexuality is always the primary salient feature of every human interaction reflect the utopian propensity to isolate behaviors and characteristics as the foundation of a utopian plan. The Shakers, for example, identified sexual activity and procreation (or the abjuration of same) as the foundation of all human thought, belief, behavior, and
relationships. But imbuing a single act or characteristic with so much importance both distorts its meaning and

obscures the significance of other characteristics. Feminist theory that idealizes or romanticizes identity groups is also implicitly utopian. Not all lesbians are heroic, as Monique Wittig's Les Guerilleres (1969) and certain lesbian separatist doctrines suggest. Not all mothers are infallibly wise, as some feminist utopian novels and certain feminist theories of female gender identity imply. While flattering, such characterizations set the stage for both external resistance to tile hyperbole and internal dissent around unacknowledged diversity within the group.

76

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Utopianism Utopianism kills critical thinking, which is key to feminism Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.112-113)
My resolve to seek post-utopian approaches to feminist thought and theory is reaffirmed when I consider perhaps the most dangerous consequence of

utopianism-its effect on critical thinking. By avoiding counterarguments and ducking hard questions, utopian feminist ought distorts epistemological issues at the very heart of feminist thinking. Clearly, such a consequence is not unique to feminism. Any stem of thought

can be derailed by utopianism; even utopian ought itself (as we have seen). Equally clearly, reality can also disappoint. Realistic plans can produce unintended

consequences and create all kinds of mischief. But utopianism increases the risk of such effects as well as of disappointment, because its beliefs and assumptions discourage many of the safeguards, such as critical thinking, that mitigate such risks. Critical thinking is one of those terms that arouses the utopian hackles of feminist purists. It suggests
capitulation to so-called masculinist values that feminists are supposed to deplore (reason, logic, linear thought) and seems to disparage alleged feminine and/or feminist

approaches to knowledge (intuition, emotion, experience). Yet, that purist urge to distance everything feminist from everything known in patriarchy is utopian at its heart. It assumes that critical thinking must be the opposite of feminist epistemology or women's ways of knowing, a dichotomy that overlooks the interdependence and interconnection of thought and feeling, emotion and reason. In post-utopian analyses, intuition, belief, and opinion are elements of reason, and vice versa. We test our beliefs; we intuit the course of action that we also our way toward. Our passions contain judgments.Without utopian dichotomies, reason and critical thinking serve feminist thought. Even more important, reason and its manipulation, critical thinking, support the ethics of feminism, the moral obligation to construct feminist judgments, opinions, and theory carefully in recognition of their serious consequences for individual lives and for society. Reason is a powerful tool for overcoming stereotypes and prejudice that feminists intend to combat. Perb. most important, critical thinking is our best weapon against fanaticism in ourselves and truth, logic, and reason than to reasoni self. When women are defined as knowing subjects who determine the objects of their own knowing, and when knowledge is self-reflexive and scrutinizes and reveals its own processes, feminists acknowledge that reason can serve feminist purposes (Grosz 1993, 207-9). Wi out utopianism, feminism's compatibility with critical thinking
b comes increasingly apparent. Critical thinking guards against biase unexamined beliefs, inappropriate literalism, and

others. Despite a certain reflex against reason as a patriarchal conce most feminist objections to reason have actually been more 0Ppos to the conventional politics of

other characteristi that prevent "constructive

skepticism" about precepts and foreclose self-reflective evaluation of our own positions (Mullen 1995, 4; PaUl 1990, 136). Utopianism creates gender differences Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.122-123) Recognizing the utopian tendency to exaggerate and misinterpret gender differences makes us better consumers of difference claims. Indeed, careful research often modifies hyperbolic claims about sex differences. For example, in the federal elections of the I990s, the media anticipated a so-called gender gap in which women's vote would turn the tide. Even after the results were in, the gender gap was given credit for election outcomes. Careful reading of the election results, however, unraveled that claim. For the 1994 Congressional election, the National Women's Political
Caucus did find a gender gap that was bigger than in previous elections. But they also found that women were by no means a monolithic voting bloc. In fact, differences

in marital tuS, income, geographical location, and race among voters of both xes were at least as significant for the outcome as-and in some ses many times more significant than-differences between men ld women, where the "gap" was ILl percent (Berke 1995, AIO). Studies of the 1996 election reveal that the gender gap in the vote for the House of Representatives actually shrank between the two electionns, from II percent in 1994 to 9 percent in 1996. Much more ificant in the 1996 House elections was marital status, with a 26 'rcent gap between married and unmarried voters. Also significant the outcome was the fact that there was a decline of ten percentage bints in support for Democratic candidates for the House among lack voters (New York Times 1996, BS). Utopianism creeps into analyses of gender difference when sex beomes a metaphor for difference, as in Shaker Elder Frederick Evans's roclamation about gendered
Creation at the beginning of this segent of chapter 4. That is when assumptions too easily replace observation. We forget to ask what the differences really signify. Are

they ean differences? What is the range and overlap of distributions? What is the setting in which the differences are observed, a factor that dearly determines the size and direction of gender differences in behavior and attitudes? We forget to distinguish between stereotypes and actual or observable differences. We are subject to preconceptions about the complementarity or opposition of the sexes (Hare-Mustin and
Marecek 1988, 456).

77

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: Utopianism Utopian thinking leads to gender binaries Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.188-189) Utopianism encourages dualistic thinking about sex and gender, predicating theories and actions on assumed
(rather than observed) differences in behavior or character resulting from physical or reproductive differences between

women and men. It encourages us to posit difference a priori and to overlook connections and commonalities between the sexes. Often feminist utopian thinking about gender difference leads to the idealization of femaleness, especially in conjunction with motherhood
or sexuality. Utopianism in this discourse often leads to problem reversal as a substitute for problem solution by transforming traditional sources of women's

subordination and degradation into sources of their value and superiority. Another consequence of utopian thinking about gender difference is the formation of dichotomized theoretical perspectives. Thus, difference feminism is pitted against gender feminism) categories
represented respectively by the Irigaray and Connell quotations that open this segment of chapter 6. Difference feminists recognize and celebrate an essential female

subject; they wish to empower woman in her female specificity, to take the material basis of female reproduction as the foundation of woman herself. Luce lrigaray's identification with this position is rooted in psychoanalytic theory. Like others in that tradition, she considers female physiological and (repressed) psychological characteristics a unique female "essence" (or complex of "essences") that translates into a unique female identity. Irigaray has described women's genitals as "two lips that speak together" and contrasted that multiplicity with the unitary phallus, whose hegemonic cultural power has abrogated everything feminine because of the difference. By creating a new sexual economy, difference feminists like Irigaray intend prevent that erasure of the feminine (Fuss 1989, 108). Variations on reference feminist theories include such historical categories as cultural feminism and radical feminism) both of which
have celebrated female sexuality and/or reproductive physiology as the basis of a unique male sexual character or even a superior gender identity.

Utopianism is created in rhetoric, something that feminism solves

Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.218-219)
Utopian critics might, at this point, feel that I have set myself a They have undoubtedly noticed my evocation of linguistic constitution in the pursuit of realism, despite

my having associated that co cept with utopianism. To an extent, they would be justified in glowing. I have indeed identified linguistic reform as a realistic force. I have also observed that language creates misperceptions of gender, race sexuality, and other

identity categories and have defined language as a means of reformulating such identities in realistic feminist thee In addition, I have focused on modes of representation as constituti elements of race, class, and gender-as well as their complex intersections-in American society. I have also supported new rhetoric practices, such as metaphorical restraint and the
interrogation of experience as a discursive construction. Finally, I have used an essentially linguistic metaphortranslatability-to establish

continuities among cultures and groups of women. Such critics would be wrong, however, to conclude that my recognition of language as a key player in the construction of realistic feminist theory is necessarily utopian. Utopianism enters the picture when all agents of both social construction and social change are reduced to language or when change is envisioned as only or primarily a function of resignification or when the newly signified world is as ... summed to be free
of oppressive structures, constitutive conventions.

78

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Link: War/Solving War The affirmatives appeal to war that is tempered by a brief respite of the plan relies on a myth of unity that is false; this imaginary all-powerful standpoint relies on masculine tropes of both unity and dualisms that must be subdued. Haraway 91 (Donna J., Distinguished Professor Emerita in the History of Consciousness Department at UC Santa Cruz, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, The Reinventing of Nature) This is not just literary deconstruction, but liminal transformation. Every story that begins with original innocence and privileges the return to wholeness imagines the drama of life to be individuation, separation, the birth of the self, the tragedy of autonomy, the fall into writing, alienation; that is, war, tempered by imaginary respite in the bosom of the Other. These plots are ruled by a reproductive politics - rebirth without flaw, perfection, abstraction. In this plot women are imagined either better or worse off, but all agree they have less selfhood, weaker individuation, more fusion to the oral, to Mother, less at stake in masculine autonomy. But there is another route to having less at stake in masculine autonomy, a route that does not pass through Woman, Primitive, Zero, the Mirror Stage and its imaginary. It passes through women and other present-tense, illegitimate cyborgs, not of Woman born, who refuse the ideological resources of victimization so as to have a real life. These cyborgs are the people who refuse to
disappear on cue, no matter how many times a 'Western' commentator remarks on the sad passing of another primitive, another organic group done in by 'Western'

technology, by writing.28 These real-life cyborgs (for example, the Southeast Asian village women workers in Japanese and US electronics firms described by Aihwa Ong) are actively rewriting the texts of their bodies and societies. Survival is the stakes in this play of readings. To recapitulate, certain dualisms have been persistent in Western traditions; they have all been systemic to the logics and practices of domination of women, people of colour, nature, workers, animals in short, domination of all constituted as others, whose task is to mirror the self. ( Chief among these troubling dualisms are self/other, mindlbody, culture/nature,
male/female, civilized/primitive, reality/appearance, whole/part, agent/resource, maker/ made, active/passive, right/wrong, truth/illusion, total/partial, God/man. The

self is the One who is not dominated, who knows that by the service of the other, the other is the one who holds the future, who knows that by the experience of domination, which gives the lie to the autonomy of the self. To be One is to be autonomous, to be powerful, to be God; but to be One is to be an illusion, and so to be involved in a dialectic of apocalypse with the

other. Yet to be other is to be multiple, without clear boundary, frayed, insubstantial. One is too few, but two are too many.

79

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Impact Turns Economy Understanding the economy is inseparable from challenging oppressive gender relations the financial crisis demonstrates the perils of ignoring gender in economics Runyan and Marchand [Anne Sisson, director of women's studies and associate professor of political science at
Wright State University, and Marianne,

Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam Gender and (post?) financial crisis, in Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites and Resistances By Marian Marchand, pp. 245-8] Taking this a step further, we can see that the financial world is replete with gendered constructions, in particular related to risk-

taking in financial markets. For instance, in Marieke de Goede's analysis of the Asian financial crisis of 1997, she argues that international finance is a discursive practice which has evolved over centuries. While "ladies" were not supposed to know anything about political economy in days gone
by, "Lady Credit," satirically invoked at the dawn of the rise of finance credit in the seventeenth century in Britain to pay for war and underpinning the break from feudal relations that ushered in commercial relations, represented the "female inconstant" of credit that must be "mastered" to

maintain the kind of trust necessary for finance capital transactions (de Goede 2000: 62). Scrupulous and scientific bookkeeping and

accounting methods were extolled as "moral technologies" that not only would keep the financier true to himself, but also would keep Lady Credit's virtue, which would

otherwise be sullied by profligate desires for wealth that Lady Credit tempts (de Goede 2000: 67-9). As Marieke de Goede's analysis of the workings of the ideology of Lady Credit in the Asian financial crisis shows, it was assumed by Western economists that all that was needed was a re-injection of
restraint to control excesses (blamed, in Orientalist fashion, on the feminized weaknesses of Asian economies) in order to restore
financial authority (2000: 74). This resort to "technical rationality which makes possible a particular mode of governance"

precludes the questioning of financial authority itself and the "value and validity" it places on "international debt and other

financial instruments" (de Goede 2000: 72). Maintaining the financial authority of "homo creditus" requires constant performance as ... the mastery of Lady
Credit is never complete and financial man is never safe from her temptations and the internal desires and weaknesses she generates in him. This discursive tension

becomes most apparent in times of financial crises when the integrity of the system needs to be reaffirmed by the retroactive identification of financial irregularities. (de Goede 2000: 75) We have seen this time-worn performativity of homo creditus to attempt to restore faith in the financial
system once again in the wake of US-centered financial crisis of 2008 and beyond. which occurred not in the (semi-) periphery but in the core
of the financial world. But the fact that even in mainstream media the current financial and economic crises were early on being

tied to masculine failings suggests that homo creditus would not be so easily redeemed this time. As we pointed out in the
introduction to this volume, a study by two academics from the University of Cambridge links levels of testosterone and cortisol in financial traders to risk taking and

market volatility (Coates and Herbert 2008). This led some newspaper editorialists

to suggest that Wall Street would be better off if run by women who would restore Lady Credit's virtue (Dobrzynski 2008: Bennhof 2009: Kristof 2009). But as Birgitte Young and Helene Schuberth (2010:2) have documented, in the time since the onset of this crisis, women remain highly underrepresented in the financial sector in the West, accounting, for example, for only 7 percent of the
boards of directors of banks in the European Union (EU) and constituting only 10 percent of mutual fund managers in the US with relatively small portfolios.

Interestingly, those hedge funds managed by women dropped far less (9.6%) than those managed by men (19%) at the height of the crisis in part because more men
Schuberth 2010: 2). Women have been also virtually absent on the G20 expert committees set up to propose regulatory reforms in the wake of the crisis, although Iceland appointed women to manage its new state-controlled banking industry (Young and Schuberth 2010: 2. 8). But as Young and

trade more and more often which sets up a "groupthink- that encourages greater risk based on less information (Young and

Schuberth argue, women themselves will not make much of a difference unless both gender norms and financial norms are deeply challenged. The association of
women (and other "others") with Lady Credit as "unscientific. subjective, and irrational" (Young and Schuberth 2010: 3) makes them unsuitable for the financial sector which claims to operate according to the "moral technologies" of scientific, objective,

and rational rules. Yet, while this association is being used to exclude women from international finance, the opposite is true in the realm of microcredit where women are the preferred subjects for receiving
small loans because of their better management of household and micro-enterprise budgets, as exemplified by the activities and priorities of the Grameen Bank. So while international finance is being constructed as a

masculine field where women and "Lady Credit" should be excluded, micro-credit is seen as a virtually exclusive realm for poor women. Financial norms and rules never raise
income inequality" (Young and Schuberth 2010: 3). Such rules also do not acknowledge the gendered nature of finance capital nor its

questions of "who benefits, and why, and what might be a more human financial alternative that aims at generating high levels of employment and reduces gendered costs, especially when it is in crisis-mode. As Young and Schuberth delineate, as finance capital shills income to shareholders, full-time formal work has been constantly
deteriorating over the last two to three decades, consigning women, ethnic minorities, and migrants mostly to part-time, flexibilized labor; financial risk has been shifted to households saddled with more and more debt, as in

the case with the sub-prime meltdown; and the financial industry has been exerting more and more pressure on governments to reduce social welfare and public works spending (2010: 3-4). The impact of the crisis has taken these trends to further extremities. In the West, men have lost the most jobs (due to their concentrations in building, manufacturing, and finance), but women are losing too in terms of lower wages, rising job losses in retail, health, and education, government cuts in social services, and loss of family benefits provided by men's jobs (Young and Schuberth 2010: 5-6). In Central and Eastern European countries, where women en masse lost much state-supported employment and men benefited more from the "transition" to capitalism, the crisis has further deepened unemployment for women. By October 2009, the female unemployment rate was higher than the male unemployment rate in the Czech Republic. Poland, Romania and Slovakia'' while the female share of employment continued to drop in Eastern Europe generally from the 1990s onward (Young and Schuberth 2010: 7). In many parts of the Global South. where the crisis has generated dramatic declines in exports, tourism, foreign investment, and remittances, female workers

concentrated in agriculture, tourism, and export-processing industries are bearing the brunt of these declines, with 22 million more women becoming unemployed in 2009 in the Least Developed countries (Young and Schuberth 2010: 7). Foreign aid for and government spending on health and welfare has also decreased. Women dependent on remittances from migrant family members saw them drop by "$305 billion in 2008, which corresponds to almost three-times the $104 billion from the world's combined foreign-aid budget" (Young and Schuberth 2010: 8). Finally, gender. race, and ethnic discrimination always grow in times of financial crisis. Such discrimination is also built into the
performance of "recovery." Unconditional bank bailouts went largely to elite men who dominate the industry, and public funds
funneled to them have translated into even greater pressures to reduce public welfare spending for the rest of us. Stimulus funding in the West (which is less available in much of the Global South) was heavily earmarked for physical infrastructure projects that privilege male employment,

despite the fact that even "from an efficiency standpoint, investment in social infrastructure (pro-poor growth. early-childhood

development. home-based care projects) has a greater impact on direct job creation programs than does investment in physical infrastructure" (Young and Schuberth 2010: 9).

80

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Impact: Environment Space creates a disengaged view of Earth and environmental negligence. Liftin 97 (Karen, U. of Wash., Dept. of Poli-Sci, Ph.D @ UCLA, A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites,
Frontiers: A Journal of Women

Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, Intersections of Feminisms and Environmentalisms, pp. 2647. University of Nebraska Press)
With respect to issues of objectivity, one striking aspect of remote sensing of the environment is indeed its very remoteness. In a sense, satellite-generated

photographs of the earth represent the ultimate subject/object dichotomy. Space tech-nology offers the tantalizing prospect of being able to leave the earth in order to get a better viewthe ultimate Archimedean vantage point. Rather than being embedded participants in the reality depicted, Earth system scientists become disengaged observers of that reality.23Thus, according to the celebratory dis-course, remote sensing is "building a valid picture of the earth for the first time.24 Presumably this picture is "valid" because it is drawn from huge quantities of objective, remotely acquired information. It is a picture that privileges knowledge derived from abstract science over knowledge derived from lived experience. The main elements of a spaceborne remote sensing system are "spacecraft, instruments, and data
elements that modeling/systems engineering,

processing,"25 give primacy to an expert structure comprised primarily of white men in affluent societies. To the question, "Who shall be designated as reliable environmental narrators?"Earth system science answers, "Scientists with professional credentials in physics, chemistry, and computer sciences-particularly those whose work is most distant from the everyday lived experience of poor people and most women." Whenever quantifiability monopolizes the mantle of legitimacy, qualititative values are given short
shrift, so that even if satellite data are supplemented with "ground truth," the privileging of abstract decontextualized data is likely to de-value other approaches to

knowledge.rsb26 In particular, as a male-dominated activity, it may reinforce the division of labor that Joni Seager suggests permeates environmental politics: Women care about the environment and men think about it. 27A strong feminist position need not valorize caring as the only viable activity, but can rather insist that environmental preservation requires both men and women to become caring and thinking. The science and technology
of satellite monitoring of the global environment also fail the test from another when countries neutrality perspective, developing are taken into account. Not only

is the "remoteness" of remotely sensed data emblematic of a masculinist bias, it also exemplifies the schism between the rich and the poor. The multicolor renditions of satellite images, which can only be deciphered by experts with access to specialized equipment, illustrate the cultural and

socioeconomic gap between the scientists who produce them and the lived experience of most of the world's people. The fact that satellite data must be converted to visual images, a task that requires highly sophisticated imaging technologies, also illustrates the difference in how experience of the world is gained by scientists in contrast to most people. Given the historical record, it is not at all certain that those images and data will serve the interests of those whose material survival is continually in jeopardy.

81

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Impact NVTL And, adherence to scientific and economic calculations guarantees extinction and destroys value to life Nhanenge 7 [Jytte Masters @ U South Africa, paper submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
master of arts in the subject Development

Studies, ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT] Ekins (1992: 202) has arrived at a similar conclusion. He finds that science is the most dangerous manifestation of the Western world-view. Being founded on a mechanistic, reductionist, atomistic and antiecological perception of reality, it has been used to dominate people and nature, which has led to the above crises. Science is an inadequate knowledge system, because it cannot deal with wholes, relationships, living organisms, human consciousness and meaning - all of which are part of our reality. Being
in this way limited, science cannot help us to create well-functioning societies. Furthermore, since development is a scientific project, also development is based on domination. The idea with development was to modernise and industrialise Southern societies by economic growth and consumerism.

But due to the scientific focus on monetary and quantitative values development overlooked other values that matter to people and it consequently destroyed the quality of life for women, Others and nature. The scientifically based state
system was an accomplice in this. In the modern world-view, the government is the ultimate legitimate form of political authority. It therefore exercises absolute

power over the lives of its people, its natural environments and determines the rules that make economic development possible. This has been disastrous for hundreds of millions of people. Governments have ruthlessly enforced upon them the dominant development model. They have wasted resources on arms, prestige projects and their own luxury life styles. They have generated wars and
repressed their own citizens. They have been laying waste natural resources meant for people's subsistence. Hence, science, development and the state has been a cruel

deception for people in the South. Its perceptions have brought humanity to the brink of war, repression, poverty and environmental collapse of a potentially terminal nature. (Ekins 1992: 203-207). Impact: Space war

Because of masculine domination space will be the next battlefield

MacDonald 07 (Fraser, Lecturer of Geography at the University of Edinburgh, Anti-Astropolitik outer space and the
orbit of geography

www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/rmg/geography/papers/anti-outerspace.pdf) ) The most striking aspect of the sociality of outer space is the extent to which it is, and always has been, thoroughly militarized. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty banned nuclear weapons in space, on the moon or on other celestial bodies, and contained a directive to use outer space for peaceful purposes. But its attempt to prohibit the
weaponizing of space was always interpreted in the loosest possible manner. The signatories to the OST in Washington, London and

Moscow were in no doubt that space exploration was primarily about military strategy; that the ability to send a rocket into space was conspicuous evidence of the ability to dispatch a nuclear device to the other side of the world. This association remains strong, as the concern over Irans space programme (with its Shahab family of medium range missiles and satellite launch vehicles)
makes clear. Several commentators in strategic affairs have noted the expanding geography of war from the two

dimensions of land and sea to the air warfare of the twentieth century and more recently to the new strategic challenges of outer space and cyberspace (see, for instance, Gray, 2005: 154). These latter dimensions are not separate from the battle-field but rather they fully support the traditional military objectives of killing people and destroying infrastructure. Space itself may hold few human targets but the capture or disruption of satellites could have farreaching consequences for life on the ground. Strictly speaking, we have not yet seen warfare in space, or even from space, but the advent of such a conflict does appear closer.

82

UTNIF 2011 Gender K IMPACT: Structural Violence and War

Masculinist ideologies result in ever-increasing structural violence and warfare.

PETERSON, professor of political science at the University of Arizona, and RUNYAN, associate professor of political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993(V Spike and Anne, Global Gender Issues, p 36) A willingness to engage in violence is built into our constructions of masculinity and is exacerbated by militarization-the extension of military practices into civilian life. And to the extent that we define national security as the defense and protection of sovereignty, militarization becomes hard to avoid. Believing that peace requires preparation
for war, we

become locked into arms races and other self-perpetuating cycles; These involve sacrificing social welfare objectives in favor of
defense spending and training young people-men and women-to risk lives and practice violence in the name of putatively higher objectives. There are no

simple formulas for determining appropriate trade-offs between "butter" and "guns," and we are not suggesting that security concerns are illusory or easily resolved. But in a climate of militarization, we must be careful to assess the ostensible gains from encouraging violence because the actual costs are very great. Moreover, the construction of security in military terms-understood as direct violence-often masks the systemic insecurity of indirect or structural violence,17 The latter refers to reduced life expectancy as a
consequence of oppressive political and

economic structures (e.g., greater infant mortality among poor women who are denied access to health-care services). Structural violence especially affects the lives of women and other subordinated groups. When we ignore this fact we ignore the security of the majority of the planet's occupants. Finally, because violence is gendered, militarization has a reciprocal relationship to masculinist ideologies: The macho effects of military activities, the objectifying effects of military technologies, and the violent effects of military spending interact, escalating not only arms races but also sexual violence.

IMPACT: War The quest for space represents the desire to dominate bodies in high tech warfare.

HARAWAY, professor in the History of Consciousness program at UC- Santa Cruz, 1992 (Donna, THe Promises of
Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for

Inappropriate/d Others, Cultural Studies eds. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A Treichler, p 321) The limitless reaches of outer space, joined to Cold War and post-Cold War nuclear technoscience, seem vastly distant from their negation, the enclosed and dark regions of the inside of the human body, domain of the apparatuses of biomedical visualization. But these two quadrants of our semiotic square are multiply tied together in technoscience's heterogeneous apparatuses of bodily production. As Sarah Franklin noted, "The two new investment frontiers, outer space and inner space, vie for the futures market." In this "futures market," two entities are especially interesting for this essay: the fetus and the immune system, both of which are embroiled in determinations of what may count as nature and as human, as separate natural object and as juridical subject.
We have already looked briefly at some of the matrices of discourse about the fetus in the discussion of earth (who speaks for the fetus?) and outer space (the planet

floating free as cosmic germ). Here, I will concentrate on contestations for what counts as a self and an actor in contemporary immune system discourse. The equation of Outer Space and Inner Space, and of their conjoined discourses of extraterrestrialism, ultimate frontiers, and high technology war, is literal in the official history celebrating 100 years of the National Geographic Society (Bryan, 1987). The chapter that recounts the magazine's coverage of the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Mariner voyages is called "Space"

and introduced with the epigraph, "The Choice Is the Universe-or Nothing." The final chapter, full of stunning biomedical images, is titled "Inner Space" and introduced

with the epigraph, "The Stuff of the Stars Has Come Alive."44 The photography convinces the viewer of the fraternal relation of inner and outer space. But, curiously, in outer space, we see spacemen fitted into explorer craft or floating about as individuated cosmic fetuses, while in the supposed earthy space of our own interiors, we see nonhumanoid strangers who are the means by which our bodies sustain our integrity and individuality, indeed our humanity in the face of a world of others. We seem invaded not just by the threatening "non-selves" that the immune system guards against, but more fundamentally by our own strange parts.

83

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Impact: War The reliance on techno-science and scenario planning results in the apparatuses necessary for mass war. Haraway 97 (Donna, Ph.D from Yale, Distinguished Professor Emerita in the University of California, Taught Womens
Studies at the University of Hawaii and

Johns Hopkins University. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse. Pgs. 12-13) Temporalities intertwine with particular spatial modalities, and cyborg spatialization seems to be less about "the universal" than "the global." The globalization of the world, of "planet Earth," is a semiotic-material production of some forms of life rather than others. Technoscience is the story of such globalization; it is the travelogue of distributed, heterogeneous, linked, socio technical circulations that craft the world as a net called the global. The
cyborg life forms that inhabit the recently congealed planet Earththe "whole earth" of eco-activists and green commodity catalogsgestated in a historically specific

technoscientific womb. Consider, for example, only four horns of this multilobed reproductive wormhole: 1/ The apparatuses of twentieth-century military conflicts, embedded in repeated world wars; decades of cold war; nuclear weapons and their institutional matrix in strategic planning, endless scenario production, and simulations in think tanks such as RAND;
the immune systemlike networking strategies for postcolonial global control inscribed in low-intensity-conflict doctrines; and post-Cold War, simultaneous-multiple-

war-fighting strategies depending on rapid massive deployment, concentrated control of information and communications, and high-intensity, subnuclear precision weapons (Helsel 1993; Gray 1991; Edwards 1995) 2 The apparatuses of hypercapitalist market traffic and flexible accumulation strategies, all relying on stunning speeds and powers of manipulation of scale, especially miniaturization, which characterize the paradigmatic "high-technology" transnational corporations

Impact: Warming

This leads to warming

Liftin 97 (Karen, U. of Wash., Dept. of Poli-Sci, Ph.D @ UCLA, A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites,
Frontiers: A Journal of Women

Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, Intersections of Feminisms and Environmentalisms, pp. 2647. University of Nebraska Press)
Consider the controversy over measurements of greenhouse emissions, in-formation that would appear to be derivable through objective means. During

negotiations for an international climate change convention leading up to the Earth Summit in 1992, the World

Resources Institute (WRI), a U.S.-based environmental nongovernmental organization, published its countryby-country estimates of greenhouse gas emissions. Without any attempt to frame its data in terms of emissions per capita, WRI concluded that India, China, and Brazil are among the top five countries responsible for global warming.28In a rare instance of a challenge to Western science emanating from a developing country, two scientists from the Center for Science and Environment (CSE) in New Delhi argued that both the WRI figures and conclusions were wrong. Starting with the premise that "there is no reason to believe that any human being in any part of the world is more or less important than another,"they ask: "Can we really equate the carbon dioxide contributions of gasguzzling automobiles in Europe and North America (or, for that matter, anywhere in the Third World) with the methan emissions of water buffalo and rice fields of subsistence farmers in West Bengal or Thailand?"29The WRI-CSE controversy was not merely scientific; it reflected deep dissension over moral and political responsibility. As subsequent commen-tators noted, the WRI study implicitly "recycledan old scare tactic: What if the poor rise to the average level of per capita greenhouse gas emissions as the rich?"30 Without explicitly focusing on this issue, the CSE report attempted to shift the blame for global warming from population to consumption. While developing countries rarely
contest the neutrality of Western science, we can expect such controversies to become more common if research agendas and

environmental data continue to be dominated by industrialized countries.

84

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Impact Calculus: Ethics/Oppression Oppression is immoral even when it doesn't cause harm Cuomo 98 (Chris J., Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Feminism and Ecological Communities:
An Ethic of Flourishing, pg 32)

Oppression is more than harm, and though oppression is often painful, it is morally problematic for reasons not accommodated by a utilitarian perspective that is concerned only with pleasure and suffering, or perceived utility. In other words, oppression is unethical even when it does not cause pain and even when it could be said to cause some pleasure. A system that creates happy slaves is unacceptable from an anti-oppressive perspective. So
what is oppression if it is not merely a form of pain, or obvious harm? One dictionary defines the verb to oppress as to keep down by the cruel or unjust use of power or

authority; to crush; to trample down; to overpower (Websters New World 1994). The concept of keeping something down, is more subtle, more deep and comprehensive than pain and suffering. Iris Young defines oppression as consisting in: "Systematic institutional
processes which prevent some people from learning and using satisfying and expansive skills in socially recognized settings, or institutionalized social processes which

inhibit peoples ability to play and communicate with others or to express their feelings and perspectives on social life in contexts where others can listen. While the social conditions of oppression often include material deprivation and maldistribution, they also involve issues beyond distribution." (1990: 38) Her list of five faces of oppression exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence describe some of the correlates of oppression, or tools of subjugation that coexist with and enforce oppression. Another correlate is domination, which Mark
Blasius defines in Gay and Lesbian Politics: Sexuality and the Emergence of a New Ethic as an expression of power that allows the actions of one to elicit and guide or

command the actions of another with a high degree of certainty (1994: 21). In an early essay that set out to define and describe womens oppression in ways not effectively captured by Marxism, Marilyn Frye suggests that oppression entails molding or immobilizing the oppressed by reducing their options in the world
(Frye 1983). Using a metaphor of particular interest to ecofeminists, she characterized the position of oppressed women as being like

entrapment in a birdcage. A system of many individual wires limits the freedom of a bird in a cage, although each wire in and of itself hardly appears to be an impediment to movement. When options are greatly reduced by diffuse causes
that are historically, economically, and psychologically entrenched, pain might not be the best indicator of when we have been

immobilized or compromised. A stunningly pernicious aspect of oppression is how it can effectively create desires in the oppressed that are not in their
own interest, including, for example, women who want to be with men who seriously, physically threaten their lives.

85

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Consciousness Naming difference is a difficult, but necessary element to reorient our political ontologies. PUWAR, senior lecturer at the University of London, 2004 (Nirmal, Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of
Place, 153-4)

Ontological denial of embodiment is implicit to ontological complicity. It is a part of the game. In order to shift the centrifugal place of masculinity and whiteness in institutional structures and practices, as well as the symbolic imagination of authority, the central place of whiteness and masculinity needs to be named and problematised. Naming, however, can prove to be extremely difficult when institutions disavow cultural and
corporeal specificity. Professional

institutional liberal narratives have a propensity to deny the invisible centre. The levels of the denial are quite specific to each
institution. For instance, the masculinist bias of the House of Commons is much more readily voiced than the masculinist nature of the senior civil service, and the

gendered nature of both of these institutions is more likely to be recognised than their racial character. The condition of colour-blindness is much more extensive than gender- blindness. There is a huge amount of resistance within the professions to making the gendered and racial nature of these environments visible. There is a reluctance to face up to how different staff are afforded the advantages of ontological complicity. The debate between those who emphasise difference and those who stress sameness is at the centre of all struggles to acknowledge the embodied nature of social relations and institutions. The contours of this dispute are repeatedly circulated in debates on the saliency of embodiment and the prematurely imagined community of human sameness. It is extremely difficult to get recognition of the fact that the norm is based on a one-dimensional man and that universal standards are based on a specific culture, when professions think of themselves as being neutral, meritocratic and objective. This representation is deeply ingrained. There is a hegemonic discourse which propounds that all people are plainly treated as individuals. A disavowal of embodiment makes it very difficult for those who are situated as different from the centre to actually name their difference. Admitting difference in an organisation which asserts that everybody is the same and that standards are neutral is more than a troublesome task. After all, it goes against a core
identity of being a professional. The difficulty is illustrated by the way in which one of the women in the senior civil service spoke about the experience of women

coming together in her department as a group as being a bit like genies coming out. There is a certain amount of trepidation and anxiety attached to coming out

visibly as women. Alt: Consciousness

Even if the negative does not un-do all of patriarchy, merely suggesting that space travel is
constituted by masculinity advances the feminist project and destabilizes naturalized gender relations Wajcman, 2000(Judy, Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies: In what State is the Art? Social Studies of Science 30, DOI: 10.1177/030631200030003005) John Glenn's return visit to outer space on 7 November 1998 served as a reminder that the conquest of space through technology has remained a predominantly male enterprise. Yet, in 1960, 13 women
pilots were judged to be NASA's

top astronauts - better than the Mercury Seven male astronauts who were later immortalized in print and on film. The women pilots, who stayed on the ground, were judged as more suitable than the men for space travel: for example, they required less oxygen per minute and had a much higher tolerance to sensory deprivation. However, within a few months of passing all the medical and scientific tests, the women were told they would not be part of the space race. They were the right stuff, but the wrong sex. This story of the forgotten women astronauts may be seen as part of the feminist project to uncover and recover women 'hidden from history'. It also graphically illustrates that there is nothing natural or inevitable about the ways in which technology is identified as masculine, and masculinity is defined in terms of technical competence. History might have been otherwise. If a woman, rather than a man, had been the first American in space, the masculine culture of technology might have been disrupted, or at least destabilized.

86

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Consciousness Disrupting hegemonic fantasies is crucial to creating a feminist politics. PUWAR, senior lecturer at the University of London, 2004 (Nirmal, Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of
Place, 17)

Irigaray argues that fantasies of the capacities of public man are reflected all around him, in language, in laws, in dwellings and in emotions. Each of these work together to form what she refers to as a palace of mirrors (1985a: 137). She
adds that the mirrors are flat, and that the flat mirror privileges the relation of man to his fellow man (1985b: 154). Viewing Churchills scene from this perspective, it is possible to argue that he was literally surrounded by halls of mirrors in Westminster, where hand-painted, soft-

focused portraits of the great and the good (men), in grand gold-embossed frames, flank the walls. These images tower over corridors of power where the male simulacrum is repeated back to itself, as confirmation of who men are and what they are. The coherence of the mirrors is assured so long as they remain uninterrupted (Irigaray 1985b: 75). In Churchills encounter they became interrupted by the presence of a female body in this masculine domain (House). The interruption induced a mild case of ontological anxiety. An ontological disruption of the subject questions what the subject is. The whole basis of an identity which had relied on a border is placed at stake when the boundaries do not obey the slicing of mind/body,
man/woman. With the body coded as female per se, womens bodies represent foreign matter that threatens to

contaminate the realm of serene, clean thought. The fear of fusion, of the boundaries bleeding into each other, drains ideal political man (in this case Churchill) of the strength he derives from the separation. The invisibility of the disembodied male body becomes visible, as he in this fleeting moment is deprived of his armour of culture and reason and stands naked with, as he puts it, nothing with which to defend myself. In the normal state of
play, the subject is invisible to himself as he looks out from his palace of mirrors and contemplates the world (Irigaray 1985a: 21213). Now, for Churchill, his

contemplation is re- duced to that most private of places, the bathroom, used as a simile for the House of Commons. Although he has seen reflections of himself in the mirrors, symbolic and literal, all around him, the corporeality of the male form has been denied in fantastic projections. In this encounter, what he refers to as an intrusion has laid his body bare. In a moment of
disorientation, Churchill alerts us to the pyschosomatic dimensions of public masculinity. The demarcation of an inside/outside around the body, of the body as a

territory with a line drawn around it (Irigaray 1992: 17), is for a remote second turned upside down by the movement of the outside into the inside. The bounded and tight skin that is assigned to him, who has made the House his and has positioned her outside it, is threatened by an intimate proximity, whose elasticity exceeds the defining limits of body/space to the point of engulfing them. If it is our positioning

within space, both as the point of perspectival access to space, and also an object for others in space, that gives the subject a coherent identity and ability to manipulate things, including its own body parts, in space (Grosz 1995: 92), could it be that Churchills positioning of himself in the public
sphere and its (disembodied) bodily characterisations in relation to the private was momentarily toppled? The traditional sources of his historical and conceptual schema

entered the category of being at risk. Hence he is disorientated. The work of the artist Anish Kapoor can be particularly fruitful for thinking about this encounter.

We must make the female body present to trouble current configurations of gender blindness. PUWAR, senior lecturer at the University of London, 2004 (Nirmal, Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of
Place, 14)

The fragility of the masculine claim to public space and most specifically the body politic is disturbed by the arrival of the abject. That is, the advent of what the place of rationality, reason, culture and debate has sought to take transcendence from the feminine (nature, emotion and the bodily) incites a sense of unease. The stability of the identity of the body politic is constituted through a series of oppositional binaries (borders) which define it in contra- distinction to the feminine/private and all that it is beheld as representing. Historically the
political/public realm has been constructed through the exclusion of women and all that we symbolize (Pateman 1995: 52). Thus the presence of the

feminine as a bodily entity disrupts the partition between the private and the public even if it does not render it altogether invalid. As the ways we live in space affect our corporeal alignments, comportment, and orientations (Grosz 1999: 385), a female body in a male dwelling, as the abject (Kristeva 1980), threatens corporeal and psychic boundaries and, in the case
before us, brings on a state of disorientation. Churchill speaks of the arrival of a woman in a male space as an intrusion of a

bodily kind. He feels naked, somehow exposed and vulnerable. His body is revealed as being important to how he orients himself, and yet the body is denied in somatophobic political discourse. Even though metaphors of the body have served to naturalise political forms, the universal political individual is declared to be disembodied. Neutrality and transcendence of the bodily by the mind are what are declared as the norm. Discussions of the political realm, radical or conservative, imagine an image of the polity [which] is anthropomorphic (Gatens 1996: 23). The sexual subtext is not mentioned in the mass of malestream political theory. Gender-blindness has been the orthodoxy in political theory, even in radical critiques of liberal democracy. 87

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Consciousness: Solves Gendered Language Education eradicates sexism -- when people are made aware of gendered language, they change it Chew 07 (Pat K. Chew, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh, and Lauren K. Kelley-Chew, candidate for B.S.,
Stanford University. "Subtly sexist

language", Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, Vol. 16, pg 643 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1285570) The legal community's shift from its use of reasonable man to reasonable person offers at least two lessons. First, raising the legal community's consciousness and knowledge about other male-gendered words being sexist is essential. In the Swim study on the
detection and use of sexist language described above, n104 for instance, the researchers confirmed the striking effect of education on

subjects' sensitivity to subtly sexist language. Study participants who were given definitions and specific examples of discriminatory language were almost three times better at detecting it. n105 Moreover, both individuals who
agreed and disagreed with modern sexist beliefs benefited equally from the education, n106 suggesting that even those who are progressive about

gender issues do not necessarily realize what constitutes sexist language and can profit from more [*675] instruction. Thus, while there are numerous resources on nonsexist language, n107 they need to be better utilized. Alt: Cyberspace

We should reject the notion of space as a liberating frontier in favor of cyber-space.

Wajcman 4 (Judy. Head of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, formerly a Professor of
Sociology at ANU, Visiting Professor

at the Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business and the Oxford Internet Institute, Also a Professor in the Gender Institute at London School of Economics and Political Science. TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 56-57)
For the second half of the twentieth century, dreams of freedom have been associated with space travel. Here was the

contemporary equivalent of man's historic quest to conquer nature. Drawing on earlier Western colonial narratives about discovering the New Worlds, NASA named its fleet of space shuttles after pioneering sea vessels: Columbia, Discovery, Atlantis, Endeavour, Challenger. These space explorations were imbued with the adventure and romance of earlier
maritime voyages. However, inter-

galactic travel was also about escaping earthly space and time, and drew on the iconography of science fiction from Star Trek to Star Wars to promote the Utopian potential of science. Defying gravity and floating weightless in space, the body
was in orbit. The image of the Earth as seen from space has come to represent our greatest scientific achievement,

that of sending a man to the Moon. And from the perspective of space, Earth itself appears as a small vessel carrying its human population of space travellers. Today, space travel seems stalled. Astronauts and cosmonauts are modernist heroes in a narrative that was in part the product of Cold War competition between superpowers that no longer holds. Cyberspace, virtual reality and the Internet have taken over as the new frontiers for exploration and transcendence. They provide an opportunity on Earth to experience the romance of space, of seemingly infinite possibilities. Unlike real space travel, cyberspace is open to the many. While the dream of new
communities in outer space remains remote, cyberspace has been quickly populated by disembodied settlers. Progress is still defined by

technological enterprises, but it is digital rather than space technology that now excites the imagination with its more immediate and accessible possibilities. Rarely having made it into outer space, little wonder that feminists have seized upon new digital technologies for their potential to finally free women from the constraints of their sex.

88

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: cyber-space solves. Cyberfeminism provides an arena to shift the power relations towards difference and away from unity and domination. Wajcman 4 (Judy. Head of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, formerly a Professor of
Sociology at ANU, Visiting Professor

at the Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business and the Oxford Internet Institute, Also a Professor in the Gender Institute at London School of Economics and Political Science. TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 63-64) An optimistic - almost Utopian - vision of the electronic community as foreshadowing the 'good society' is also characteristic of cyberfeminism. Although the above literature is silent on gender issues, it shares with some new strands of feminism the idea that Web-based technology generates a zone of unlimited freedom. For cyberfeminism, however, this means liberation for women. And just as cyber-gurus such as Castells have attracted many enthusiastic followers, so too have many feminists been drawn
to writers such as Sadie Plant, the leading British exponent of cyberfeminism. Cyberfeminist discourse is particularly appealing to a new young generation, who have

grown up with computers and pop culture in the 1990s, with their themes of 'grrrl power' and 'wired worlds'. In this section I want to read Plant's work as representative of this expanding trend within feminism. In part, cyberfeminism needs to be understood as a reaction to the pessimism of the 1980s feminist approaches that stressed the inherently masculine nature of technoscience. In contrast, cyberfeminism emphasizes women's subjectivity and agency, and the pleasures immanent in digital technologies. They accept that industrial technology did indeed have a patriarchal character, but insist that new digital technologies are much more diffuse and open. Thus, cyberfeminism marks a new relationship between feminism and technology. For Plant, technological innovations have been pivotal in the fundamental shift in power from men to women that occurred in Western cultures in the 1990s, the so-called genderquake. Old expectations, stereotypes, senses of identity and securities have been challenged as women gain unprecedented economic opportunities, technical skills and cultural powers. Automation has reduced the importance of muscular strength and hormonal energies and replaced them with demands for speed, intelligence and transferable, interpersonal and communication skills.15 This has been accompanied by the feminization of the workforce, which now favours independence, flexibility and adaptability. While men are ill-prepared for a

postmodern future, women are ideally suited to the new technoculture. Cyberspace provides the communication technology necessary for world harmony. Wajcman 4 (Judy. Head of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, formerly a Professor of
Sociology at ANU, Visiting Professor

at the Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business and the Oxford Internet Institute, Also a Professor in the Gender Institute at London School of Economics and Political Science. TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 59)
The conviction that the Internet is the solution to social disintegration and individualism is no less popular than the idea that it will accelerate these trends. At both

ends of the political spectrum, communication media are seen to play a key role either as the cause of the problem or its cure. Indeed, cyber-gurus from Nicholas Negroponte to Manuel Castells proclaim that the Internet and cyberspace are bringing about a technological and social revolution.5 Electronic networks are said to create new forms of sociability that will result in enhanced communities and greater world harmony.6 Castell's belief in the potential of enhanced Internet
connectivity is reminiscent of McLuhan's argument in The Gutenberg Galaxy that television would be a restorer of organic culture and community in the global

village.7 In line with Howard Rheingold's original vision of The Virtual Community, cyberspace is portrayed as an informal public place where people can rebuild aspects of connectivity and community that have been lost in the modern world.8 Virtual communities result from social collectivities that emerge from the Net to form webs of interpersonal ties in cyberspace.

89

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Cyberfeminism solves Cyberfeminism is liberatory. Wajcman 4 (Judy. Head of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, formerly a Professor of
Sociology at ANU, Visiting Professor

at the Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business and the Oxford Internet Institute, Also a Professor in the Gender Institute at London School of Economics and Political Science. TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 63-64) An optimistic - almost Utopian - vision of the electronic community as foreshadowing the 'good society' is also characteristic of cyberfeminism. Although the above literature is silent on gender issues, it shares with some new strands of feminism the idea that Web-based technology generates a zone of unlimited freedom. For cyberfeminism, however, this means liberation for women. And just as cyber-gurus such as Castells have attracted many enthusiastic followers, so too have many feminists been drawn to writers
such as Sadie Plant, the leading British exponent of cyberfeminism. Cyberfeminist discourse is particularly appealing to a new young generation, who have grown up

with computers and pop culture in the 1990s, with their themes of 'grrrl power' and 'wired worlds'. In this section I want to read Plant's work as representative of this expanding trend within feminism. In part, cyberfeminism needs to be understood as a reaction to the pessimism of the 1980s feminist approaches that stressed the inherently masculine nature of technoscience. In contrast, cyberfeminism emphasizes women's subjectivity and agency, and the pleasures immanent in digital technologies. They accept that industrial technology did indeed have a patriarchal character, but insist that new digital technologies are much more diffuse and open. Thus, cyberfeminism marks a new relationship between feminism and technology. For Plant, technological innovations have been pivotal in the fundamental shift in power from men to women that occurred in Western cultures in the 1990s, the so-called genderquake. Old expectations, stereotypes, senses of identity and securities have been challenged as women gain unprecedented economic opportunities, technical skills and cultural powers. Automation has reduced the importance of muscular strength and hormonal energies and replaced them with demands for speed, intelligence and transferable, interpersonal and communication skills.15 This has been accompanied by the feminization of the workforce, which now favours independence, flexibility and adaptability. While men are ill-prepared for a postmodern future, women are ideally suited to the new technoculture. Cyberspace cannot be dominated: connections are too numerous.

Wajcman 4 (Judy. Head of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, formerly a Professor of
Sociology at ANU, Visiting Professor

at the Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business and the Oxford Internet Institute, Also a Professor in the Gender Institute at London School of Economics and Political Science. TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 65-66
Plant is aware that cybernetics also has military uses, but she does not believe these to be paramount. The new

technology cannot be brought back under the old order. 'Cyberspace is out of man's control: virtual reality destroys his identity, digitalization is mapping his soul and, at the peak of his triumph, the culmination of his machinic erections, man confronts the system he built for his own protection and finds it is female and dangerous.'16 Far from being a technology of male dominance, computing is a liberatory technology for women which delivers a post-patriarchal future. The idea that the Internet can transform conventional gender roles, altering the relationship between the body and the self via a machine, is a popular theme in recent postmodern feminism. The message is that young women in particular are colonizing cyberspace, where gender inequality, like gravity, is suspended. In cyberspace, all physical, bodily cues are removed from communication. As a result, our interactions are fundamentally different, because they are not subject to judgements based on sex, age, race, voice, accent or appearance, but are based only on textual exchanges. In
Life on the Screen, Sherry Turkle enthuses

about the potential for people 'to express multiple and often unexplored aspects of the self, to play with their identity and to try out new ones . . . the obese can be slender, the beautiful plain, the "nerdy" sophisticated'.17 It is the increasingly interactive and creative nature of computing technology that now enables millions of people to live a significant segment of their lives in virtual reality.
Moreover, it is in this computer-mediated world that people experience a new sense of self, which is decentred, multiple and fluid. In this respect, Turkle argues, the

Internet is the material expression of the philosophy of postmodernism. Interestingly, the gender of Internet users features mainly in Turkle's chapter about virtual sex. Cyberspace provides a risk-free environment where people can engage in the intimacy they both desire and fear. Turkle argues that people find it easier to establish relationships on-line and then pursue them off-line. Yet, for all the celebration of the interactive world of cyberspace, what emerges from her discussion is that people engaging in Internet relationships really want the full, embodied relationship. Like many other authors, Turkle argues that gender swapping, or virtual cross-dressing, encourages people to reflect on the social construction of gender, to acquire 'a new sense of gender as a continuum'.18 However she does not reflect upon the possibility that gender differences in the

constitution of sexual desire and pleasure influence the manner in which cybersex is used.

90

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Deconstruction

The deconstruction of masculinist discourse leads to non-domination, solved ecology, and world peace.

Nhanenge2007(Jytte,MastersofArtDegreeinInternationalDevelopment StudiesattheUniversityofSouthAfrica(UNISA),Ecofeminism:towards
Deconstruction regenerates diversity, which leads to non-domination. The belief in sameness is not universal, nor is it desirable. Instead, it gives a certain kind of self-sufficiency with no interest in others. Difference oppositely inspires a healthy interest in others. When we respect difference, we try to understand the other. The result is not to gain "power-over" the other. Instead, we become empowered when we know the other, the world around us and our inter-connection. Difference between knowers necessitates interactive construction and a forum to negotiate reality and the values implicit in that construction. This is a voluntary and non-domineering process. Hence in order to be non-domineering we need to develop a genuine relationship with nature founded on a un-dualised selfother recognition and a healthy interaction based on care for the other. Consequently, ecofeminism and postmodemism are in Cheney's opinion a natural combination. (Cheney 1994: 116, 166, 168). (
integratingtheconcernsofwomen,poorpeople,andnatureintodevelopment.)

Alt: Ethics key Ethics has historically excluded those considered as Other. Inclusion of these Others undermines traditional ethical frameworks Cuomo 98 (Chris J., Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Feminism and Ecological Communities:
An Ethic of Flourishing, pg 2)

Where organic well-being beyond oneself is concerned, and in so far as choice is possible, a matter is ethical. The
concept of ethics is used to locate a particular category of human problems: one involving the interests of other people, or other morally valuable beings, as factors,

and one which calls upon agents to make choices according to socially sanctioned, or appropriate, criteria. Aristotle noted that one of the distinguishing features of virtue, his concept for ethical responses to relationships and situations, is the fact that it involves choice. According to the norms recorded by him and other influential thinkers in the history of ethics, ethical issues involve the exploration of the good,

and right and wrong, and their attempted realization in human interactions. The norms concerning ethical concepts and matters, or the meanings of good and appropriate actions and attitudes, have been debated from the beginning of philosophy. But these discussions of norms are undergoing dramatic, unparalleled upheavals on the wave of social movements for liberation and political change. Two influential, multifaceted,
and intertwined sites of controversy in ethics have been at the intersections of academic philosophy and feminism, and philosophy and environmentalism. From these

unfixed locations have come some very basic claims with almost incomprehensibly complex implications: nonmale, nonwhite, nonowning, and otherwise nonprivileged people, and nonhuman beings, and the interests of all of these entities that are constructed variously as Other to the paradigmatic Knower, Thinker, Politician and Party to the Contract have been inadequately represented, and dangerously misrepresented, in the history of philosophy. This erasure and distortion is of particular interest when it occurs in ethical thought, since ethics is ostensibly supposed to promote justice and good behavior. Yet, as history shows, ethical arguments can be molded to justify all kinds of actions and identities. In efforts to unearth unfriendly references to women and other Others in the history of philosophy, and to include them qua
women, people of color, workers, ecosystems and cows (rather than wives and mothers, slaves, exotics, foreigners and lower classes, Nature and meat) in philosophical

explorations, several parallel agendas have emerged as central in feminist and environmental philosophies. One such agenda is to locate and debunk false characterizations, and to map out their often hidden influences and implications. For example, Aristotles belief that women are essentially, naturally passive helps shape his claims that only certain men count as citizens, and that the political realm entails mens interactions with each other. Women and slaves are backgrounded in his conception of the polis, though their work enables its
existence. Similarly, Descartes insistence that nonhumananimals more closely resemble clocks than rational persons, and that their responses to unpleasant stimuli are

not true expressions of pain, betrays his predisposition to discount responses that are not uniquely human in his discussion of what knowledge is and how it functions. Beyond this critical move, feminist and environmental philosophers also look at the implications of including subordinated groups and individuals among those who count as theoretically significant and morally considerable in traditional philosophical systems. Controversies inevitably arise about how to represent them, how to avoid universalization or reduction (what are
women, and what is nature, anyway?), and whether traditional frameworks are capable of accommodating as full subjects those castigated as Others by those very

frameworks. An inevitable project is a detailed exploration of how counting historically discounted Others as relevant seriously undermines or revises the assumptions and prescriptions of traditional ethical frameworks.

91

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Ethics Good Although assumptions underlie all ethics, ethics are still useful Cuomo 98 (Chris J., Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Feminism and Ecological Communities:
An Ethic of Flourishing, pg 45)

Drawing on Wittgensteins conception of a foundation as like an axis, held in place by what revolves or spins around it, Sarah Hoagland argues that the foundation of traditional Anglo-European ethics is dominance and subordination (Hoagland 1988: 14). In contrast, she constructs ethics from the foundation of lesbian lives and communities. Of course, any ethic has value-laden starting points, and in the end an ethicist must simply either lay out or assume her own. In this sense, circularity is endemic to ethical thought. To assume that ethics matter, or that normative matters are and ought
to remain meaningful in discourses, political communities, and material practices, is to commit oneself already to some basis upon which it

is arguable that something is better than something else. In The Subjectivity of Values, J. L. Mackie argued that though moral views are subjective conventions held by people, and things can have no objective value, there can still be good reasons for holding them. Ethics can provide normative, justifiable standards without an objective basis, but
"somewhere in the input to this argument perhaps in one or more of the premisses, perhaps in some part of the form of the argument there will be

something which cannot be objectively validated some premiss which is not capable of being simply true, or some form of argument which is not valid as a matter of general logic, whose authority or cogency is not objective, but is constituted by our choosing or deciding to think in a certain way." (1987: 187) Like the fabrications that keep some of us dry
and secure, these subjective foundations are designed and crafted by humans. Though the construction of value systems is rarely as intentional as the pouring of concrete, it is no less human-generated and socially dependent. The most an ethicist can do for her audience is

frankly to lay out her motivations and starting points, even if they seem to be points in a circle, in their most compelling light. It would

seem ridiculous to any ecologist, and most biologists, to take some idiosyncratic nonhuman species behavior and analyze it without regard to the species relationships

with other species which share its home terrains. For example, when female lions, who determine the size and constitution of their prides, permanently cast off certain members, likely explanations include individual personalities, group dynamics, and environmental pressures. And we humans have our own strange and useful practices. For example, within most systems of meaning, we place special value on persons, certain interactions, and ways of being in the world a value that constrains and motivates in ways not reducible to self-regard.1 Like lioness actions, human moral agency only makes sense in the rich varieties of our communities, and human community only exists as part of the natural world. While they do not determine our ethics, our dependencies on and relationships with nature, and our physical needs and predispositions, shape

and limit what ethics can be, or what ethics can mean, in any given context. Historically, even when discouraging pure
egoism, ethical rules and systems especially as they commingle with social mores and values have tended to maintain social power

and the ability to control others in the hands of the privileged, though they sometimes enable radical shifts in social power. Finding such

relationships between morals and power key to understanding human nature, Nietzsches genealogy of morals characterizes the history of modern Western ethics as a

carefully orchestrated attempt by the physically impotent to exert control over those whose physical strength, cunning, and fearlessness endangers the weak. But despite the negative potential of ethics, if normative evaluations are at all useful or inevitable, and if some aspects of our ethical lives involve choice regarding behavior, character, or what we value, questions arise about how, and regarding what, ethics should be applied. Feminists and environmentalists are critical of common failures regarding ethics, and some might think of themselves as
rejecting the normative process altogether, but the simple designations of feminist and environmentalist implicitly endorse some practices over others, and denote

normative evaluations about what should be, not just descriptions of what is.

92

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Ethics Ethics and values are always political and reflective of their social situation. Ethics that devalue Others enable subordination of those Others. Critiquing this is key to a feminist ethic that can create great change Cuomo 98 (Chris J., Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Feminism and Ecological Communities:
An Ethic of Flourishing, pg 56)

Ethics, values, and moralities, are always political they express, influence, and respond to power that is economic,
governmental, discursive, symbolic, and born in social relations. Values, practices, and conceptions of moral agency derived in oppressive

institutions or practices are likely to promote, enable, or allow for oppression and mistreatment. In so far as they contribute to the domination, silencing, and devaluation of those defined as Others, feminists believe that ethics must be rejected or revised. For example, feminism begins with the belief that women and other Others have full moral value, as both moral agents and objects, so the interests of
oppressed people, as individuals, and as members of groups, are ethically significant. Historically and philosophically, in overlapping yet distinct ways,

people of color, women, and other outsiders to the public sphere have been considered less than full, or fully significant, moral beings, and this fact is fundamental to their subordination. Feminists begin with a critique of this undervaluation, and its connection with other systems and logics of domination, exploitation, and oppression. In some sense this is the starting point for any feminist ethical criticism and the creation of feminist ethical possibilities. As is common

among theorizing born from liberation movements, much of the earliest rejecting and revising work in feminist ethics took the form of responses to the tradition,

uncovering the sexism and criticizing the male-centeredness of influential work in the field of ethics. Some feminist scholars pointed out the outright misogyny expressed by Kant, Locke, Nietzsche, Aristotle, and Schopenhauer, and traced the effects of misogyny on respective theories of selves, rational moral agents, good persons, and good societies. Some investigated the ways in which traditional ethical theory has provided justifications for the mistreatment of women and other inferiors. Other theorists analyzed the ways in which a failure to pay attention to womens lives and practices results in ethical schemes that render women invisible, or that are completely unhelpful in providing guidance or explanation for womens moral lives. In addition to critically evaluating phallocentric traditions, feminist scholars aimed to correct them and fill in the gaps by incorporating more accurate assumptions about the value of women and the ethical significance of their lives. Projects along this line include a veritable
library of essays and books on questions in applied ethics, including abortion, surrogate motherhood, pornography, and rape, in which womens autonomy over their

bodies and reproductive roles are a central issue. But this sort of attention to the

tradition also inevitably resulted in debates about whether nonfeminist philosophy was at all salvageable. If adding women and stirring resulted in dramatic changes in theoretical frameworks and even shifts in grounding presuppositions about the nature of persons and moral problems, then the corrective project could only lead to bigger and better things.

93

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt Ethics: Solves Environment Ethical systems that consider the feminine inferior often mistreat nature as well, and vice versa. Women are nature are linked by their 'femininity', so they are both exploited. History is not a good justification for ethics if the underlying assumptions are not criticized. The exploitation of women is characteristic of exploitation in general Cuomo 98 (Chris J., Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Feminism and Ecological Communities:
An Ethic of Flourishing, pg 38)

By way of summary, I offer the following synopsis of ecological feminist positions which ground the discussion of ethics throughout the rest of this book.(1) Ethical systems and values born out of conceptual universes that relegate what is considered feminine or natural to an inferior status help justify and implement both that relegation and the mistreatment of those groups and entities. The most obvious examples are ethical systems that allow for no moral consideration of those entities, that specifically claim that women, nature, tribal people, foreigners, or slaves are not included in a given moral universe. But it is also true that
moral systems based on deeply rooted and exclusionary conceptions of moral agents and objects can import problematic beliefs in more clandestine ways. Ecological

feminist ethics therefore follow in the footsteps of feminist ethics in exploring values and practices that derive from a foundation that takes women, nature, and other commonly excluded beings or groups seriously as morally relevant. This might include focusing on their particularities as (for humans) moral agents, or as objects of ethical decision-making.(2) When nature gets harmed, women and other Others (the poor, people of color, indigenous communities, laborers,
and members of other categorically disempowered social groups) are inevitably harmed, or harmed more than the socially and

economically privileged. The devaluation of women and other oppressed groups justifies (a) devaluing, and consequently harming, other feminine things; (b) disregarding their interests by plundering or neglecting land that they own, control, or rely

upon; (c) ignoring or minimizing their assertions that land, water, or animals be treated more carefully (even when women or agricultural workers, for example, may

have more intimate knowledge of the objects in question); (d) preventing them from ownership and decision-making that might result in less destructive practices. (3) Woman and nature are socially created concepts, each referring to highly varied categories of beings and objects. The concepts do not belie essential or necessary truths about beings and objects, but their definitive power helps constitute and regulate material realities. In Western and other hierarchical dualistic cultures, women and nature are likened to each other and identified with femininity and corporealityopposite and inferior to masculinity, reason, and their associates. These definitions render the

realm of the feminine suitable for domination, although the strange mechanisms of oppression sometimes place the feminine in glorified positions imbued with purity, mystery, and fertility.
These and similar false generalizations are also made concerning other groups who come to be metaphysically or practically associated with femininity and/or nature,

including primitives and sexual deviants. (4) In the process of exploring and creating ethical options and alternatives,
reclamations of traditional ideas and practices might be helpful, but they must be critically evaluated in terms of present contexts as well as their historical embeddedness. When the substance of a moral claim cannot be logically abstracted from problematic

foundations or implications, it is not worth reconsideration or reclamation. Likewise, evidence that an ethical imperative has proven emancipatory in the past is inadequate proof that it can continue to do so. Hence, feminist ethics
are not feminine ethics. Feminist ethics help uncover and eradicate the devaluation and mistreatment of women. Because nearly all women are influenced by conceptual

and material frameworks that are oppressive to women, efforts to eradicate oppression involve criticizing concepts and institutions including femininity and motherhood. Furthermore, since the oppression of women includes oppression based on race, class, sexuality, physical ability, caste, and other factors, so all of these are feminist issues. None the less, the focus of this approach is on female humans is feminist for several reasons:(a) Womens oppression is nearly universal, and therefore almost always visible and instructive in exposing various frameworks and mechanisms of oppression at work in any given context. The oppression of women is therefore a paradigm for the consideration of oppression and exploitation in general. (b) The history of feminist thought provides a specific cluster of analyses of
oppression, exploitation, and resistance. Thinkers and actors who call themselves feminist, including ecological feminists, place themselves in agreement with some

aspect of this history, though of course they may also disagree with other aspects. (c) Many of the most influential representatives in the history of thought including most of the builders of Western modern science and technology and capitalism, have included, as a central ideological and practical component, the systematic, direct devaluation and/or oppression of women and whatever else comes to be, or to be considered feminine.(d) Feminists are aware that when the
focus is not on women, their needs, interests, and perspectives tend to be severely neglected.

94

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Alt (To Utopianism) Feminist Realism

Realistic feminism avoids the pitfalls of utopianism and makes itself better
Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.11-12)
Although feminist thought has long been compatible with utopianism, it does not need utopianism to flourish. Indeed, as this book endeavors to explain, without utopianism feminist thought and theory can more easily embrace its mission and celebrate its

diversity. It need not pretend, as utopianism sometimes does that all problems can be named and solved and all evils identified and exorcized. Without utopianism feminism can more readily recognize contingent truths, inevitable conflicts, and complex motivations and loyalties, as it addresses the problems it can name. Realistic feminist
thought can embrace the serendipity and vagaries of human life, identity, relationships, and institutions. It can avoid exclusivist or separatist metaphors and replace

them with tropes of coexistence. It can embrace self-criticism and ideological tension. It need not risk utopianism's proclivity for idealization, demonization, and false dichotomies. It need not breed the disappointment that inevitably results from unfulfilled utopian promises and unrealized utopian ideals. In short, Higher Ground argues that, without utopianism, feminism becomes a richer and more dynamic system of thought. It allows the continual interplay of simultaneously held but diverse and sometimes contradictory "truths" about women's lives and the concept of gender, gender differences, equality in the face of difference, difference in the face of equality, and scores of similar contingencies.

TheUSgovernmentisinherentlysexistandoppressive.Adoptingarealistfeminist ethicistheonly
waytosolveforthis. Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.260-261)
Familiar social values and principles of social change, such as democracy and equality, also present contradictory legacies for a politics of realism. United States

democracy carries the taint of imperialism and exploitative global capitalism abroad, and the stench of sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination at home. In our democracy, some freedoms mask other oppressions; we enjoy freedom of speech, perhaps, but not freedom from want. Proclamations of

equality often entail white male standards against which women and minority men are measured and inevitably found lacking. Or such anomalies
produce other, more egregious ones, such as the specter of "pregnant persons" in court rulings and legislation. Clearly, realistic political action must both recognize and

transcend such histories and limitations in the political process. At the same time, it must eschew highly specific models and concrete future visions. There is too much we do not know about the problems that exist in our current situation; there is too much about the future we cannot predict. What is left to us, then, is a quest for political processes that accommodate realism's multifaceted demands. We can ask whether a particular process
provides for the changing nature of social values or if it appreciates, even cultivates, diversity, ambiguity, and complexity. We can seek to establish a

social and political context for general liberatory projects, since in reality feminism(s) will not prevail in the absence of overall support for social justice. We can insist that the politics of the future allow-even require-continuous reexamination and categories, that lead to appropriately incremental or appropriately revolutionary changes, and that accommodate contradictions and complexities.

reevaluation of cherished goals and foundational principles, including any that might emerge from this book. We can devise processes that resist pre-eXisting

95

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt(ToUtopianism):FeministRealism Realismisabetteralternative:itvalidatesknowledge,isadaptable,andavoidsthe problemsofutopianism Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.54-56) G Utopianism's alternative-realism-contrasts with these conceptual pitfalls in various ways, as we shall continue to explore throughout
Higher Ground. In many disciplines, realism entails subjecting ideas, Values, or rules to analytical processes that recognize

changes over time. Debates over realism have demonstrated the close interconnecon of apparent oppositions or dualities. Existentialist Paul Tillich has

expressed such a realistic view of utopianism itself. For Tillich, utopianism is both true and untrue, fruitful and unfruitful. Its truth for illich lies in its expression of

humanity's inner aim and essence, the los of human existence. Its untruth lies in its assumption of an unlienated humanity, which overlooks the inevitable "finitude and estrangement of man" from his essential being, which is ultimately unattainable. Likewise, Tillich finds utopian thinking fruitful, insofar as it opens up possibilities and provides "anticipatory inventiveness," but unfruitful insofar as it describes "impossibilities as real possibilities" and becomes wishful thinking, a self-defeating unrealism (1966, 296, 299-300). As Tillich's analysis suggests, realism can reflect utopianism's desires. Realism can be an agent for social change, but it typically starts from different premises than utopianism. Realism also seeks truth, but usually through probing and complicating its variations rather than by defending a fixed position. Realism entails validating knowledge, but it usually involves questioning rather than possessing it. Realism is more cognizant of ambiguity and contingency than utopianism tends to be. Realism enters the analysis when the arbitrary and symbolic nature of language is being explored, thereby revealing the mutability and fluidity of categories and their labels. Realism recognizes that human knowledge and depictions of truth may not constitute all knowledge and truth. Realism considers the limits to establishing truth once and for all. Realism rarely engages in prediction, as utopianism sometimes does. Since it recognizes the unknowable, it leads us toward the visionaries whose prophecies
unnerve us or disturb the familiar rather than toward those who reinforce our preconceptions. Based on the history and uses of the term, which we will explore more

fully in chapter 5, realism seems to have much to offer the task of feminist theorizing. It provides an alternative to utopianism that explores ideas' unintended consequences by probing for their traitorous propensities and recognizes that even the grandest of ideas may contain the seeds of their own destruction. Realism represents an alternative that seeks the fine line between the best and worst attributes of even our most cherished

precepts. Realism also allows us to consider

the benefits of salvaging the best of what is even as we seek novelty, of drawing no hasty conclusions about what ought to be based only on knowing-or claiming to

knowwhat is wrong with the present. Realisfu leads us to disavow the discourse of perfection and attend to the task of justifying feminist knowledge claims. It encourages us to consider balancing apparently oppositional concerns rather than casting our lot too hastily with one or the other.

RejectUtopianismbyengaginginrealistpolicies
Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.266-267)
Fraser also avoids utopianism by recommending that all policy making-including, presumably, her own approach to welfare reform-

must involve the participation of multiple publics, including "subaltern counterpublics," in which differences

(pace Habermas) are neither bracketed nor ignored, real conflicts of interest are recognized, and no a priori definition

of the common good exists (1997, 86-87). What Fraser's work suggests, along with Hirschmann's, Young's, and Hollinger's, is that social change requires processes that invite debate, scrutinize assumptions and terms of analysis, and establish meaningful exchanges within and among varying groups of people whose differences are neither predetermined nor disregarded. They promote the willingness of all parties to be changed by the exchange of perspectives, to distribute power and resources broadly and fairly, and
to resist corruption. These processes do not yet exist in American society at large, but the tools for constructing them

are already ours. They can begin with us. As we establish and move among groups with liberatory agendas, we can model the use of those tools and the enactment of those processes in the way we construct our own interactions-among ourselves and with the world. And then we can pass it along.

96

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Alt (To Utopianism): Feminist Realism

Realism is a better alternative to utopianism
Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.92-93)
Higher Ground argues that the movement away from utopianism and toward realism produces a richer, and possibly

more enduring, foundation for feminist thought. But rejecting utopianism as a metaphor for, or even a strong component of, feminist thinking

also raises ,me additional questions. What, if not a realizable dream of social ctures and practices, could feminism possibly be? How can female

principles best be formulated and shared? What, if anything, do inists 'have in common? Are there limits to the diversity of ideas at qualify as feminist? Higher Ground argues that the best approaches those questions reside outside the parameters of utopian thinking. As the analysis proceeds, we shall explore other alternatives, rooted in alism, for the establishment of a principled yet
flexible, dynamic, rid complex framework for feminist thought.

By adopting a realist mindset allows us to acquire courage and knowledge. Making sense of the
world will better shape the way we act and construct ideals and goals. Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.161) One key attraction of utopian dreams and desires is the sense of optimism they convey. How else, we may ask, can we rally our hopes for the future, especially when the realities of today are so discouraging? But there are other
sources of optimism. Indeed, realism and optimism are compatible partners, as Robert Goheen, the former resident of Princeton University and director of the National Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation, suggests. Recognizing how much in this world needs improvement

could make us cynical, Goheen continues, "but most of us, if we have courage, would prefer to have such clear sight as we can. We would prefer to know as accurately as possible where we are and in what kind of world. Whatever it be, we wish to see it clearly." To acquire that courage we need a "searching mind and probing conscience" (Goheen
1969, 115-16). Scott Russell Sanders, another educator, gets more specific: "Knowledge ... offers us frameworks for making sense of the

fragments .... Knowledge helps us imagine how we might act." And knowing how to make sense of the world and how to act upon it gives us hope (1999, B5)

The Alternative is to adopt a realist mindset. Rather than just rejecting

utopian ideals, the

Negative is able to challenge fixed identities and construct new, fluid identities that are able to consciously and critically think about a topic and create relevant theories. Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.170-171)
Seen in its historical context, realism becomes a useful framework for feminist inquiry which contrasts with the framework of

utopianism. To attach ourselves to realism is to embrace the discussions that have characterized the term in various

contexts and conceptual systems. Realism invites us to consider the relationship of the way things are to the way things ought to be and to recognize that the issues that engage us can camouflage more important, hidden forces. Realism guides us in challenging notions of fixed identities and leads us to recognize that however deep our knowledge of people may be, it is never complete. Realism suggests that the desire for normative feminist standards in realistic feminist theory must be tempered with attention
to new developments, ideas, experiences-and realities-which predetermined norms cannot predict and should not preclude.

From realism's role in philosophy, political science, literary criticism, and law we learn to question the role of our own perceptions in our understanding of ourselves and the world. Although few feminist theorists have employed the term, my survey of feminist
theoretical works reveals that realism as a process of thought has not escaped feminist notice. Indeed, there is a long but as yet undefined tradition of realism in feminist

thought and theory of which we have already seen evidence. That tradition does not reside exclusively in complaints about "utopic" or probing thought processes that lead to more effective and more lasting forms of social change than those that are possible through utopian means. There is no finite set of "realistic" Feminist beliefs or values, or even a line of feminist theory called "realistic feminism." Nor should

"utopian" feminist ideas and strategies, although those complaints exist. Rather, it resides primarily in persistent and

there be. Such codification would contradict realism's utility as a process for the formulation of feminist thought. Therefore, the evidence for realism in feminist theorizing exists as a core sample of arguments, questions, and concerns from a broad spectrum of feminist views. It

includes parameters for thinking and inquiring about feminism in a way I hope readers will find important and relevant to ideas and theories they both generate and consume. 97

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Alt (To Utopianism): Feminist Realism

Feminism shouldnt be utopian, Realism is a better alternative Kitch 00 (Sally, Director of the Institute for Humanities Research CLAS Humanities Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Higher Ground, p.122-123)
Thus, rather than debating the details of the ideal feminist future, realistic feminist theorists do better to

concentrate on considering various solutions and compromises and assessing their consequences. "Wouldn't it be
wonderful if ... " must be tempered by "Here's what will likely result from." Arguments should be made, challenged, and reconsidered.

Identifying feminist values must entail recognition that even the most positive of values must be tempered in order to prevent negative excess. Without sympathy and fairness, for example, the anger that motivates social change can become destructive. Even
sympathy and fairness require self-control, however, and a sense of duty to keep from becoming mere self-satisfaction and narrow loyalty (Wilson 1993, 246).

Specifically feminist values also require correctives to reduce their potential for excess in the pursuit of beneficial social change.

ALT: Haraway THE THEORETICAL MAPPING PROJECT OF THE NEGATIVE DOES SKETCHES A NEW POSSIBILE ORIENTATION TO THE WORLD BASED ON CONNECTION, EMBODIMENT, AND RESPONSIBILITY ONLY A FIRM COMMITMENT TO THE CRITICAL PROJECT CAN . CULTIVATE A POLITICS CAPABLE OF DISORIENTING TECHNOCRATIC DOMINATION HARAWAY, professor in the History of Consciousness program at UC- Santa Cruz, 1992 (Donna, THe Promises of
Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for

Inappropriate/d Others, Cultural Studies eds. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A Treichler, p 295-6) "The Promises of Monsters" will be a mapping exercise and travelogue through mind-scapes and landscapes of what may count as nature in certain local/global struggles. These contests are situated in a strange, allochronic time-the time of myself and my readers in the last decade of
the second Christian millenium-and in a foreign, allotopic place-the womb of a pregnant monster, here, where we are reading and writing. The purpose of this

excursion is to write theory, i.e., to produce a patterned vision of how to move and what to fear in the topography of an impossible but all-too-real present, in order to find an absent, but perhaps possible, other present. I do not seek the address of some full presence; reluctantly, I know better. Like Christian in Pilgrim's Progress, however, I am committed to skirting the
slough of despond and the parasite-infested swamps of nowhere to reach more salubrious environs.7 The theory is meant

to orient, to provide the

roughest sketch for travel, by means of moving within and through a relentless artifactualism, which forbids any direct
si(gh)tings of nature, to a science fictional, speculative factual, SF place called, simply, elsewhere. At least for those whom this essay addresses, "nature" outside

artifactualism is not so much elsewhere as nowhere, a different matter altogether. Indeed, a reflexive artifactualism offers serious political and analytical hope. This essay's theory is modest. Not a systematic overview, it is a little siting device in a long line of such craft tools. Such sighting devices have been known to reposition worlds for their devotees-and for their opponents. Optical instruments are subjectshifters. Goddess knows, the subject is being changed relentlessly in the late twentieth century. My diminutive theory's optical features are set to produce not effects of distance, but effects of connection, of embodiment, and of responsibility for an imagined elsewhere that we may yet learn to see and build here. I have high stakes in reclaiming vision From the technopornographers, those theorists of minds, bodies, and planets who insist effectively--i.e., in practice--that sight is the sense made to realize the fantasies of the phallocrats.2 I think sight can be remade for the activists and advocates engaged in
fitting

political filters to see the world in the hues of red, green, and ultraviolet, i.e., from the perspectives of a still possible socialism, feminist and anti-racist environmentalism, and science for the people. I take as a self-evident premise
that "science is culture."3 Rooted in that premise, this essay is a contribution to the heterogeneous and very lively contemporary discourse of science studies as cultural

studies. Of course, what science, culture, or nature-and their "studies"-might mean is far less self-evident.

98

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Haraway The alternative is to embrace cyborg relations and challenge the gendered relations of the AC and technology. Only by re-informing how we gain knowledge claims can we hope to deconstruct t technoscintific masculinity. Wajcman 4 (Judy. Head of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, formerly a Professor of
Sociology at ANU, Visiting Professor

at the Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business and the Oxford Internet Institute, Also a Professor in the Gender Institute at London School of Economics and Political Science. TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 106-107)
The optimistic register of such feminisms, stressing women's agency and capacity for empowerment, resonates with a

new generation of women who live in a world of much greater sex equality. That a strong current of Seventies
feminism sought to reject technology as malevolent is now seen as fanciful. Wired women in cybercafes, experimenting with new media, clutching mobile phones, are immersed in science fiction and their imaginary worlds. It presents a seductive image for a culture with an insatiable appetite for novelty. The possibilities of reinventing the self and the body, like cyborgs in

cyberspace, and the prosthetic potential of biotechnologies, have reinvigorated our thinking. But the sometimes tenuous link
between visceral, lived gender relations and the experience of virtual voyages has led many to desire a more materialist analysis of

gender and technology. To move forward, we first need to bridge the common polarization in social theory between metaphor and materiality. Technology must be understood as part of the social fabric that holds society together; it is never merely technical or social. Rather, technology is always a socio-material product - a seamless web or network combining artefacts, people, organizations, cultural meanings and knowledge. It follows that technological

change is a contingent and heterogeneous process in which technology and society are mutually constituted. Indeed, the linear

model of innovation, diffusion and use has given way to the idea that technology is never a finished product.
Long after artefacts leave the research laboratory, they continue to evolve in everyday practices of use. The interpretative

flexibility of technology means that the possibility always exists for a technology and its effects to be otherwise. If society is co-produced with technology, it is imperative to explore the effects of gender power relations on design and innovation, as well as the impact of technological change on the sexes. An emerging technofeminism
conceives of a mutually shaping relationship between gender and technology, in which technology is both a source and a consequence

of gender relations. In other words, gender relations can be thought of as materialized in technology, and masculinity

and femininity in turn acquire their meaning and character through their enrolment and embeddedness in working machines. Such an approach shares the constructivist conception of technology as a sociotechnical network, and recognizes the need to integrate the material, discursive and social elements of technoscientific practice. Feminist scholarship has been critical in exposing the gender-blindness of mainstream technoscience studies.
Donna Haraway's contribution has been key, continuing the tradition of socialist-feminist inquiry into the possibilities that

technoscience offers women. I have argued that her material-semiotic approach moves beyond the limitations of cyberfeminism, with its tendency to biological essentialism. The issue is no longer whether to accept or oppose technoscience, but rather how to engage strategically with technoscience while at the same time being its chief critic. Haraway's spotlight on the life sciences raises crucial issues of our time - in particular, whether the boundaries between nature
and culture and between humans and machines, which have been an underlying premiss of the Enlightenment world-view, can be

sustained and, if not, what the consequences are for our conception of humanness and the gendered body.

99

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Haraway: Solves Movements Embracing the partial feminist identity is crucial to unity across movements and the rejection of totalizing systems of thought like the affirmative. Haraway 91 (Donna J., Distinguished Professor Emerita in the History of Consciousness Department at UC Santa Cruz, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, The Reinventing of Nature) The only way to characterize the informatics of domination is as a massive intensification of insecurity and cultural impoverishment, with common failure of subsistence networks for the most vulnerable. Since much of this picture interweaves with the social relations of science and technology, the urgency of a socialist-feminist politics addressed to science and technology is plain. There is much now being done, and the grounds for political work are rich. For example,
the efforts to develop forms of collective struggle for women in paid work, like SEIU's District 925,. should be a high priority for all of us. These efforts are

profoundly tied to technical restructuring of labour processes and reformations of working classes. These efforts also are providing understanding of a more comprehensive kind of labour organization, involving community, sexuality, and family issues never privileged in the largely white male industrial unions. The structural rearrangements related to the social relations of science and technology evoke strong ambivalence. But it is not necessary to be ultimately depressed by the implications of late twentieth-century women's relation to all aspects of work, culture, production of knowledge, sexuality, and reproduction. For excellent reasons, most Marxisms see domination best and have trouble understanding what can only look like false consciousness and people's complicity in their own domination in late capitalism. It is crucial to remember that what is lost, perhaps especially from
women's points of view, is often virulent forms of oppression, nostalgically naturalized in the face of current violation. Ambivalence towards the disrupted unities

mediated by high-tech culture requires not sorting consciousness into categories of 'clear-sighted critique grounding a solid political epistemology' versus 'manipulated false consciousness', but subtle understanding of emerging pleasures, experiences, and powers with serious potential for changing the rules of the game. There are grounds for hope in the emerging bases for new kinds of unity across race, gender, and class, as these elementary units of socialist-feminist analysis themselves suffer protean transformations. Intensifications of hardship experienced world-wide in connection with the social relations of science and technology are severe. But what people are experiencing is not transparently clear, and we lack sufficiently

subtle connections for collectively building effective theories of experience. Present efforts - Marxist, psychoanalytic, feminist, anthropological - to clarify even 'our'
experience are rudimentary. I am conscious of the odd perspective provided by my historical position a PhD in biology for an Irish Catholic girl was made possible by

Sputnik's impact on US national science-education policy. I have a body and mind as much constructed by the post-Second World War arms race and cold war as by the women's movements. There are more grounds for hope in focusing on the contradictory effects of politics designed to produce loyal American technocrats, which also produced large numbers of dissidents, than in focusing on the present defeats. The permanent partiality of feminist points of view has consequences for our expectations of forms of political organization and participation. We do not need a totality in order to work well. The feminist dream of a common language, like all dreams for a perfectly true language, of perfectly faithful naming of experience, is a totalizing and imperialist one. In that sense, dialectics too is a dream language, longing to resolve contradiction. Perhaps, ironically, we can learn from our fusions with animals and machines how not to be Man, the embodiment of Western logos. From the point of view of pleasure in these potent and taboo fusions, made inevitable by the social relations of science and technology, there might indeed be a feminist science.

100

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Alt: Gender IR
The only way to solve is through a restructuring on how we view the world
Tickner 92 [J. Ann. Gender in International Relations. Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security Columbia University

Press. pp 131] The gendered perspectives on security I have presented point to the conclusion that the discipline of international relations, as it is presently constructed, is defined in terms of everything that is not female. While classical realism has constructed its analysis out of the behavior and experiences of men, neorealism's commitment to a positivist methodology that attempts to impose standards of scientific inquiry used in the natural sciences, has resulted in an extreme depersonalization of the field that only serves to hide its masculinist underpinnings. My analyses of "political" and "economic" man, and the state as an international political and economic actor, all suggest that, beneath its claim to
objectivity, realism has constructed an approach that builds on assumptions and explanations based on behaviors

associated with masculinity. While many forms of masculinity and femininity exist that vary across class, race, culture, and history, international relations theories, and the world they analyze, privilege values associated with a socially constructed hegemonic masculinity. This hegemonic masculinity consists of a set of characteristics that, while they are drawn from certain behaviors of Western males, do not necessarily fit the behavior of all men, Western men included. The individual, the state, and the international system, the levels of analysis favored by realists for explaining
international conflict, are not merely discrete levels of analysis around which artificial boundaries can be drawn; they are mutually reinforcing

constructs, each based on behaviors associated with hegemonic masculinity. While various approaches to international relations
critical of realist thinking have questioned the adequacy of these assumptions and explanations of contemporary realities, they have not done so on the basis of gender.

Marxist analyses of the world economy are also constructed out of the historical experiences of men in the public world of production. Revealing the masculinist underpinnings of both these types of discourse suggests that realism, as well as the approaches of many of its critics, has constructed worldviews based on the behavior of only half of humanity Characteristics that have typically been associated with femininity must therefore be seen not in essentialist terms but as characteristics that women have developed in response to their socialization and their historical roles in society.

The association of women with moral virtues such as caring comes not from women's innate moral superiority but from women's activities in the private sphere where these values are accepted in theory, if not always in practice. Since they are linked to women and the private sphere, however, these feminine characteristics have been devalued in the public realm, particularly in the world of international politics. The question then becomes how to revalue them in public life in ways that can contribute to the creation of a more just and secure world. Taking care not to elevate these feminine characteristics to a position of superiority, we can regard them as an inspiration that can contribute to our thinking about ways to build better futures. Even if the better future is not female, a human future that rejects the rigid separation of public and
private

sphere values and the social distinctions between women and men requires that the good qualities of both are equally honored and made available to all.

101

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Alt: Gender IR
The alt is a pre-req to solving anything
Tickner 92 [J. Ann. Gender in International Relations. Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security Columbia University Press. pp 129-130] military, economic, and ecological insecurity are connected with unequal gender relations. The relationship between protectors and protected depends on gender inequalities; a militarized version of security privileges masculine characteristics and elevates men to the status of first-class citizens by virtue of their role as providers of security. An analysis of economic insecurities suggests similar patterns of gender inequality in the world economy, patterns that result in a larger share of the world's wealth and the benefits of economic development accruing to men. The traditional association of women with nature, which places both in a subordinate position to men, reflects and provides support for the instrumental and exploitative attitude toward nature characteristic of the modern era, an attitude that contributes to current ecological insecurities. If, as I have argued, the world is insecure because of these multiple insecurities, then international relations, the
Previous chapters have also called attention to the extent to which these various forms of discipline that analyzes international insecurity and prescribes measures for its alleviation, must be reformulated. The reconceptualization of security in

multidimensional and multilevel terms is beginning to occur on the fringes of the discipline; a more comprehensive notion of security is being used by peace researchers, critics of conventional international relations theory, environmentalists, and even some policymakers. But while all these contemporary revisionists have helped to move the definition of security beyond its exclusively national security focus toward additional concerns for the security of the individual and the natural environment, they have rarely included gender as a category of analysis; nor have they acknowledged similar, earlier reformulations of security constructed by women. ALT: Rhetorical Intervention NATURE IS NOT AN OBJECT TO BE ACTED UPON, BUT A DISCURSIVE CREATION THAT

EMBODIES THE VALUES OF THE SPEAKER. RHETORICAL INTERVENTIONS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO REORIENT THE DOMINANT TROPES CONDITIONING ITS DOMINATION HARAWAY, professor in the History of Consciousness program at UC- Santa Cruz, 1992 (Donna, THe Promises of
Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for

Inappropriate/d Others, Cultural Studies eds. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A Treichler, p 296) So, nature is not a physical place to which one can go, nor a treasure to fence in or bank, nor as essence to be saved or violated. Nature is not hidden and so does not need to be unveiled. Nature is not a text to be read in the codes of mathematics and biomedicine. It is not the "other" who offers origin, replenishment, and service. Neither mother, nurse, nor slave, nature is not matrix, resource, or tool for the reproduction of man. Nature is, however, a topos, a place, in the sense of a rhetorician's place or topic for consideration of common themes; nature is, strictly, a commonplace. We turn to this topic to order our discourse, to compose our memory. As a topic in this sense, nature also reminds us that in seventeenth-century English the "topick gods" were the
local gods, the gods specific to places and peoples. We need these spirits, rhetorically if we can't have them any other way. We need them in order to reinhabit,

precisely, common places-locations that are widely shared, inescapably local, worldly, enspirited; i.e., topical. In this sense, nature is the place to rebuild public culture.5 Nature is also a tropos, a trope. It is figure, construction, artifact, movement, displacement. Nature cannot pre-exist its construction. This construction is based on a particular kind of move- a tropos or "turn." Faithful to the Greek, as tro'pos

nature is about turning. Troping, we turn to nature as if to the earth, to the primal stuff-geotropic, physiotropic. Topically, we travel

toward the earth, a commonplace. In discoursing on nature, we turn from Plato and his heliotropic son's blinding star to see something else, another kind of figure. I do not turn from vision, but I do seek something other than enlightenment in these sightings of science studies as cultural studies. Nature is a topic of public discourse on which much turns, even the earth. 102

UTNIF 2011 Gender K ALT: Standpoint Epistemology We must explicitly recognize those who are excluded by traditional notions of science. Merely integrating others into our predetermined thought failswe must keep our dedication to partiality open. WATSON, visiting assistant professor in Sociology and Anthropology at George Mason, 2011 (Mathew C.
Cosmopolitics and the Subaltern: Problematizing

Latours Idea of the Commons, Theory, Culture, Society, 28:55; DOI: 10.1177/0263276410396913) Standpoint theory, however, should not be reduced to the phenomenological insistence that all points of view issue from subjects specific worldly experiences. It does not merely hold that perceptions of reality are idiosyncratic reflections of subjects
positionalities. Rather, it maintains an epistemological and ethical stance that good science should respond to and

address problems articulated by subjects in subordinated social positions (Harding, 2004, 2008).9 In turn, it becomes an ethical imperative for critics ^ or, to use Latours (1999a) terminology, students ^ of science to speak from below or from the margins. Thus, to be good cosmopolitical citizens and oppositional science studies scholars we must innovate a power additional to those of taking into account, arranging in rank order, and follow- ing up (Latour, 2004a). We must continuously attempt to engage with those externalized from the common world while acknowledging the possibility that they may not continuously return to the gates of the citadel. Without relegating the externalized small
transcendences (Latour, 2004a: 196) to a space of absolute alterity, we must reserve the possibility that they remain at least partially

unassimilable to the given procedures of representation. In other words, I think that the democratization of science entails more than a reunification of the two houses, science and politics. Projects for democratization should consider the problematic ways in which scientific knowledges, technological innovations, and political decisions render conse-quences that further entrench social and economic inequalities. Democratization requires something
beyond breaking down the walls of Platos Cave to allow more than a handful of experts to relay between the former inside and the outside, society and nature (Latour,

2004a). It entails innovating practices of situated representation that speak to, with, and of scientists from the standpoints of externalized, marginalized actors (human and nonhuman). Standpoint epistemology thus provides a necessary additional sense of democracy as the struggle to recognize and combat the forms of subordination enacted by our political and scientific institutions. The feminist and postcolonialist projects have maintained that the externality of subjects to the institutions of representation ^

their status as necessary exceptions to the system ^ can be read as a critique of the system itself (Harding, 2008; Spivak, 1988). This is where Latour errs
through omission, and seemingly renders his cosmopolitics incompatible with oppositional social movements. He assumes that those externalized from the common

world, those specters that take the place of nature, share an intrinsic proclivity to appeal their cases. I counter that some actors occu- pying the haunts of the common world necessarily remain partially unassi- milable to its procedures of representation. They are not all committed appellants, and some are not appellants at all (as I discuss in the following section). Therefore, the users of cosmopolitics are not excused from explic- itly conceptualizing the programs potential complicity with the sociomaterial marginalization of the subaltern, despite this metaphysics primary empha- sis on the positive construction of a common world. For feminist, postcolonialist science studies scholars such as myself, and I think for Latour as well, these
marginalized outsiders are not just rhe- torical placeholders in a politico-scientific allegory.They are self-immolating Hindu widows (Spivak, 1988), endangered snails

cared for in Michael Hadelds laboratory at the University of Hawaii (Haraway, 2008: 91^2), Santals who cite a god as the instigator of rebellion (Chakrabarty, 2000: 102^6), indigenous subjects cut from the networks of pharmaceutical pro- duction that they enable (Hayden, 2005), and mosquitoes that go unacknow- ledged in histories of a malaria epidemic (Mitchell, 2002: ch. 1), among countless others.10

103

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Standpoint Epistemology Alternative solves for domination and creates new political possibilities. Campbell 9 (Nancy D., Professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Ph.D @ University of California-Santa Cruz, 2009.
Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies.

Reconstructing Science and Technology Studies. Views from Feminist Standpoint T Theory. Volume 30, Number 1) Feminist philosopher of science Helen Longino argues in The Fate of Knowledge for an epistemology of science for social justice that considers social norms designed to subject what is ratified as knowledge to criticism from multiple points of view.42 These norms are of a piece with deliberative democracy and the participatory mechanisms cited in note 38, each of which embody some of what Donna Haraway meant by situated knowledges.43 Longinos first three norms were creating public venues that do not marginalize critical discourse; assuring uptake of criticism on both sides of scientific and advocacy communities to enable change; and advancing publicly recognized standards to make evident divergence between the goals of inquiry and its outcomes. Critical communities who have become involved with technoscientific elites
have sometimes encountered the appropriation of their scarce material and ideological resources in the course of their interactions with scientific research enterprises.

Sadly, techniques of inclusion and empowerment can also be used to appropriate resources, defuse valid criticisms, or ease implementation difficulties.44

Feminist science solves: a democratized science undoes the work of objectivity as domination.
Campbell 9 (Nancy D., Professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Ph.D @ University of California-Santa Cruz, 2009.
Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies.

Reconstructing Science and Technology Studies. Views from Feminist Standpoint T Theory. Volume 30, Number 1) Feminist science and technology studies can be applied to efforts to democratize and diversify the conduct, content, and effects of science and technology. The concept of situated expertise recognizes that expert knowledge can become context-sensitive and capable of taking multiple perspectives into accountand that it will need to become so if it is to have broader benefits and increased social relevance. Drawing on Donna Haraways notion
of situated knowledges and Sandra Hardings idea of strong objectivity, as well as studies of epistemic and enunciative cultures and specific cultures of expertise

that have been produced in STS, the idea of situated expertise relies upon accumulation and independent validation of multiple perspectives. This only becomes possible once scientists recognize that their work is socially situated, and that they are both epistemologically advantaged and disadvantaged by the seemingly privileged social location they occupy. Democratizing a research enterprise depends not so much upon an influx of women or people of color into science, engineering, or policy-making cultures as upon recognizing the extent to which gendered and racialized asymmetries structure the local cultures of scientific practice and (mis)inform decision making within them. Distinctions between basic and applied research subordinate practical expertise in ways that make it more difficult for basic research to be translated into useable knowledge, a distinction that is structurally gendered and racialized in unjust ways. By [End Page 15] what social processes might scientists be led to ask and answer
questions that are more relevant to the communities they study? Given the corporatization of the university and the increasing pressure on scientific faculties to bring in

grant money, how can socially relevant questions be more systematically formulated and pursued in scientific arenas? Greatly improved and integrated scientific inquiry, knowledge, and policy requires opening decision-making and research design processes to scrutiny from more transdisciplinary perspectives, to more democratic deliberation, and to influence by current outsiders whose standpoints allow them to discern matters invisible or unimportant to current insiders. Ongoing attempts to place policy on a more evidence-based or science-based footing require attention to the social processes by which knowledge production is gendered, racialized, and shaped by cross-cutting axes of difference to which feminists have paid attention. Gendered social roles literally make some thoughts unthinkable or improbable. Social structure not only shapes social cognition, including expert inquiry, but the extracognitive dimensions that
crop into everyday life. Feminists emphasize everyday life as a starting place from which to problematize what needs knowing for the sake of making scholarly inquiry more relevant. The problem is that science and technology policyas well as the conduct of scientific and technological innovation themselvestakes place at

considerable extralocal distance from almost everyones everyday life. Thus does the class, race, and gender composition of policy-making elites matter when it comes to shaping the products and processes of technoscience.

104

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Alt: Transexuality In science fiction, the gender-fluid concept of the body explores gender possibilities beyond "male" or "female", proving that gender need not be static Brandt 06 (Stefan, Professor of North American Culture and Literature, University of Siegen, Germany, "Astronautic
Subjects: Postmodern Identity and the

Embodiment of Space in American Science Fiction", Gender Forum, Issue 16, 2006, http://www.genderforum.org/index.php?id=311) 17 This dilemma corresponds to the situation of the postmodern subject who is also torn between the trajectories of boundary maintenance and deconstruction. The 'grand narratives' of an alleged truth and hermetic unity have become obsolete in postmodernity. Stable meaning has been replaced by the free play of the signifier. By detaching itself from the phallogocentric inscriptions into the body, the postmodern subject begins to incorporate a new model of liberty and emancipation. In the words of Susan Bordo, "Western science and technology have now arrived []
at a new, postmodern imagination of human freedom from bodily determination" (Unbearable Weight 245). Within the postmodern imagination, anatomy is thus

no longer destiny. The individual him/herself decides which position within the symbolic order she or he wants to take. The most obvious example of this new form of individual self-fashioning is the transsexual body, which
combines organic and technological features to a new and unique concept - "the romance of the knife," as Sue-Ellen Case has put it (115). The old slogan, "Become

whatever you want to be," assumes a new meaning in the age of plastic surgery and body modification. Everyone can forge his or her own individual body. Referring to the transsexual body in cyberpunk fiction, Cathy Peppers thus speaks of a "utopian subjectivity founded on the pleasure of

boundary confusions" (166). The act of transcending boundaries is no longer a sacrilege but a promise. 18 The poststructuralist philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Flix Guattari have developed a theory that almost sounds like an instruction manual: "How Do You Make Yourself a Body without

Organs?" (149). The traditional image of the body as a stable unity is replaced here by the notions of malleability and human creativity. According to Deleuze and Guattari, "the body without organs is not a dead body but a living body all the more alive and teeming once it has
blown apart the organism and its organization. [] The full body without organs is a body populated by multiplicities." (30) In this model, subject and object are no longer seen as homogenous unities separate from each other, but as loose interconnections of energy, movement, flow, strata,

segments, and intensities (Grosz 167). Through a process of continual becoming, Deleuze and Guattari explain, diverse forms of identity constitution are facilitated. The postmodern body image encompasses a multitude of different identity options. It almost seems as if the feminist ideal

articulated by Susan Suleiman has already become a reality: "[We must] get beyond the number two" (24). The moment we engage in this journey

to search for new ways of identity constitution, we are confronted with a confusing, yet also liberating number of possible identities. Subjectivity here assumes a nomadic quality, far from normative

inscriptions.

105

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

2NC OVERVIEW : Framework, alt, turns the case

Gender shapes all of our social experiences As they frame our experiences they also produce
and confirm the anticipated consequences. A minor change in orientation in this debate round can have radical ramifications for cultural schemas of gender PETERSON, professor of political science at the University of Arizona, and RUNYAN, associate professor of political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993(V Spike and Anne, Global Gender Issues, p 2-3) What we look for depends a great deal on how we make sense of, or "order," our experience. We learn our ordering systems in a variety of contexts. From early childhood on, we are taught to make distinctions enabling us to perform
appropriately within a particular culture. As college students, we are taught the distinctions appropriate to particular disciplines (psychology, anthropology, political science) and particular schools of thought within them (realism, behavioralism, structuralism). No matter in which context we learned them, the categories and ordering frameworks shape the lens through which we look at, think about,

and make sense of the world around us. At the same time, the lens we adopt shapes our experience of the world itself because it shapes what we do

and how and why we do it. For example, a political science lens focuses our attention on particular categories and events (the meaning of power, democracy, or

elections) in ways that variously influence our behavior (questioning authority, protesting abuse of power, or participating in electoral campaigns). By filtering our ways of thinking about and ordering experience, the categories and images we rely on shape how we behave and thus the world we live in: They have concrete consequences. We observe this readily in
the case of self-fulfilling prophecies: If

we expect hostility, our own behavior (acting superior, displaying power) may elicit responses (defensive poshtring, aggression) that we then interpret as "confirming" our expectations. In general, as long as our lens and images seem to "work," we keep them and build on
them. Lenses simplify our thinking. Like maps, they "frame" our choices and exploration, enabling us to take advantage of knowledge already gained and to move more

effectively toward our objectives. The more useful they appear to be, the more we are inclined to take them for granted and to resist making major changes in them. We forget that our particular ordering or meaning system is a choice among many alternatives. Instead, we tend to believe we are seeing "reality" as it "is" rather than as our culture or discipline interprets or "maps" reality. It

is difficult and sometimes unpleasant to reflect critically on our assumptions, to question their accuracy or desirability, and to explore the implications of adopting a different lens. Of course, the world we live in and therefore our
experiences are constantly changing; we have to continuously modify our images, mental maps, and ordering systems as well. The required shift in lens may be minor

from liking one type of music to liking another, from being a high school student in a small town to being a college student in an urban environment. Or the shift may be more pronounced: from casual dating to parenting, from the freedom of student life-styles to the assumption of fl1ll-time job responsibilities, from Newtonian to quantum mechanics, East-West rivalry to post-cold war complexities. More dramatic shifts occur as we experience and respond to radical or systemic transformations, such as economic recession, environmental degradation, or the effects of war. To function effectively as students and scholars of world politics, we must modify our thinking in line with historical developments. That is, as changes, our ways of understanding or ordering need to change This is especially the case to the extent that outdated worldviews or lenses place us in danger, distort our understanding, or lead us away from our objectives.

106

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

2NC: ALT IS A PREREQ

Recognition of gender inequality comes before the affirmative. Only a gender analysis can attend
to the fundamental causes of global violence and nuclear war. Beginning from the moments of habitual repetition is the first step. PETERSON, professor of political science at the University of Arizona, and RUNYAN, associate professor of political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993(V Spike and Anne, Global Gender Issues, p 12)
Gender issues surface now because new questions have been raised that cannot be addressed within traditional frameworks. The amassing of global data

reveals the extent and pattern of gender inequality: Women everywhere have less access to political power and economic resources and less
control over processes that reproduce this systemic inequality. Moreover, our knowledge of the world of men and the politics they create is incomplete and inaccurate

without knowing how men's activities, including their politics, are related to, even dependent upon, what women are doing-and why. Additionally, our recognizing the power of gender forces us to reevaluate traditional explanations, to ask how they are biased and hence render inaccurate accounts, As in other disciplines, the study of world politics is enriched by acknowledging and systematically examining how
gender shapes categories and frameworks that we take for granted. This is necessary for answering the new questions raised and for generating fresh insights-about the

world as we currently "know" it and how it might be otherwise. Finally, gendersensitive studies improve our understanding of global crises, their interaction, and possibilities of moving beyond them. These include crises of political legitimacy and security as states are increasingly unable to protect their citizens against nuclear, economic, or ecological threats; crises of maldevelopment as the dynamics of our global economic system enrich a few and impoverish most; and crises of environmental degradation as the exploitation of natural resources continues in nonsustainable fashion. These global crises cannot be understood or addressed without acknowledging the structural inequalities of the current world system. These inequalities extend well beyond gender
issues: They are embodied in interacting

hierarchies of race, class, ethnicity, nationality, and religious identification. Examining gender, as this text does, permits us to see how this particular structural inequality works in the world: how it is institutionalized, legitimated, and reproduced. We also begin to see how gender hierarchy interacts with other structural

inequalities. Gender shapes, and is shaped b)" all of us. We daily reproduce its dynamics-and suffer its costs-in multiple ways. By learning how gender works, we learn a great deal about structures of inequality and how they are intentionally and unintentionally reproduced. We can then use this knowledge in our struggles to transform not only global gender inequality but also other
oppressive hierarchies at work in the world.

107

UTNIF 2011 Gender K PERMUTATION BLOCK FIRST: FRAMEWORK: VIEW THE ENTIRE SPEECH ACT OF THE 1AC AS AN ARTIFACT. IF WE WIN A LINK TO THE REPRESENTATIONS OR THE PHILISOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS GROUNDING THE AFFIRMATIVE, THEN A PERMUATION IS IMPOSSIBLE. OUR LINGUISTIC CHOICES PROFOUNDLY AFFECT OUR ACTION AND HOW WE UNDERSTAND THE WORLD. Chew 07 (Pat K. Chew, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh, and Lauren K. Kelley-Chew, candidate for B.S.,
Stanford University. "Subtly sexist

language", Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, Vol. 16, pg 643 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1285570) While our tendency is to take language literally and not to look for meaning beyond the apparent message, cultural and psycholinguists propose that language conveys much more than the literal message. n10 Benjamin Lee Whorf is often credited with the original hypothesis that language is related to perception, analysis, and conduct. He proposed that the words one uses and hears shape how one "understands reality and behaves with respect to it." n11 This Whorfian hypothesis of "linguistic relativity" has been explored and debated
since its introduction in the 1950s. n12 One contemporary interpretation is that "linguistic processes are [*647] pervasive in most

fundamental domains of thought. That is, it appears that what we normally call 'thinking' is in fact a complex set of collaborations between linguistic and nonlinguistic representations and processes." n1 This argument is important for four reasons:
a. THE PERMUTATION IS SEVERANCE - THE AFFIRMATIVE WOULD HAVE TO ARTIFICIALLY

JETISON ELEMENTS OF THE 1AC IN A STRATEGIC EFFORT TO AVOID LINKS TO AN OFFCASE POSITION. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY UNFAIR, DESTORYS INDEPTH EDUCATION, AND IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. THIS IS A VOTING ISSUE. b. NO SOLVENCY: THE AFFIRMATIVE WOULD HAVE TO RE-DESIGN AND RE-READ THEIR 1AC. EVEN IF THEY WIN THIS IS THEORETICALLY LEGITIAMTE, THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO. THE CRITIC WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO VOTE FOR c. NO NET BENEFIT: IF WE WIN THAT A COMMITMENT TO GENDER POLITICS WOULD PRODUCE A BETTER RELATIONSHIP TO SPACE, THEN THE AFFIRMATIVE IS IRRELEVANT AND NEED NOT BE INCLUDED.

SECOND: STEALING THE WIND FROM THE SAILS: The permutation is nothing but a
convenient apology and hackneyed carrot offered by masculinity to entice us to remain committed to its ordering principles. It doesnt solve the criticism and is political demobilizing Haraway 91 (Donna J., Distinguished Professor Emerita in the History of Consciousness Department at UC Santa Cruz, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, The Reinventing of Nature) So, I think my problem and 'our' problem is how to have simultaneously an account of radical historical contingency for all knowledge claims and knowing subjects, a critical practice for recognizing our own 'semiotic technologies' for making meanings, and a nononsense commitment to faithful accounts of a 'real' world, one that can be partially shared and friendly to earth-wide projects of finite
freedom, adequate material abundance, modest meaning in suffering, and limited happiness. Harding calls this necessary multiple desire a need for a successor science

project and a postmodern insistence on irreducible difference and radical multiplicity of local knowledges. All components of the desire are paradoxical and dangerous, and their combination is both contradictory and necessary. Feminists don't need a doctrine of objectivity that promises transcendence, a story that loses track of its mediations just where someone might be held responsible for something, and unlimited instrumental power. We don't want a theory of innocent powers to represent the world, where language and bodies both fall into the bliss of organic symbiosis. We also don't want to theorize the world, much less act within it, in terms of Global Systems, but we do need an earth-wide network of connections, including the ability partially to translate knowledges among very different - and powerdifferentiated - communities. We need the power of modern critical theories of how meanings and bodies get made, not in order to deny meaning and bodies, but in order to live in meanings and bodies that have a chance 108

UTNIF 2011 Gender K PERMUTATION BLOCK

for a future. Natural, social, and human sciences have always been implicated in hopes like these. Science has been about a search for translation, convertibility,
mobility of meanings, and universality - which I call reductionism, when one language (guess whose) must be enforced as the standard for all the translations and

conversions. What money does in the exchange orders of capitalism, reductionism does in the powerful mental orders of global sciences: there is finally only one equation. That is the deadly fantasy that feminists and others have identified in some versions of objectivity doctrines in the service of hierarchical and positivist orderings of what can count as knowledge. That is one of the reasons the debates about objectivity matter, metaphorically and otherwise. Immortality and omnipotence are not our goals. But we could use some enforceable, reliable accounts of things not reducible to power moves and agonistic, high status games of rhetoric or to scientistic, positivist arrogance. This point applies whether we are talking about genes, social classes, elementary particles, genders, races, or texts; the point applies to

the exact, natural, social, and human sciences, despite the slippery ambiguities of the words objectivity and science as we slide around the discursive terrain. In our

efforts to climb the greased pole leading to a usable doctrine of objectivity, I and most other feminists in the objectivity debates have alternatively, or even simultaneously, held on to both ends of the dichotomy, which Harding describes in terms of successor science projects versus postmodernist accounts of difference and I have sketched in this chapter as radical constructivism versus feminist critical empiricism. It is, of course, hard to climb when you are holding on to both ends of a pole, simultaneously or alternately. It is, therefore, time to switch metaphors.

THIRD: CANDY COATING- NASA will take up the criticism as a way of generating nationalist investment in space. The environmental movement provides empirical evidence that when critical agenda items are incorporated politically, their substance is diluted. Bryant 95 [William, American Studies at the University of Iowa, The Re-Vision of Planet Earth:
Environmentalism in Postmodern

Space Flight and

America, American Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2: Fall 1995, https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/viewFile/2791/2750]

Such a reading is borne out in the science of the manned space program. As Smith illustrates, the objective of greater scientific knowledge set forth as a justification for the program by the scientists and political and military leaders who initiated it was "candy coating" for the real motivations of national power and prestige. In
fact, not much knowledge or even economic benefit was gained from the lunar missions. As Tom Wolfe remarked, "the moon was in economic terms pretty much what

it looked like from Earth, a gray rock." 40 In light of the general lack of certainty about what the Apollo mission's objectives really were, Smith notes a resultant post-landing scramble to paint the astronauts as modernday Columbuses,
returning from the new world with riches such as Teflon and improved electrocardiographs, "as if the way to develop a better electrocardiograph were to send men to

the moon." The moon shot, according to Lewis Mumford, represented "an extravagant feat of technological exhibitionism." "[Sjpace technics," he wrote, "offer a new type of non-existence: that of the fastest possible locomotion in a uniform environment, under uniform
conditions, to an equally undistinguishable uniform destination." 41 This was science/technology, or "commodity scientism," as Smith calls it, for its own sake,

governed only by its facility at performing itself. Environmentalism also found its value in performativity in the form of the mainstream practice that emerged from the 1960s. The radical potential of the early movement was neutralized by the procedures (such as abstraction and instrumentalism) of the dominant discourse on the environment, and the movement evolved into a professionalized, elitist institution, disjoined from the masses it had converted. 42 In its structure and
modes of operation, environmentalism became completely compatible with the institutions it set out initially to

undermine. Mainstream environmental organizations came to engage not in the activity of improving the condition of the environment but in the performance of environmentalism. Likewise, as consumer capitalism moved in to colonize
new territory, build a "green" marketplace, and so inoculate itself against the disease of anti-consumption, the ecologically conscious individual was

converted into the "green consumer," who did not have to practice environmentalism so much as perform it through "lifestyle" choices pivoting on the purchase of "Earthfriendly" products.

109

UTNIF 2011 Gender K PERMUTATION BLOCK FOURTH: THE AFFIRMATIVE CANNOT REDESCRIBE THE AFFIRMATIVE IN THE LANGAUGE OF THE CRITICISM. WE ARE INDICITING THE DESIGN AND STYLISTIC CHOICES THEY MADE TO DEFEND THE AFFIRMATIVE. WE MUST BEGIN NOT FROM A PARADIGM OF ACTION, BUT ONE THAT QUESTIONS THE SPEAKING ACTOR ITSELF. THE PERMUTATION SIDESTEPS THIS EPISTEMOLOGICAL INQUIRY ENTIRELY Christensen 8 [MS in sociology BS in sociology from State U of NY, Magna Cum
Madison. PhD expected in Spring Laude. MS in sociology, U Wisconsin-

2010 Wendy, Cowboy of the World? Gender Discourse and the Iraq War Debate, http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mferree/documents/ChristensenFerree.pdf] In the spring of 2002, the Bush Administration began publicly to discuss the possibility of US military action against Iraq and by spring 2003, the invasion of Iraq had begun. In retrospect, media commentators have asked why they were not more critical of the administrations war plans, and why reservations about going to war expressed by some of the USs closest allies were not taken more seriously. In this paper, we argue that the use of gender images and metaphors in this public debate impoverished the quality of media coverage of the issues. As such, it is an excellent example of the symbolic power of gender to frame issues and constrain alternatives. Cultural ideologies such as gender form an implicit framework for popular thought and are available to be mobilized in public policy discussions (Stone 1988), especially when gendered images can serve as portrayals of other binary oppositions (us/them, good/evil, offense/ defense). However, it is important to note that such ideologies are always multiple and open to contestation (Scott 1986; Smith 1999). When gendered symbols are employed rhetorically to frame political issues, the speakers align themselves with particular understandings of gender as well as express their positions in relation to specific policies. As a consequence, media discourse preceding the war in Iraq became a debate both about which notions of
masculinity are positively valued and about the appropriateness of a decision to go to war, with each side of the war debate simultaneously contesting both the policy

and the versions of masculinity symbolically invoked to justify their positions. In this paper we use a content analysis of the year-long debate preceding the war in Iraq to show how images of Bush as a cowboy and Europe as a wimp were advanced

and contested by those favoring and opposing the war. We further show that the organization of war debate in gendered terms expressed and encouraged binary thinking and so lowered the quality of war debate. Although we do not claim that the gendered nature of the debate preceding the 2003 war caused the nations failure to focus on the
complex issues that the invasion proved to raise, we argue that symbolically mobilizing masculinity in this context contributed to the

shallowness of media debate by placing the voices for peace, both in the US and in Europe, on a devalued, feminized footing and by casting the Administrations posture of masculinity as the multivalent, but quintessentially American, cowboy. The American cowboy represents both the power of civilization against the savage and outlaw forces of disorder and the more raw and
untamed American West against the effete, urban and over-refined East. As such the cowboy is associated with negative values of racism and imperialism as well

as with positive images of law, independence and freedom; the opposite of the cowboy image is not merely a positive view of urban masculinity as civilized, rational, educated but also a negative one of such men being under the power of women, bosses and the discipline of the workplace (Desmond 2007). Moreover, the cowboy is associated not merely with masculinity but with American culture as such (Kimmel 1996), making the debate about cowboy masculinity also about American nationalism. Gendered symbols such as cowboys form a complex system of reference. As Joan Scott (1986, p. 1096) has argued, gender is not only a constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes but also a primary way of signifying relationships of power. This is a relationship of reciprocal signification: Invoking gender carries connotations of strength or weakness, as in references to emasculating America, and invoking images of strength and weakness, such as the pitiful, helpless giant, carry connotations of gender (Scott 1986; Cohn 1993). Since nation-states are powerful forces and the decision to use military force is an extreme expression of this power, war debate is an excellent forum for seeing the co-connotations of gender and power at work symbolically. Our empirical case is developed in three steps: we first show the relevance of gendered imagery in the debate running up to the Iraq war by examining the frequency of gender language in news media, in both those sources that are more typically critical and those more typically affirmative of the Bush Administration. We then examine the gendered language to see how particular versions of masculinity are debated in concert with debates about appropriate policy toward Iraq. We focus on the memorable image of G.W. Bush as a cowboy, showing how the cowboy image is contested by both sides. Finally, we show that the news stories that rely on gendered images are more likely than others to have a less reasoned debate.

110

UTNIF 2011 Gender K PERMUTATION BLOCK

FIFTH: MIX AND STIR: THE PERMUTATION IS A TRIED AND FAILED MODEL OF POLITICS THAT BELIEVES IF WE JUST THROW EVERYTHING INTO THE POT SOMEHOW THE MEAL WILL TURN OUT FINE. MERE INCLUSION HAS NEVER BROUGHT EITHER STRUCTURAL NOR REPRESENTATIONAL TRANSFORMATION Wajcman 4 (Judy. Head of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, formerly a Professor of
Sociology at ANU, Visiting Professor

at the Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business and the Oxford Internet Institute, Also a Professor in the Gender Institute at London School of Economics and Political Science. TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 15-16)
The equal opportunities strategy has had limited success precisely because it fails to challenge the sexual division of labour in the wider

society. Women's reluctance 'to enter' is to do with the sex-stereotyping of technology as an activity appropriate for men. As with science, the very language of technology, its symbolism, is masculine. It is not simply a question of acquiring skills, because these skills are embedded in a culture of masculinity that is largely coterminous with the culture of technology. Both at school and in the workplace this culture is incompatible with femininity. Therefore, to enter this world, to learn its language, women have first to forsake their femininity. Indeed, the very definition of technology is cast in terms of male activities. We tend to think about technology in terms of industrial machinery and cars, for example, ignoring other technologies that affect most aspects of everyday life. The history of technology still represents the prototype inventor as male. However, the concept of technology is itself subject to historical change, and different epochs and cultures had different names for what we now think of as technology. A greater emphasis on women's activities immediately suggests that women, and in particular indigenous women, were amongst the first technologists. After all, women were the main gatherers, processors and storers of plant food from earliest human times onward. It is therefore logical that they should be the ones to have invented the tools and methods involved in this work, such as the digging stick, the carrying sling, the reaping knife and sickle, pestles and pounders. The male orientation of most technological research has long obscured the significance of 'women's sphere' inventions, and this in turn has served to reinforce the cultural stereotype of technology as an activity appropriate for men. Indeed, it was only with the formation of engineering as a white, male, middle-class profession that 'male machines rather than female

fabrics' became the modern markers of technology.5 During the late nineteenth century mechanical and civil engineering increasingly
came to define what technology is, diminishing the significance of both artefacts and forms of knowledge associated with women. This

was the result of the rise of engineers as an elite with exclusive rights to technical expertise. Crucially, it involved the creation of a male professional identity, based on educational qualifications and the promise of managerial positions, sharply distinguished from shopfloor engineering and blue-collar workers. It also involved an ideal of manliness, characterized by the cultivation of bodily prowess and individual achievement. The discourse about manliness was mobilized to ensure that class, race and gender boundaries were drawn around the engineering bastion. It was during and through this process that the term 'technology' took on its modern meaning. Whereas the earlier concept of useful arts had included needlework and metalwork as well as spinning and mining, by the 1930s this had been supplanted by the idea of technology as applied science. At the same time, femininity was being reinterpreted as incompatible with technological pursuits. The legacy of this relatively recent history is our taken-for-granted association of technology with men.

111

UTNIF 2011 Gender K PERMUTATION BLOCK

SIXTH:COUNTERPERMUATIONPOLITICSOFDIFFERENCEThe permutations politics of unitythrough-incorporation is a failed strategy for challenging masculine domination. We must forge unities based on difference, not on sameness. Haraway 91 (Donna J., Distinguished Professor Emerita in the History of Consciousness Department at UC Santa Cruz, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, The Reinventing of Nature) The theoretical and practical struggle against unity-through-domination or unitythrough-incorporation ironically not only undermines the justifications for patriarchy, colonialism, humanism, positivism, essentialism, scientism, and other unlamented -isms, but all claims for an organic or natural standpoint. I think that
radical and socialist Marxist-feminisms have also undermined their/our own epistemological strategies and that this is a crucially valuable step in imagining possible

unities. It remains to be seen whether all 'epistemologies' as Western political people have known them fail us in the task to build effective affinities. It is important to note that the effort to construct revolutionary standpoints, epistemologies as achievements of people committed to changing the world, has been part of the process showing the limits of identification. The acid
tools of postmodernist theory and the constructive tools of ontological discourse about revolutionary subjects might be seen as ironic allies in dissolving Western selves

in the interests of survival. We are excruciatingly conscious of what it means to have a historically constituted body. But with the loss of innocence in our origin, there is no expulsion from the Garden either. Our politics lose the indulgence of guilt

with the naivete of innocence. But what would another political myth for socialist-feminism look like? What kind of politics could embrace

partial, contradictory, permanently unclosed constructions of personal and collective selves and still be faithful, effective and, ironically, socialist-feminist? I do not know of any other time in history when there was greater need for political unity to confront effectively the dominations of 'race', 'gender', 'sexuality', and 'class'. I also do not know of any other time when the kind of unity we might help build could have been possible. None of 'us' have any longer the symbolic or material capability of dictating the shape of reality to any of ' them'. Or at least

'we' cannot claim innocence from practising such dominations. White women, including socialist feminists, discovered (that is, were
forced kicking and screaming to notice) the non-innocence of the category 'woman'. That consciousness changes the geography of all previous categories; it denatures

them as heat denatures a fragile protein. Cyborg feminists have to argue that 'we' do not want any more natural matrix of unity and that no construction is whole. Innocence, and the corollary insistence on victimhood as the only ground for insight, has done enough damage. But the constructed revolutionary subject must give latetwentieth- century people pause as well. In the fraying of identities and in the reflexive strategies for constructing them, the possibility opens up for weaving something other than a shroud for the day after the apocalypse that so prophetically ends salvation history.

112

UTNIF 2011 Gender K PERMUTATION BLOCK CATSCRADLEThe1ACprecludesthemodestwitnessingnecessaryfortransforming technoscience.Merely includingreflexivityisnotenoughtoundothedominatingeffectsofcurrentscience.We mustdiffractthe1ac andbreakitapartinordertoopenthewayfornewsocialformations. Haraway 97 (Donna, Ph.D from Yale, Distinguished Professor Emerita in the University of California, Taught Womens
Studies at the University of Hawaii and

Johns Hopkins University. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse. Pgs. 267-268)

I have tried to persuade my readers that several apparently counterintuitive claims should have the status of matters of fact-that is, crucial points of contingent stability

for possible sociotechnical orders, attested by collective, networked, situated practices of witnessing. Witnessing is seeing; attesting; standing publicly accountable for and psychically vulnerable to, one's visions and representations. Witnessing is a collective, limited

practice that depends on the constructed and never-finished-credibility of those who do it, all of whom are mortal, fallible, and fraught With the consequences of

unconscious and-.disowned desires and fears. A child -of Robert Boyle's Royal Society of the English Restoration and of the experimental way of life, I remain attached to the figure of the modest witness. I still inhabit the stories of scientific revolution as earthshaking mutations in the apparatuses of production of what may count as knowledge. A child of antiracist, feminist, multicultural, and radical science movements," I want a mutated modest witness-to-live in worlds of technoscience, to yearn for knowledge, freedom, and justice in the world of consequential facts. I have tried to queer the self-evidence of witnessing, of experience, of the conventionally upheld and invested perceptions of clear distinctions between subject and object, especially the self-evidence of the distinction between living and dead, machine and organisms, human and nonhuman, self and other ,as well as of the distinction between feminist and mainstream, progressive and oppressive, local and global. Queering all or any of these distinctions depends, paradigmatically, on undoing the founding border trace of modern- science--that between the technical and the political.' The point is to make situated knowledges possible order to be able to make consequential claims about the world and on each other. Such claims are rooted in a finally a modern, reinvented desire for justice and democratically crafted and lived well-being. It is
important to remember that these were also, often, the dreams 'of the players in the first Scientific Revolution, that first

time machine of modernity as they sought to

avert, terrors of civil war, absolutist religion, and arbitrary monarchs. Perhaps ironically, meeting the criterion of heightened, strong objectivity, rather than lowing in the soft and flaccid swamps, of ordinary technoscientic objectivity depends on undoing the tricks of modernity's Wizard of Oz's masterpiece called the air-pump. The air-pump is the synecdochic and originary figure in my story for the whole apparatus of production of what may count as reliable knowledge in technoscience. I want to call the problematic but compelling world of antiracist feminist multicultural studies of technoscience "cat's cradle." Making string figures on fingers is cats cradle (Westerveld 1979). Relying on relays from many hands and fingers, I try to make suggestive figures with varying threads of science studies, antiracist feminist theory, and cultural studies. Cats cradle is a game for nominalists like me who cannot not desire what we cannot possibly have. As soon as possession enters the game, the string figures freeze into a lying pattern. Cats cradle is about patterns and knots; the game takes great skill and can result in some serious surprises. One person can build up a large repertoire of string figures on a single pair of hands, but the cats cradle figures can be passed back and forth on the hands of several players, who add new moves in the building of complex patterns. Cats cradle invites a sense of collective world, of one person not being able to make all the patterns alone. One does not win at cats cradle; the goal is more interesting and more open-ended than that. It is not always possible to repeat interesting patterns, and figuring out what happened to result in intriguing patterns is an embodied analytic skill. The game is
played around the world and can have considerable cultural significance. Cats cradle is both local and global, distributed and knotted together (Haraway 1994a). The

mutated modest witness who plays cats cradle gamesrather than joining the strategic, agonistic contest of matching feats of strength and amassing allies, measured by strength and numbers, reputed to constitute ordinary science in actioncannot afford self-invisibility. And reflexivity is not enough to produce selfvisibility. Strong objectivity and agential realism demand a practice of diffraction, not just reflection. Diffraction is the production of difference patterns in the world, not just of the same reflecteddisplaced elsewhere. The modest witness in the cats cradle game cannot breathe any longer in the culture of no culture.

113

UTNIF 2011 Gender K PERMUTATION BLOCK

ACCOUNTABILITY - The permutation is a rhetorical refusal of material reality and a

responsibility to change it. Only the negative seriously articulates what a committed political approach would look like BARAD, Chair of Womens Studies at Rutgers & Associate professor of Physics at Pomona, 1998 (Karen, Getting real:
Technoscientific practices and the

materialization of reality, Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 10:2, p AcademicOneFile) While talk about the "real" on the precipice of the twenty-first century may be the source of such discomfort that it always needs to be toned-down, softened by the requisite quotation marks, I believe that "we" cannot afford to not talk about "it." Positivism's death warrant has many signatories, but its anti-metaphysics legacy lives on even in the heart of its detractors. However strong one's dislike of metaphysics, it cannot be banished, and so it is ignored at one's peril.
How reality is understood matters. There are risks entailed in putting forward an ontology: making metaphysical assumptions explicit

exposes the exclusions upon which any given conception of reality is based. Yet, the political potential of deconstructive analysis lies
not in the simple recognition of the inevitability of exclusions, but in insisting upon accountability for the particular exclusions that are

enacted and in taking up the responsibility to perpetually contest and rework the boundaries. In this section, I propose an understanding of reality
that takes account of both the exclusions upon which it depends and its openness to future reworkings. I call this ontology agential reality. Bohr's attitude towards the

relationship between language and reality is exemplified by the following remark: Traditional philosophy has accustomed us to regard language as something secondary, and reality as something primary. Bohr considered this attitude toward the relation between language and reality inappropriate. When one said to him that it cannot be language which is fundamental, but that it must be reality which, so to speak, lies beneath language, and of which language is a picture, he would reply "We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word 'reality' is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly." (Petersen 302)(19) Unfortunately, Bohr is not explicit about how he thinks we should use the word "reality." I have argued elsewhere that a consistent Bohrian ontology takes phenomena to be constitutive of reality (Barad "Meeting"). Reality is not composed of things-in-themselves or

things-behind-phenomena, but things-in-phenomena. Because phenomena constitute a non-dualistic whole, it makes no sense to talk about independently existing things as somehow behind or as the causes of phenomena.
The ontology I propose does not posit some fixed notion of being that is prior to signification (as the classical realist assumes), but neither is being completely

inaccessible to language (as in Kantian transcendentalism), nor completely of language (as in linguistic monism). That reality within which we intra-act - what I term agential reality - is made up of material-discursive phenomena. Agential reality is not a fixed ontology that is independent of human practices, but is continually reconstituted through our material-discursive intra-actions. Shifting our understanding of the ontologically real from that "which stands outside the sphere of cultural influence and historical change" (Fuss 3) to agential reality allows a new formulation of realism (and truth) that is not premised on the representational nature of knowledge. If our descriptive
characterizations do not refer to properties of abstract objects or observation-independent beings, but rather through their material instantiation in particular practices

contribute to the production of agential reality, then what is being described by our theories is not nature itself, but our participation within nature. That is, realism is reformulated in terms of the goal of providing accurate descriptions of agential reality - that reality within which we intra-act and have our being - rather than some imagined and idealized human-independent reality. I
use the label agential realism for both the new form of realism and the larger epistemological and ontological framework that I propose.(20) According to

agential realism, reality is sedimented out of the process of making the world intelligible through certain practices and not others. Therefore, we are not only responsible for the knowledge that we seek, but, in part, for what exists. Phenomena are produced through complex intra-actions of multiple material-discursive apparatuses of bodily production.(21) Materialdiscursive apparatuses are themselves phenomena made up of specific intraactions of humans and nonhumans, where the differential constitution of "human" (or "nonhuman") itself designates a particular phenomenon, and what gets defined as a "subject" (or "object") and what gets defined as an "apparatus" is intra-actively constituted within specific practices. OBSERVATION WITHOUT CONSIDERATION: THE PERMUATION IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SHOTOUT TO WOMEN. PUWAR, senior lecturer at the University of London, 2004 (Nirmal, Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of
Place, 10)

The observation of more or less different bodies statistically, in terms of race or gender, in the predominantly white and male echelons of power does not by itself speak of the contradictory

terms of their existence or, indeed, how their presence is received in an overwhelmingly white or male outfit. It fails to appreciate the complexity of coexisting in organisations and lite positions previously reserved for specific types of bodies. In contrast, a consideration of the terms of coexistence allows us to see how less obvious and more nuanced exclusion operates within institutions via the tacit reservation of privileged positions for the somatic norm. 114

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Framing card:

NASA and space exploration operates as a metaphor for instructing contemporary social
relations to technology and collective community. PENLEY, professor of film and media studies at UC Santa Barbara, 1997 (Constance NASA/TREK: Popular Science and Sex in America, 4-5)
Science is popular in America. An astonishing number of ordinary Americans take an extraordinary interest in exploring

the human relation to science and technology. In turn, the institutions of science and technology increasingly strive to be popular, that is, to try to find ways to communicate their ideas and endeavors in such a way that people (in government, media, and everyday life) feel they are sufficiently part of those ideas and endeavors to want to lend their enthusiastic support. NASA/TREK sketches a picture of our collective, it sometimes conflictual,
imaginary of human relation to science and

technology. I start with the claim that going into space both the actuality of it and its science fiction realization has become the prime metaphor through which we try to make sense of the world of science and technology and imagine a place for ourselves in it. The yearning to get a personal grip on that seemingly distant
realm can be seen everywhere in American

popular culture and everyday life, if one knows how to recognize it and, at least, provincially accept it on its own terms. AT: Alt Bad The 2ACs claims of the destructive effects of the alternative are a link: the exclusion of gender from the political sphere requires scare tactics to legitimate itself. PUWAR, senior lecturer at the University of London, 2004 (Nirmal, Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of
Place, 141-2)

There is an undeclared white masculine body underlying the universal construction of the enlightenment individual. Critics of the universal ideal human type in Western thought elaborate on the exclusionary some body in the no body of political theory that proclaims to include every body. In the face of a determined effort to disavow the (male) body, critics have insisted that the individual is embodied, and that it is the white male figure, of a changing habitus, who is actually taken as the central point of reference. The successive unveiling of the disembodied human individual by class theorists, feminists and race theorists has collectively revealed the corporeal specificity of the absolute human type. It is against this template, one that is defined in opposition to women

and non-whites after all, these are the relational terms in which masculinity
and whiteness are constituted that women and black people who enter these spaces are measured. The designation of specific bodies (women and non-whites) as

lacking rationality and all that the abstract male type exemplified was historically and conceptually a central feature of the constitution of the political subject. Racialised and gendered discourses on the body occupied an essential place in the construction of citizenship and political subjecthood. Women were defined as representing all that the social contract in the political realm sought to exclude, that is, emotion, bodies, nature, particularity and affectivity. Mens bodies, on the other hand, were associated
with the fantastic qualities of transcendental rationality and universal leadership. Pateman emphasises the role of bodily distinctions when she states: In the patriarchal

construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity, women lack the capacities necessary for political life. The disorder of women means that they pose a threat to political order and so must be excluded from the public world (1995: 4) AT: Astronaut turn Space programs construct the ideal astronaut as a masculine figure that leads the quest into space. Griffin 06 (Penny, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at the University of New South Wales, Australia, Ph.D @ U. of Bristol, The Spaces Between
Us: The Gendered Politics of Outer Space March 22-25, 2006)

Persons (for example, those astronauts selected for spaceflight) cannot be signified, as Butler argues, without the mark of gender (ibid.: 28). Inextricably bound to the popular heroes of the Cold War (American) cultural imaginary, the construction of the astronaut as space pioneer is embedded within a broader political framework of space travel, wherein women are seen as essentially different to men both physiologically and in terms of being taken seriously with a masculine environment, one in which the true visionary and entrepreneur leading the quest into outer space has, in the US, always been coded male. Thus NASA not only physically and empirically regulates which bodies can and cannot succeed in outer space (from its refusal to consider women candidates in the 1950s and 1960s, to ongoing controversies surrounding the
possibility of menstruation, sexual intercourse and pregnancy in mixed-crew space travel); it also constitutes the discursive regulations

through which persons are made regular. Gender, as Butler argues, thus becomes the norm that operates within social practices as the implicit
standard of normalization (2004: 41).

115

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Alt no solvo environment With increasing amounts of patriarchy comes increasing amounts of resource exploitation and environmental destruction Nhanenge 2007 (Jytte, Masters of Art Degree in International Development Studies at the University of South Africa (UNISA), Ecofeminism: towards
integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and nature into development.)

Modem institutions have consequently universalized rational scientific knowledge while intuitive knowledge is being dismissed as not acceptable. The emphasis on rational thought has taught people to identify with their minds only, rather than with their whole organism. This dualism of mind and body has spread throughout modem culture. It has led people to believe that the universe is a mechanical system, consisting of separate parts, put together as building blocks. The view has been extended to living organisms, which are regarded as machines constructed from separate parts. Although new physics has taught us that reality is different, this outdated view is still the basis of most of modem society's scientific and economic activity. It has led to fragmentation in modem academic discipline, in government agencies, in its decision and policymaking. It has led human beings to exploit nature, which has gone hand in hand with the exploitation of women, who have been identified with nature throughout ages. (Capra 1982: 22-23). From earliest time the Earth and nature were seen as the kind and nurturing mother, although nature also had a rough side to it. However, in prepatriarchal era the many aspects of nature were identified with that of the Goddess. Under patriarchy, the gentle image of nature changed. It became a wild, dangerous female that had to be controlled by men. Thus, nature and women became subservient to men. This
association of nature and women has been used by patriarchal society to legitimize the 114 exploitation of both. Nature, because it is associated with the feminine,

women, because they are associated with nature. Both are of a lower order, which exists to serve man's physical needs. Man is consequently seen as being both separate from, but also above nature and women, which he therefore can dominate. It was mainly with the rise of modem science and its capitalism that nature changed from being organic and alive to become a dead machine that could be manipulated and exploited. This happened parallel to the domination and exploitation of women. Thus, there is an ancient association of women and nature. (Capra 1982: 24; Birkeland 1995: 56).
Feminists find that the Western world's identification of maleness with rationality and femaleness with nature has provided the intellectual basis for the domination of

women. The masculine sphere of reason includes public, social and cultural life, together with production and justice. These are contrasted to the feminine sphere

of emotion, which includes the private, domestic and reproductive life. The masculine sphere is the active one where affairs and nature is controlled via science. The feminine sphere represents passiveness and the unchangeable human nature and natural necessity. Rationality is a highly regarded part of the human character as are the characteristics of control and freedom. These characteristics are seen as making men superior and separate from inferior nature and animals. Hence, also natural women emerge as inferior, imperfect human beings, lacking these characteristics. Thus, the dualism of rationality-nature is a major tool to keeping women "in their place". It is therefore allegedly the use of the concept nature, rather than social arrangements, that determines the lot of women and it is nature that justifies inequality. This ancient association of women and nature has resulted in a contemporary kinship between feminism and ecology. It is manifested in their common opposition against the patriarchal, rational, reductionist and scientific world-view; its domination of both women and nature; and the damage its actions causes to life itself. (Capra 1982: 24; Plumwood 1992: 8). It is therefore increasingly apparent that the patriarchal emphasis on rational, linear and analytic thinking has led to anti-ecological attitudes. Ecosystems sustain themselves in a non-linear dynamic balance based on cycles and fluctuations. However, such
understanding is hindered by the rational mind, which can only think in linear terms. Thus linear enterprises, like indefinite economic growth and eternal technological

development, will necessarily interfere with nature's balance and eventually cause severe damage. To comprehend non-linear systems we need to apply our intuition. True ecological awareness can come about only by applying the intuitive yin wisdom. Such wisdom is characteristic of many traditional cultures, where life was organised around a highly refined awareness of nature. However, this intuition and its wisdom have been neglected by the Western culture. AT: Alt no solvo Environment

Destruction of the environment is a link to feminism -- the earth is exploited just like women Cuomo 98 (Chris J., Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Feminism and Ecological Communities:
An Ethic of Flourishing, pg 6)

Of course, it is possible for a more critical object-attentive approach to take the category woman as referring to a diverse, multifarious group of differing and complex individuals. The clear and present commonalities, patterns and connections among womens gendered positions and experiences necessitate a feminism that focuses on those of us who fall under the category woman. None the less, it conceives of the category as multiplicitous, complex, and even contradictory, and realizes that improving the lives of women therefore necessarily entails working against all oppressions experienced by anyone in the category woman. As Elizabeth Spelman points out, gender oppression cannot be sliced out from womens experiences or

identities. There is no pure gender, or instance of sexism, not coexistent with race, class, and sexuality, and accompanying oppressions and privileges. Feminists stand contrary to womens oppression, and woman is always formed within social relations other than gender. Any feminism that aims to deconstruct womens oppression, conceptually or materially, must recognize that even where aspects of oppression can be identified as being about gender, they are commonly, intimately, linked with other oppressions. Feminism cannot therefore merely involve promoting anything that can be characterized as simply in womens interests. Because other social categories, such as race, class, and sexuality, fundamentally shape gendered relations and identities (and vice versa), it is incoherent to promote a feminism that does not address oppressions based on these categories as well. On this view, connections between woman and nature exist because women are part of nature, as are all humans, and the suppression and hatred of nature is played out in specific ways on womens bodies, activities, and conceptual frameworks. These connections are relevant because both women and nature are categorically devalued, with their distinct and similar qualities. 116

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Case O/W Our epistemology claims call into question every answer they madetheir objective understandings of the world beg the question of the speaker Christensen 8 [MS in sociology BS in sociology from State U of NY, Magna Cum Laude. MS in sociology, U WisconsinMadison. PhD expected in Spring

2010 Wendy, Cowboy of the World? Gender Discourse and the Iraq War Debate, http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mferree/documents/ChristensenFerree.pdf] In the spring of 2002, the Bush Administration began publicly to discuss the possibility of US military action against Iraq and by spring 2003, the invasion of Iraq had begun. In retrospect, media commentators have asked why they were not more critical of the administrations war plans, and why reservations about going to war expressed by some of the USs closest allies were not taken more seriously. In this paper, we argue that the use of gender images and metaphors in this public debate impoverished the quality of media coverage of the issues. As such, it is an excellent example of the symbolic power of gender to frame issues and constrain alternatives. Cultural ideologies such as gender form an implicit framework for popular thought and are available to be mobilized in public policy discussions (Stone 1988), especially when gendered images can serve as portrayals of other binary oppositions (us/them, good/evil, offense/ defense). However, it is important to note that such ideologies are always multiple and open to contestation (Scott 1986; Smith 1999). When gendered symbols are employed rhetorically to frame political issues, the speakers align themselves with particular understandings of gender as well as express their positions in relation to specific policies. As a consequence, media discourse preceding the war in Iraq became a debate both about which notions of
masculinity are positively valued and about the appropriateness of a decision to go to war, with each side of the war debate simultaneously contesting both the policy

and the versions of masculinity symbolically invoked to justify their positions. In this paper we use a content analysis of the year-long debate preceding the war in Iraq to show how images of Bush as a cowboy and Europe as a wimp were advanced and contested by those favoring and opposing the war. We further show that the organization of war debate in gendered terms expressed and encouraged binary thinking and so lowered the quality of war debate. Although we do not claim that the gendered nature of the debate preceding the 2003 war caused the nations failure to focus on the
complex issues that the invasion proved to raise, we argue that symbolically mobilizing masculinity in this context contributed to the

shallowness of media debate by placing the voices for peace, both in the US and in Europe, on a devalued, feminized footing and by casting the Administrations posture of masculinity as the multivalent, but quintessentially American, cowboy. The American cowboy represents both the power of civilization against the savage and outlaw forces of disorder and the more raw and
untamed American West against the effete, urban and over-refined East. As such the cowboy is associated with negative values of racism and imperialism as well

as with positive images of law, independence and freedom; the opposite of the cowboy image is not merely a positive view of urban masculinity as civilized, rational, educated but also a negative one of such men being under the power of women, bosses and the discipline of the workplace (Desmond 2007). Moreover, the cowboy is associated not merely with masculinity but with American culture as such (Kimmel 1996), making the debate about cowboy masculinity also about American nationalism. Gendered symbols such as cowboys form a complex system of reference. As Joan Scott (1986, p. 1096) has argued, gender is not only a constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes but also a primary way of signifying relationships of power. This is a relationship of reciprocal signification: Invoking gender carries connotations of strength or weakness, as in references to emasculating America, and invoking images of strength and weakness, such as the pitiful, helpless giant, carry connotations of gender (Scott 1986; Cohn 1993). Since nation-states are powerful forces and the decision to use military force is an extreme expression of this power, war debate is an excellent forum for seeing the co-connotations of gender and power at work symbolically. Our empirical case is developed in three steps: we first show the relevance of gendered imagery in the debate running up to the Iraq war by examining the frequency of gender language in news media, in both those sources that are more typically critical and those more typically affirmative of the Bush Administration. We then examine the gendered language to see how particular versions of masculinity are debated in concert with debates about appropriate policy toward Iraq. We focus on the memorable image of G.W. Bush as a cowboy, showing how the cowboy image is contested by both sides. Finally, we show that the news stories that rely on gendered images are more likely than others to have a less reasoned debate.

117

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Cede the Political The alternative is an engagement in political contestation that refigures our political commitments. Campbell 9 (Nancy D., Professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Ph.D @ University of California-Santa Cruz, 2009.
Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies.

Reconstructing Science and Technology Studies. Views from Feminist Standpoint T Theory. Volume 30, Number 1) Embracing partisanship and struggle as they do, reconstructivists have [End Page 7] taken to heart various critiques of objectivity, among which feminists figure prominently. Quoting Hardings Science and Social Inequality (2006), Woodhouse and Sarewitz
get the point that privilege is both a material advantage and an epistemological disadvantage: that those advantaged

by the status quo tend to operate in a state of denial about the maldistribution of costs and benefits of technoscience.24 Taking science-policy influentials to task for failing to mention inequality except in toothless and conventional ways, Woodhouse and
Sarewitz call for greater recognition of social conflict in the tussle over who gets what, when, and how that is

science and technology policy and politics. They share with feminists the intention to move equity considerations higher on science-policy agendas. They share the suspicion that the social organization of technoscience exacerbates social inequality and consistently rewards the already affluent, while hurting the persistently poor. They call for refocusing R&D on poor peoples problems yet do not call upon feminist scholarship to explain precisely how welfare states and labor markets are structured to reproduce gendered and racialized poverty.25 How can it be that well intentioned and well informed scholars seeking to refocus technoscientific R&D on the needs of the poor,
broaden participation in research priority-setting, and reorient technoscientific innovation toward the creation of public goods miss the feminist point that addressing

inequity requires attending to how gender and power relations structure the world? How can those who set out to level the playing field among diverse social interests so that all are represented fairly miss the point that forms of fairness inattentive to power differentials lead to unfair processes and outcomes?26 The reconstructivist agenda is too important to be
dismissed by feminists as not getting it, and thus it seems important to understand how reconstructivists propose to reshape inquiry by encouraging scholars to adopt

projects that incorporate normative, activist, or reconstructive intentions into their research.27

Technological driven politics guarantees a world of dispossessed cyberslums; only the alternative provides the basis for a truly political response to social crises. GANDY, professor in the Department of Geography at the University College London, 2005 (Mathew, Cyborg
Urbanization: Complexity and Monstrosity in

the Contemporary City, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29:1, March, p 42-3) Although the cyborg city represents a challenge to universalist conceptions of space, it is rooted in modernist discourses of cultural and political critique. A tendency towards the idea of the cyborg as a radical fusion of the body and technology can be discerned well before the term cyborg began to acquire its current panoply of potential meanings and applications. The fantastical conjunction of human and machine, for example, predates the emergence of the cyborg as a named artefact and is an integral element in the critical vocabularies of cultural modernism that emerged as a counter discourse to the technological fervour of twentieth-century modernity. Unlike Haraway, however, I have emphasized those aspects of technological monstrosity which allow us to explore those contradictory aspects to modernity which can nd no straightforward articulation. By enlisting the cyborg as a conceptual tool in urban discourse we can develop an imaginative response to the unknowability of the city and its power to generate cultural energies that ultimately impact on wider social and political processes. If the clearly dened human body of the industrial city has been replaced by the technologically diffuse body of the cyborg city, then what kind of bodily occlusions are implicated in this shift?
How do the poorly paid workers within the interstices and margins of the global economy the hidden bodies of late capitalism struggling under the yoke of what

Alain Lipietz once described as bloody Taylorization t into an enlarged and more sophisticated conception of the human subject? The undifferentiated we of the more speculative and futuristic urban literature tends to overlook the emerging disparities in access between wired and wireless infrastructures exemplied by the infrastructure crisis facing the rapidly growing cities of the global South: new communications technologies may be increasingly ubiquitous but the numbers of people without adequate access to safe drinking water or effective sanitation have grown inexorably over the last quarter century. The cyberslums of the future will be the living embodiment of the contradictions inherent in a technologically rather than politically driven strategy for the creation of more socially inclusive cities. If monstrous representations of the cyborg city represent allegories for wider social injustice then we need to explore those forms of political monstrosity that have generated imaginary monsters. In dreams, after all, it is fear
that creates our monsters rather than monsters that create our fear.

118

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Cede the Political: Cyborg//Link to Utopian Ptx This is a new link: the idea that the political can be ceded pre-supposes a divide between the masculine state and private spherethis ensures structural violence becomes inevitable Shepherd 8 [Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham,
Gender, Violence and Global Politics:

Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, EBSCO] By drawing her readers' attention to the ways in which discourses of gender (ideas about how 'proper' men and women should behave) function, Enloe reminds us that adhering to ideals of masculinity and femininity is both productive of violence and is a violence in itself, a violence against the empowered human subject. 'Ideas matter', she concludes, ideas about modernity, security, violence, threat, trust. 'Each of these ideas is fraught with blatant and subtle presumptions about masculinity and femininity. Ideas about both masculinity and femininity matter. This makes a feminist curiosity a necessity' (Enloe, 2007, p. 161). While
conventional studies of IR and security may be willing to concede that ideas matter (see Finnemore and Sikkink, 2001), paying close attention to the work that gender

does allows for a fuller understanding of why it is that particular violences fall outside the traditional parameters of study. As to the question of when violence is worthy of study, all three texts implicitly or explicitly draw on the popular feminist phrase: 'the personal is political'. This slogan neatly encapsulates the feminist critique of a supposed foundational divide between the private and the public realms of social life. In arguing that the personal is political, feminist theory refuses to accept that there are instances of human behaviour or situations in social life that can or should
be bracketed from study. At its simplest, this

critique led to the recognition of 'domestic violence'

as a political, rather than a personal issue (see, for example Moore, 2003; Youngs, 2003), forming the foundation for critical studies of
gendered

violence in times of war and in times of peace that would otherwise have been ignored. Crucially, Enloe extended the
boundaries of critique to include the international, imbuing the phrase with new analytical vitality when she suggested, first, that the phrase itself is palindromic (that is,

that the political is also personal, inextricably intertwined with the everyday) and, second, that the personal is international just as the international is personal. 'The international is personal' implies that governments depend upon certain kinds of allegedly private relationships in order to conduct their foreign affairs. ... To operate in the

international arena, governments seek other governments' recognition of their sovereignty; but they also depend on ideas about masculinised dignity and feminised sacrifice to sustain that sense of autonomous nationhood (Enloe, 2000, pp. 1967). AT Cyborg NOT REAL WORLD Cyborgs allows us to negotiate an increasingly complex world. GANDY, professor in the Department of Geography at the University College London, 2005 (Mathew, Cyborg
Urbanization: Complexity and Monstrosity in

the Contemporary City, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29:1, March, p 41) It may appear arcane abstruse even to utilize the idea of the cyborg as a means to explore the contemporary urban condition. Yet a cursory glance at the recent literature shows that the earlier incarnations of the cyborg as an isolated yet technologically enhanced body
have proliferated into a vast assemblage of bodily and machinic entanglements which interconnect with the contemporary city in a multitude of different ways. The

richness of the cyborg concept allows us to negotiate a multiplicity of spaces and practices simultaneously and in so doing develop epistemological strategies for the interpretation of urban life which come closer to any putative reality than those approaches which long for the mechanistic or deterministic simplication of their object of study. Unlike some of the other conceptual tools currently in vogue whose deployment of the post prex denotes an ending or culmination of a
predetermined sequence of developments the cyborg offers a sense of continuity in our critical appreciation of the intersection between different and often

contradictory modernities.

119

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AT: Essentialism (Butler)

Patriarchy is not a code word for biological difference it suggests historically codified power
relations that currently structure the world. Wajcman, 2000(Judy, Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies: In what State is the Art? Social Studies of Science 30, DOI: 10.1177/030631200030003005) While the effects of structural exclusion on technological development are not easy to analyse, they should not be overlooked. Feminists have stressed that women's absence from spheres of influence is a key feature of gender power relations. Few women feature among the principal actors in technological design, as the sexual division of labour has excluded them from entering science, engineering and management.25 As several commentators
have pointed out, the problem with a primary focus on 'relevant social groups' in the process of technological development is how to take account of those actors who

are routinely marginalized or excluded from a network. 26 Within the broad social shaping approach, feminists have found it relatively easy to discuss systematic male domination over women as a sex in terms parallel to class exploitation. Just as capitalists are deemed to have a relatively stable set of interests in maximizing profits, so we could talk of men's interests as a sex being institutionalized. The concept of patriarchy was often deployed as a shorthand for institutionalized power relations between men and women where gender is a property of institutions and historical processes, as well as of individuals. However, this was not meant to imply that men are a homogeneous group. For example, in Feminism Confronts Technology, I stressed that men's interests are not all identical, and that when it comes to
influencing the design and development of a specific technology, some groups will have more power and resources than others. So, long before the so-

called 'postmodern challenge', 'difference' within the category of men, and between women, was already widely recognized. AT: Essentialism (Butler)

BUTLERS POSIITON IS POLITICALLY DISASTROUS HER RUSH TO ABSTRACTION CREATES DOCILE AUDIENCE, ADVANCES NON-FALISIFIABLE CLAIMS, AND OFFERS IDEOLOGY ANOTHER FOOTHOLD BY SUPPORTING MYSTIFICATION NAUSSBAUM, 99 (MARTHA, The Professor of Parody, The New Republic,
http://www.tnr.com/index.mhtml)

To whom, then, is Butler speaking? It would seem that she is addressing a group of young feminist theorists in the academy who are neither students of philosophy, caring about what Althusser and Freud and Kripke really said, nor outsiders, needing to be informed about the nature of their projects and persuaded of their worth. This implied audience is imagined as remarkably docile. Subservient to the oracular voice of Butler's text, and dazzled by its patina of high-concept abstractness, the imagined reader poses few questions, requests no arguments and no clear definitions of terms. Still more strangely, the implied reader is expected not to care greatly about Butler's own final view on many matters. For a large proportion of the sentences in any book by Butler--especially sentences near the end of chapters--are questions. Sometimes the answer that the question expects is evident. But often things are much more indeterminate. Among the non-interrogative sentences, many begin with "Consider..." or "One could suggest..."--in such a way that Butler never quite tells the reader whether she approves of the view described. Mystification as well as hierarchy are the tools of her practice, a mystification that eludes criticism because it makes few definite claims.

120

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AT: Essentialism (Butler)

THE LIBERATION IN BUTLERS POLITICS IS A LIE- SUBVERSION CAN BOTH UNDO DOMIANTION AND REAFFIRM IT. EVEN IF GENDER IS A PERFORMANCE, THE NEGATIVES RHETORIC IS STILL PREFERABLE. NAUSSBAUM, 99 (MARTHA, The Professor of Parody, The New Republic,
http://www.tnr.com/index.mhtml)

There is a void, then, at the heart of Butler's notion of politics. This void can look liberating, because the reader fills it implicitly with a normative theory of human equality or dignity. But let there be no mistake: for Butler, as for Foucault, subversion is subversion, and it can in principle go in any direction. Indeed, Butler's naively empty politics is especially dangerous for the very causes she holds dear. For every friend of Butler, eager to engage in subversive performances that proclaim the repressiveness of heterosexual gender norms, there are dozens who would like to engage in subversive performances that flout the norms of tax compliance, of nondiscrimination, of decent treatment of one's fellow students. To such people we should say, you cannot simply resist as you please, for there are norms of fairness, decency, and dignity that entail that this is bad behavior. But then we have to articulate those norms--and this Butler refuses to do. AT: Gender Equity Now Despite the presence of more women in public spaces, these spaces remain gendered: we must continue to push for more analysis of space. PUWAR, senior lecturer at the University of London, 2004 (Nirmal, Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of
Place, 7-8)

There has been a notable metonymic shift in the increased presence of women and racialised minorities into spaces in the public realm which have predominantly been occupied by white men. The shift is undoubtedly slow and uneven
across organisations and different sectors. There are also, of course, considerable differences between gender and race. While the glass ceiling has been cracked

quite significantly with gender, for race a concrete ceiling has just been chipped ever so slightly. The cultural landscape of the public sphere has nevertheless been the site of a change that warrants close attention. Looking across space/time, in

terms of gender, Doreen Massey notes: I can remember very clearly a sight which often used to strike me when I was nine or ten years old. I lived then on the outskirts of Manchester, and Going into Town was a relatively big occasion; it took over half an hour and we went on the top deck of a bus. On the way into town we would cross the wide shallow valley of the River Mersey, and my memory is of dank, muddy fields spreading away into a cold, misty distance. And all of it all of these acres of Manchester was divided up into football pitches and rugby pitches. And on Saturdays, which was when we went into Town, the whole vast area would be covered with hundreds of little people, all running around after balls, as far as the eye could see. (It seemed from the top of the bus like a vast, animated Lowry painting, with all the little people in rather brighter colours than Lowry used to paint them, and with cold red legs.) I remember all this very sharply. And I remember, too, it striking me very clearly even as a puzzled, slightly thoughtful little girl that all this huge stretch of the Mersey flood plain had been entirely given over to boys. I did not go to those playing fields they seemed barred, another world (though today, with more nerve and some consciousness of being a space- invader, I do stand on football terraces and love it). (Massey 1996:185) The sheer maleness of particular public spaces and womens experience of increasingly occupying them while still being conscious of being space invaders even while they enjoy these places is vividly captured by Massey. To this, of course, we could add that the
sheer whiteness of spaces is also being altered, that is, on the football terraces, as well as elsewhere, in a wider sense. To be of and in a space, while at the same time not

quite belonging to it, is pertinent to Masseys positionality. Formally, today, women and racialised minorities can enter positions that they were previously excluded from. And the fact that they do is evidence of this. However, social spaces are not blank and open for any body to occupy. There is a connection between bodies and space, which is built, repeated and contested over time. While all can, in theory, enter, it is certain types of bodies that are tacitly designated as being the natural occupants
of specific positions. Some bodies are deemed as having the right to belong, while others are marked out as trespassers, who are, in accordance with how both spaces

and bodies are imagined (politically, historically and conceptually), circumscribed as being out of place. Not being the somatic norm, they are space invaders. The coupling of particular spaces with specific types of bodies is no doubt subject to change; this usually, however, is not without consequence as it often breaks with how bodies have been placed.

121

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Human Nature: Ethics Ethics are based on feelings. For something to have moral value, it must be capable of being harmed, and either a moral agent must value it, or it must have moral value intrinsically. Attempting to separate human from nonhuman calls into question many conceptions about humanity itself Cuomo 98 (Chris J., Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Feminism and Ecological Communities:
An Ethic of Flourishing, pg 47)

Sarah Hoagland argues that to debate the value of womens lives is to admit that it is possible that womens lives are not valuable (Hoagland 1988). Perhaps the best we can do in communicating the justification for a premise of basic moral value is try to evoke a feeling to draw
attention to narratives, poems, experiences, and observations of what we take to be valuable.2 In pointing out that the foundations for ethics are felt, we should keep in mind that feelings are neither irrational nor nonrational. David Hume located the genesis of morality in

human sentiment. Hume believed that reason and morality are rightfully slaves of the passions, that society is necessary for the development of morality, and that goodness does not inhere in objects. For Hume, introducing a discussion of sentiment into ethical philosophy does not amount to conceiving of morality as natural (given) or asocial. In fact, he wrote, nothing can be more unphilosophical than those systems which assert that virtue is the same with what is natural, and vice with what is unnatural (1978: 475). Likewise, ecological feminist ethics do not take any fixed
understandings of nature or natural human qualities to be ethical starting points. What they do begin with is the sense that women, humans, communities, and natural

objects and systems have noninstrumental value, and we should avoid harming them. Moral value must begin with human valuers, or valuers whose valuing has ethical meaning. These moral agents are persons who make decisions based on, among other
things, notions of right and wrong, good and bad. For a thing to have meaningful moral value, some moral agent must

value it as a member of the ethical universe, and it must be the kind of thing to which moral concepts and considerations can refer. It must therefore be somehow connected to or appreciable by moral agents, and must therefore be human, necessary for human

life, something which makes human life better than it would be without it, or something that humans can appreciate and respect even from a distance. An ethically valuable entity must be capable of having interests or doing well, or the consequences of valuing it would be indistinguishable from not valuing

it, and moral value would be utterly inconsequential. Moral objects, or morally valuable entities, include whatever is capable, categorically, of being harmed, exploited, oppressed, degraded, pained, and mistreated by those agents. None the less, moral agents must
use some kinds of living beings for food, shelter, technology, and science. Being alive or even being worthy of moral consideration, is not sufficient to disallow the

use and even the death of a thing. Some death and manipulation is necessary for human life and ethics to be at all possible, but if abuse is understood as mistreatment, or

harm without justification, it is never necessary to abuse other living beings. Lori Gruen argues that because the interests and well-being of all those who have such things are inevitably connected to the interests and well-being of others, it is difficult to argue that any one entity is valuable in itself (unpublished). But human interests can include the importance of valuing things for reasons not reducible to their instrumentality, or use value for humans. That is, we might assert that it is important for humans to value each other, and nonhuman entities and
communities for their own sake, though this value also ultimately serves the valuers interests, and always has extrinsic origins. In J. Baird Callicotts words, moral value is created by humans, "but it by no means follows that the locus of all value is consciousness itself or a mode of consciousness like reason, pleasure, or

knowledge. In other words something may be valuable only because someone values it, but it may also be valued for itself, not for the sake of any subjective experience it may afford the valuer." (1986: 40)Though values come from humans, they need not be human-centered, or based only on the interests and well-being of humans. We can see, appreciate, and care about the interests and wellbeing of other persons, species, systems and communities. This valuing might be for aesthetic reasons. It might stem from the nature and quality of our biological, cultural, or affectionate relationships. It might also be for epistemological reasons. As we glean new knowledge from science and other spheres of inquiry, we might notice new sources of respect and value. Many philosophers use the concept of anthropocentrism to denote ideologies and practices that are
human-centered in ways that are ethically suspect. The view of ethics I put forth here is anthropocentric only in a trivial sense. That is, ethical perspectives

are human, only humans use ethics as we know them, and ethics have to be based on human-generated valuations and responses. But since more than human interests are at the center of an ecological feminist ethical scheme, it is not anthropocentric in the sense of being unjustifiably or prejudicially biased toward human goods and interests. Indeed, we cannot truly separate human from nonhuman well-being without dramatically changing our conception of human physical, emotional, and social well-being, and the false belief that we can separate these has severely disrupted the physical thriving of both humans and nature. Though an
ecological feminist ethical scheme might be conceptually bound, or limited, by human capacities, our biases can vary significantly according to the degree of

information and inclination we have concerning the interests, goods, and preferences of nonhuman entities. Rachel Carson hoped that knowledge of our own epistemic limitations would inspire caution and humility when we make decisions concerning relatively mysterious entities.

122

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Human Nature/War inevitable

War is not the inevitable consequence of biology; it is rather the result of a masculine orientation
towards the world. WORKMAN, assistant professor of political science at the University of New Brunswick, 1996 (Thom, Pandoras
Sons: The Nominal Paradox of Patriarchy

and War, YCISS Occasional Paper Number 31, January, www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31-Workman.pdf ) The opening intellectual orientation of the gender critique of war rests upon a constructivist view of human understanding and practice, that is, a view that anchors practices, including war, within humankind's self-made historico-cultural matrix. This view is contrasted starkly with those that ground human practices psychologically or biologically or genetically. War is not viewed as a natural practice as if delivered by the Gods; it arises out of humancreated understandings and ways-of- living that have evolved over the millennia. More specifically, the assumption that men (the nearly exclusive makers and doers of war) are biologically hard-wired for aggression and violence is resisted, as is the related notion that women are naturally passive and non-violent. The explanation for war will not be found in testosterone levels. It is not the essential or bio-social male that makes war. War is the product of the gendered understandings of lifeunderstandings of the celebrated masculine and the subordinated femininethat have been fashioned over vast tracts of cultural time. And since war arises from humancreated understandings and practices it can be removed when
these understandings change. War is not insuperable. Indeed, the rooting of war in human created phenomena is recognized

as a response to the political incapacitation associated with biologically determinist arguments: "Attempts of genetic
determinists to show a biological basis for individual aggression and to link this to social aggression, are not only unscientific, but they support the idea that wars of

conquest between nations are inevitable.

123

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Link of Omission The heteronormative ideology of the 1AC need not be explicit; their refusal to acknowledge gender determines the matrix of social intelligibility that ensures that alternative to heteronormativity cannot exist. Griffin 2009 (Penny, Senior Lecturer Convenor MA International Relations - Convenor, Postgraduate Seminar Series,
University of New South Wales, The

spaces between us: The gendered politics of outer space in Bormann, N. and Sheehan, M. (eds), Securing Outer Space. London and New York: Routledge, pp.5975.) The operations of gender as a norm, and normalizing principle, in discourses of outer space need not be explicit. The reproduction of heteronormative gender identity(ies) instead implicitly governs the social intelligibility of action, to borrow Butlers terminology, in outer space; that is, it governs the means by which the politics of outer space makes sense. Heteronormative, heterosexist gender congurations reside, for example, in discussions of the viability of outer space exploration
and human spaceight, where human involvement in space is articulated as inherently exciting, dangerous and challenging, both technically and psychologically (see,

e.g. Manzey 2004; Mendell 2005; Seguin 2005). Outer space exploration and colonization is heavily naturalized in US discourse as an inevitability of human activity, rather than a simple possibility. What can and cannot be done in and/or to space are dened according to those physical, hormonal and performative forms (re)produced and normalized according to heteronormative, heterosexual, discursive parameters. If, for example, humans are to colonize space, as much scientic writing would have us believe, it is essential that they perform reproductively: human sexuality in space is thus framed and reied such that it pertains only to heterosexual intercourse, and women appear only in reference to their sexual nature and procreative function (Casper and Moore 1995: 319). In January 2006, for
example, NewScientist.com revealed that of its top ten most accessed space stories of 2005, the most popular was the aptly named report, Out-of-This-World Sex

Could Jeopardise Missions (McKee 2005). Thirteen years after a married couple were rst sent on a space shuttle mission, prompting at the time a urry of public curiosity and controversy concerning celestial intimacy (Casper and Moore 1995: 312), the New Scientists article opens with the line, sex and romantic entanglements among astronauts could derail missions to Mars and should therefore be studied by NASA. NASA has already long been studying the prospect of sex (as sexual intercourse) in outer space. As the New Scientist's article goes on to make clear, however, 'the question of sexuality' and 'sexual issues' in spaceflight

and future outer space exploration is essentially, for NASA at least, a question of heterosexuality. Humans, suggests Crawford, 'bring speed, agility, versatility and intelligence to exploration in a way that robots cannot', justifying to many the employment of astronauts as 'field scientists' on other planets (Crawford 2005: 252). The consistent discursive articulation of outer space as a frontier, a `threshold' for human intervention requiring the utmost in human performance, depends on a regulatory framework wherein 'humanity' is able consistently and without obstacle (material, psychological or otherwise) to seize the challenge of exploiting and controlling its natural environment and resources. Rarely conceived of purely in technological, aphysical terms, Space is a politics (in US discourse) entirely constituted in reference to the corporeal attributes of the (neo-liberally) human. Within the heteronormative, heterosexual, regulatory framework of US outer space discourse, the ideal, space-able, individual is constructed and reproduced within an unspoken but unequivocal heteronormative framework of reproductive sexuality, as a model that others should approximate: a person, evolved of heterosexual binaries, who is reactive but calm, reproductive but sexually restrained, agile but not hyperactive, versatile but not sexually ambiguous, rational but not mechanical, adventurous but competent (see, e.g. Seguin 2005). Located within a 'masculine context', such a framework has only solidified the sense of male bodies existing as the norm against which female bodies are evaluated, and male physiology the standard by which female bodies are judged (Casper and Moore 1995: 316-319). This regulatory masculinism has undoubtedly resulted in the overwhelming dominance of male astronauts in space. Although the first American female went into space in 1983, in 2001 of an active astronaut corps of 158, only thirty-five were women (NASA 2001), and of the 2004 class of astronauts, only two of eleven were female (NASA 2004). But the predominance of male astronauts also stems from the gendered nature of space discourse itself. The quest to conquer space that began with the Cold War 'space race' has long been coded (heterosexually) masculine, dependent on an articulation of masculine prowess realized through gendered assumptions of physical and technical expertise, strength, endurance and intelligence. The portrayal of the earliest astronauts as popular heroes in the US media, and beyond (Bush, for example, pays
homage, in 2004, to two of the 'veterans' of the space age, Tom DeLay and Senator Bill Nelson), sedimented an image of masculine achievement that, although highly

contingent on the militarized aggressivity of Cold War discourse at that time, has

proved enduring. Armstrong's famous announcement that the Apollo 11 Moon landing was 'one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind' thus in this instance speaks more specifically than universally, a continuation of the Western history's overarching belief in men's 'natural' ability, indeed prerogative, to conquer for the good of everyone. 124

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Link of Omission Gender operates through not being acknowledged. By leaving difference unmarked, the aff reifies masculine domination. Griffin 2009 (Penny, Senior Lecturer Convenor MA International Relations - Convenor, Postgraduate Seminar Series,
University of New South Wales, The

spaces between us: The gendered politics of outer space in Bormann, N. and Sheehan, M. (eds), Securing Outer Space. London and New York: Routledge, pp.5975.) To talk of US outer space politics and discourse as sexed, and therefore gendered (through the pre/proscription and reproduction of those
human identities considered most effective and appropriate to space) is not purely to limit discussion to sex acts, or sexual identities in

the usual sense; it is to talk about sex as it is mediated by publics, some of whose obvious relation to sex may be obscure (Berlant and Warner 1998: 547). As Bedford argues, using sexuality as an analytical concept extends beyond discussion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues to consider the ways in which heterosexuality as unmarked (that is, thoroughly normalized) is (re)produced in changing forms by political actors (2005: 296). The institutions, structures of understanding and practical orientations through which US space discourse privileges and normalizes heterosexuality as universal are tacitly, not explicitly, gendered. The dominant discursive rationalizations of outer
space exploration and conquest that constitute space as heterosexual, and (re)produce the heterosexual imperatives that constitute suitable space-able people, practices

and behaviours, do so in ways that are not necessarily obvious nor are they always coherent. As Butler argues, gender operates in discourse as a norm, a standard of normalization that serves to discursively regulate the bodies over which it presides. When gender operates as a normalizing principle in social practice, it is more likely to be implicit, difcult to read, and discernible most clearly and dramatically in the effects that it produces, thus the prescription and reproduction of heteronormative gender in outer space discourse, like all other norms, may or may not be explicit (Butler 2004: 41). AT: Overview Effect

The view of earth from space does not result in more rational policy, but rather supports status
quo endeavors.

Liftin 97 (Karen, U. of Wash., Dept. of Poli-Sci, Ph.D @ UCLA, A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites,
Frontiers: A Journal of Women

Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, Intersections of Feminisms and Environmentalisms, pp. 2647. University of Nebraska Press)
The dearth of attention paid to human factors reflects a notion of neutrality embedded in modernity's hierarchy of the sciences, a hierarchy that elevates the sciences

most remote from everyday experience, especially physics, to the apex of knowledge systems. The earth-system-science view of global change highlights atmospheric physics, geophysics, and chemistry, thus rendering human beings virtually invisible. But if the IPCC scientists are correct in surmising that global environmental change is imminent, then the agents of that change are almost exclusively human beings. From the perspective of the social sciences, global environmental change is a process where people are both the cause of change and the object of change-some much more so than others. It is a result of certain social choices and commitments, whether conscious or not, and will only be ameliorated by alternative choices and commitments.35 But from the perspective of remote sensing, human agency vanishes and global change is reduced to physical processes. Since the "valid picture" transmitted from space omits the main element of the picture, it is a dubious impetus for "rational policy." If history serves as a guide, the mammoth scientific undertaking embodied in the
USGCRP is unlikely to become a principal catalyst for policy change-even when the results are in after two decades. The nearest approximation to a historical precedent is the ten-year, half-billion dollar interagency program

in-tended to guide U.S. policy on acid rain, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program(NAPAP). Although NAPAP was applaudedfor its scientificachievements, in the end it was virtually irrelevant to the acid rain controls adopted in the 1990 Clean Air Act. Very little of the NAPAP researchwas policy-relevant, the reports were not timely, and they were "largely unintelligible to Congress."36 Given current trends in global change research, the USGCRP seems poised to follow in NAPAP's footsteps, although at perhaps sixty times the cost. Contrary to the rational policy model, environmental policy is not steered by science.In 1991, EPA administrator William K. Reilly commissioned an independent study to examine how his agency employed scientific data in its decision-making process. The report concluded that, to a great extent, EPA decisions are based upon extrascientific factors.37Although environmental policy making is a more contentious process in the U.S. than it is in many other places, there is no strong evidence that science serves as the primary guide to policy elsewhere.38 Science does not provide the objective facts from which policy decisions are ra-tionally deduced. Rather, scientific information tends to be framed and interpreted according to preexisting discourses. As I have argued elsewhere, this was the case even for the global ozone negotiations, where a comprehensive international assessment representing a scientific consensus was available to all parties.39 Often as not, the same scientific information can be

used to bolster an array of policy positions. If "irrationalities" tend to supplant scientific knowledge in the policy process for other environmental issues, how much stronger will this tendency be for an issue like greenhouse warming, which goes to the heart of industrial civilization's dreams and aspirations?

125

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

A/T REALISM INEVITABLE

Realism is a theoretical ideology, not a description of reality. Their assertion is a bully tactic to
prevent efforts to truly transform our understanding of conflict PETERSON, professor of political science at the University of Arizona, and RUNYAN, associate professor of political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993(V Spike and Anne, Global Gender Issues, p 28-29) Ideologies are often couched in terms of biological determinism, positing narrow genetic or biological causes for complex social behaviors. In the real world, human behavior is always mediated by culture-by systems of meaning and the values they incorporate.
The role that biology actually plays varies dramatically and can never be determined without reference to cultural context. Ideological beliefs may exaggerate the role of

biological factors (arguing that men's testosterone explains male homicide rates) or posit biological factors where none need be involved (arguing that because some women during part of their life bear children, all women should care for children and are unfit for political power). Reliance on biological determinism means that ideologies tend to flourish in periods of disruption or transition, when political conservatism serves to buttress traditional power wielders. When traditional power wielders are threatened by change, it is easy and often effective for them to repeat ideological claims that emphasize how natural and therefore unchanging inequality is.
Finally, ideologies are most effective when most taken for granted. They resist correction and critique by making

the status quo appear natural, "the way things are," not the result of human intervention and practice. Like stereotypes, ideologies depoliticize what are in
fact differences in power that serve some more than others. Religion, myths, educational systems, advertising, and the media are involved in reproducing stereotypes

and ideologies that make the world we live in seem inevitable and, for some, even desirable. The point is not that the world is as bad as it could be but that ideologies prevent us from seeing the world as it really is. Our final point is that much of our behavior unintentionally reproduces status quo inequalities. We cannot simply locate an "enemy" to blame for institutional discrimination and its many consequences. Although there are no doubt individuals who actively pursue discriminatory policies and the perpetuation of injustice, few of us would identify with such a characterization. Most of us believe in the possibilities of a better world and variously engage in working toward it. But stereotypes and ideologies play a particular role in shaping our expectations and behaviors. We begin to be socialized into these belief systems early in life, well before we have the capacity to reflect critically on their implications for our own or others' lives. Because ideologies are supported and sustained by those with power in our societies, there are powerful incentives for subscribing to these

belief systems-and negative consequences of not doing so. Unless something or someone prompts us to "see things differently," these belief systems become unconscious assumptions. They serve to reinforce the status quo and blunt criticism of it. As such, they
involve all of us in the

often unintentional reproduction of social hierarchies that are not in fact inevitable but transformable. If we are to change the world, we have to change structures as well as how we think about them. Understanding the Iens of stereotypes and ideologies is crucial for both

Realism is neither inevitable now accurate: feminist understandings of war have more explanatory power and were forcibly excluded by scholarly practice. WORKMAN, assistant professor of political science at the University of New Brunswick, 1996 (Thom, Pandoras
Sons: The Nominal Paradox of Patirarchy

and War, YCISS Occasional Paper Number 31, January, www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31-Workman.pdf ) Of course, the fact that two logically distinct lines of querythe failure to recognize similarities and the exaltation of a subject matterare bound together anticipates one compelling response. The discipline that claimed the study of war as its own in the aftermath of World War I, that is, international relations, eclipsed critiques that were inclined to locate war within a broader explanatory matrix. Specifically, the feminist and Marxist critiques of war were excluded in the initial flurry of intellectual "homesteading" that quickly came to define the incipient field.3 Feminist critiques that addressed World War I in terms of patriarchal culture and society were circulated throughoutthewar.4 Similarly, arguments about the origins of World War I that focused upon the nature and dynamics of globalizing capitalism were present from the beginning.5 It is curious that a field with the raison d'etre of explaining war would cast two sobering lines of inquiry aside at its point of inception. When viewed in this manner, the inaugural phase of intellectual activity in international relations, a phase that has been described recently as neoKantian in view of its penchant for democratic republicanism and its focus upon the cooperative prospects of sovereign states, appears as a discursive practice aimed at foreclosing radical critiques of war.6 From the outset, in other words, the theoretical understanding of international relations was profoundly political in terms of its consonance with the reproduction of patricapitalism. The theory-thatbecame-praxis crystallized within an early 20th century discursive matrix that marginalized feminist and Marxist critique, and with it any possibility of addressing war as a historically embedded social practice.

126

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Realism is real, inevitable, accurate Realism is wrong Patriarchy is the root cause of war. We have comparative evidence on this question. WORKMAN, assistant professor of political science at the University of New Brunswick, 1996 (Thom, Pandoras
Sons: The Nominal Paradox of Patriarchy

and War, YCISS Occasional Paper Number 31, January, www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31-Workman.pdf ) w The tendency to reify war, that is, to fail to examine it as part of a broader set of cultural understandings and practices, was intensified during the positivist pall of international relations. The immediate task at hand became the application of a naturalist model of science in the quest for nomological theories of war. Scholars could apply this theoretical knowledge to the world "out there" in
order to promote and foster a more peaceful world. "The cause of the disease once known," presciently mused JeanJacques Rousseau in the Abstract of the Abb de

Saint-Pierre's Project for Perpetual Peace in a manner that anticipated the spirit of researchers throughout much of the 20th century, "suffices to indicate the remedy, if indeed there is one to be found." The view that war might be related to patriarchy, indeed, that it might be rooted in patriarchal
culture, or the possibility that war might be understood better as one manifestation of violence characteristic of a gendered

society, was absent from almost all research. Nor was the developing feminist critique deemed to be all that relevant or helpful in understanding war.7 War was treated as a thing in need of an account rather than a practice fundamentally linked to other sociocultural practices.

Realism is bad and not inevitable--- feminism proves

Tickner 92 [J. Ann. Gender in International Relations. Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security Columbia University

Press. pp 9-13]
Thus the discipline of international relations began as a field that was concerned with breaking the seemingly inevitable cycle of international war. But when a war of

even greater devastation broke out in 1939, the disillusionment with what was seen as mistaken idealism, embodied in pacifist policies of democratic states in the 1930s, moved certain scholars toward what they termed a more "realistic" approach to international politics. Realist scholars and practitioners such as George Kennan
and Henry Kissinger, noting the dangers of popular passions and the influence of uninformed citizens on foreign policy, argued for the conduct of

foreign affairs by detached "objective" elites insulated from the dangers of the moralism and legalism that had had

such detrimental effects on earlier American foreign policy. Realists claimed that conflict was inevitable: the best way to assure the

security of states is therefore to prepare for war. While most contemporary scholars

of international relations have drawn on the historical

writings of the classical Greeks as well as on those of early modern Western political theorists such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau, the central concern of

realism, the dominant paradigm in international relations since 1945, has been with issues of war and national security in the post-World
War II international system. 14 Profoundly influenced by events in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s whence many of its early

scholars came, political realism has been primarily concerned with explaining the causes of international wars and the rise and fall of states. Generally Anglo-American in their orientation, realists, described by one author as the "fathers of the classical
tradition," 15 have concentrated their investigations on the power-balancing activities of the great powers. Reacting against the failure of what they have termed the "idealist" tradition of the early twentieth century, realists take as their basic assumption a dangerous world devoid of

an overarching authority to keep the peace. In this "anarchical" world, realists prescribe the accumulation of power and

military strength to assure state survival, the protection of an orderly "domestic" space, and the pursuit of legitimate national interests beyond one's territorial boundaries. The state of Cold War in the latter half of the twentieth century led many of these scholars to
focus on Soviet-American relations and military arms races and ensured the predominance of realist explanations of and prescriptions for state behavior in the

international system.Since many of the early writers in the classical realist tradition were European men whose lives had been disrupted by the ideologies of totalitarian regimes of the 1930s, realism strove for an objectivist methodology that, by discovering generalizable laws, could offer
universalistic explanations for the behavior of states across time and space. Claiming that ideology was a cloak for the

operation of Realpolitik, the goal was to be able to exercise more control over an unpredictable international environment. For realists, morality is problematic in the tough world of international politics; in fact the exercise of moral restraint, epitomized by the policies of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain in the interwar period, can be a prescription for disaster. In the United States in the 1960s, however, classical realism came under attack, not so much for its basic assumptions and goals but for its methodology,

which critics faulted for failing to live up to the standards of a positivist science. These early critics of realism noted its

imprecision and lack of scientific rigor. In an attempt to make the methodology of international relations more rigorous and inject a greater precision into the field, critics of classical realism advocated the collection and analysis of data relating to wars and other international transactions. Answering these critics, neorealists have attempted to develop a positivist methodology with
which to build a truly objective "science" of international relations. Neorealists have used models from economics, biology, and physics, which they claim can offer

universal explanations for the behavior of states in the international system. 17 The depersonalization of the discipline, which results when methodologies are borrowed from the natural sciences and statistics, has been carried to its extreme in national security studies, a subfield that has sought, through the use of operations research and game theoretic models, to analyze strategies for nuclear
deterrence and nuclear war-fighting

"rationally." 127

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AT: Realism
The alt solves Realism which solves nothing --- the affs assumption of realism is a bigger link
Tickner 92 [J. Ann. Gender in International Relations. Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security Columbia University

Press. pp 9-13] The introduction of competing theories and approaches and the injection of these new issues and actors into the subject matter of international relations were accompanied by a shift to a more normative approach to the field. For example, the world order perspective asked how humanity could significantly reduce the likelihood of international violence and create minimally acceptable conditions of worldwide economic well-being, social justice, ecological stability, and democratic participation in decision-making processes. 22 World order scholars questioned whether the state was an adequate instrument for solving the multiplicity of problems on the international agenda. Militarized states can be a threat to the security of their own populations; economic inequality, poverty, and constraints on resources were seen as the results of the workings of global capitalism and thus beyond the control of individual states. State boundaries cannot be protected against environmental pollution, an issue that can be addressed only by international collective action. World order scholars rejected realist claims of objectivity and positivist conceptions in the international relations discipline; adopting a specifically normative stance, they have postulated possible alternate futures that could offer the promise of equality and justice and investigated how these alternative futures could be achieved. 23 In realism's subject matter, as well as in its quest for a scientific methodology, we can detect an orientation that corresponds to some of the masculine-linked characteristics I described above, such as the emphasis on power and autonomy and claims to objectivity and rationality. But among realism's critics, virtually no attention has been given to gender as a category of analysis. Scholars concerned with structural violence have paid little attention to how women are affected by global politics or the workings of the world economy, nor to the fact that hierarchical gender relations are interrelated with other forms of domination that they do address. 24 In developing a perspective on international relations that does address the effects of these gender hierarchies, I shall therefore be drawing on feminist theories from other disciplines to see how they can contribute to our understanding of gender in international relations.

128

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Science is objective Only nonscientists make appeals to objectivity in an attempt to justify hypermasculine politics and delegitimate any movement against violent social organizations. We must insists on the work of persuasion in all arenas of life, including science. Haraway 91 (Donna J., Distinguished Professor Emerita in the History of Consciousness Department at UC Santa Cruz, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, The Reinventing of Nature) Academic and activist feminist enquiry has repeatedly tried to come to terms with the question of what we might mean by the curious and inescapable term 'objectivity'. We have used a lot of toxic ink and trees processed into paper decrying
what they have meant and how it hurts tis. The imagined 'they' constitute a kind of invisible conspiracy of masculinist scientists and philosophers replete with grants and

laboratories; and the imagined 'we' are the embodied others, who are not allowed not to have a body, a finite point of view, and so an inevitably disqualifying and polluting bias in any discussion of consequence outside our own little circles, where a 'mass' -subscription journal might reach a few thousand readers composed mostly of science-haters. At least, I confess to these paranoid fantasies and academic resentments lurking underneath some convoluted reflections in print under my name in the feminist literature in the history and philosophy of science. We, the feminists in the debates about science and technology, are the Reagan era's 'special interest groups' in the rarefied realm of epistemology, where traditionally what can count as knowledge is policed by philosophers codifying cognitive canon law. Of course, a special interest group is, by Reaganoid definition, any collective historical subject which dares to resist the stripped-down atomism of Star Wars, hypermarket, postmodern, media-simulated citizenship. Max Headroom doesn't
have a body; therefore, he alone sees everything in the great communicator's empire of the Global Network. No wonder Max gets to have a naive sense of humour and a

kind of happily regressive, pre-oedipal sexuality, a sexuality which we ambivalently - and dangerously incorrectly - had imagined was reserved for lifelong inmates of female and colonized bodies, and maybe also white male computer hackers in solitary electronic confinement. It has seemed to me that feminists have both selectively and flexibly used and been trapped by two poles of a tempting dichotomy on the question of objectivity. Certainly I speak for myself here, and I offer the speculation that there is a collective discourse on these matters. On the one hand, recent social studies of science and technology have made available a very strong social constructionist argument for all forms of knowledge claims, most certainly and especiaIly scientific ones.2 In these tempting views, no insider's perspective is privileged, because all drawings of inside-outside boundaries in knowledge are theorized as power moves, not moves towards truth. So, from the strong social

constructionist perspective, why should we be cowed by scientists' descriptions of their activity and accomplishments; they and their patrons have stakes in throwing sand in our eyes. They teIl parables about objectivity and scientific method to students in the first years of their initiation, but no practitioner of the high scientific arts would be caught dead acting on the textbook versions. Social constructionists make clear that official ideologies about objectivity and scientific method are particularly bad guides to how scientific knowledge is actually made. Just as for the rest of us, what scientists believe or say they do and what they reaIly do have a very loose fit. The only people who end up actuaIly believing and, goddess forbid, acting on the ideological doctrines of disembodied scientific objectivity enshrined in elementary textbooks and technoscience booster literature are nonscientists, including a few very trusting philosophers. Of course, my designation of this last group is probably just a reflection of residual disciplinary
chauvinism from identifYing with historians of science and too much time spent with a microscope in early adulthood in a kind of disciplinary pre-oedipal and

modernist poetic moment when ceIls seemed to be cells and organisms, organisms. Pace, Gertrude Stein. But then came the law of the father and its resolution of the problem of objectivity, solved by always already absent referents, deferred signifieds, split subjects, and the endless play of signifiers. Who wouldn't grow up warped? Gender, race, the world itself - all seem just effects of warp speeds in the play of signifiers in a cosmic force field. All truths become warp speed effects in a hyper-real space of simulations. But we cannot afford these particular plays on words the projects of crafting reliable knowledge about the 'natural' world cannot be given over to the genre of paranoid or cynical science fiction. For political people, social constructionism cannot be allowed to decay into the radiant emanations of cynicism. In any case, social constructionists could maintain that the ideological doctrine of scientific method and all the philosophical verbiage about epistemology were cooked up to distract our attention from getting to know the world effectively by practising the sciences. From this point of view, science - the real game in town, the one we must play - is rhetoric, the persuasion of the relevant social actors that one's manufactured knowledge is a route to a desired form of very objective power. Such persuasions must take account of the structure of facts and artefacts, as well as of language mediated actors in the knowledge game. Here, artefacts and facts are parts of the powerful art of rhetoric. Practice is persuasion, and the focus is very much on practice. All knowledge is a condensed node in an agonistic power field. The strong programme in the sociology of
knowledge joins with the lovely and nasty tools of semiology and deconstruction to insist on the rhetorical nature of truth, including scientific truth. History is a story

Western culture buffs tell each other; science is a contestable text and a power

field; the content is the form.3 Period. The form in science is the artefactual-social rhetoric of crafting the world into effective objects. This is a practice of worldchanging persuasions that take the shape of amazing new objects - like microbes, quarks, and genes.

129

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AT: Youre anti-science The question is not whether to be pro or against science; it is a question of how we understand the knowledge produced by science. Wajcman 4 (Judy. Head of Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, formerly a Professor of
Sociology at ANU, Visiting Professor

at the Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business and the Oxford Internet Institute, Also a Professor in the Gender Institute at London School of Economics and Political Science. TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 86) Again it is important to note that Haraway is not anti-science. Her understanding of the ways in which sex and gender are themselves defined and constituted in the life sciences makes her want to build a stronger science. She
is sympathetic to feminist attempts to develop a successor science based on 'standpoint theory' - that is, feminist epistemologies which privilege women's 'ways of

knowing' above others.10 The key idea here is that knowledge produced from women's standpoint or experience is distinctive in form as well as in content, and should be the foundation of a more comprehensive, truer science. Haraway's proposition is the notion of 'situated knowledges', which avoids any essentialist idea of a universal women's perspective. Instead, she calls for a feminist science that acknowledges its own contingent, located foundations just as it recognizes the contingent, located foundations of other claims for knowledge.

130

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFF:Perm
CombininggenderwithIRispossiblesocialconstructivismisbasedonthe foundationnecessary
forgendertheory.ConventionalIRtheoryissuitedtostudyinggenderasasubsetofsocial relations underlyingworldpolitics.Thepointofviewwouldbedifferent,butthat'sgoodit underminesthe ideathat"gender"isonlyforfeminists Carpenter 02 (R. Charli, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, "Gender Theory in World Politics:
Contributions of a Non-Feminist Standpoint?", International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186468)

TOWARD "GENDER CONSTRUCTIVISM" IN IR? Paraphrasing Sandra Whitworth, Tickner claims theories that incorporate gender must satisfy
three criteria: 1) they must allow for the possibility of talking about the social construction of meaning; 2) they must discuss

historical variability; and 3) they must permit theorizing about power in ways that uncover hidden power relations" (p.
27). Nothing in this formula requires gender theories to be explicitly normative, as Tickner and others claim feminism must be (p. 2).15 Moreover, although Tickner begins by situating all IR scholarship on norms and social values in IR as "constitutive" versus "explanatory" theory (p. 27), much

of the social constructivist work on norms and identities actually claims to share an epistemological framework with those
traditions Tickner considers conventional while possessing the ontological orientation that Whitworth claims is necessary for

gender theory. 16 If gender as an explanatory framework is to be incorporated into mainstream IR epistemologies, conventional constructivism-or what Tickner later calls "bridging theories" (p. 46)-appear to be the obvious entry point. Scholars such as Ronald Jepperson, Peter Katzenstein, and Alexander Wendt are committed to an identity-based ontology but, according
to Tickner, "stay within the traditional security agenda, a focus on states and explanatory social science" (p. 45). Given constructivism's emphasis on norms and identity

in world politics, it is surprising that this school has not already begun to build on feminist gender theories; this may reflect, as Tickner argues, a systematic gender bias. Yet it does not result from theoretical incompatibility. This variant of constructivism is ontologically suited to studying gender norms and identities, as a specific component of the broader category of social relations composing world politics. While Locher and Prugl correctly have pointed out that constructivists would epistemologically approach gender in a different way than feminists, it does not mean, as they conclude, that

constructivists must incorporate feminist epistemologies to study gender.17 It only

means that the two sorts of gender theory will be somewhat different; the study of gender norms and international policy should be no more an epistemological problem

for constructivists than the study of nuclear weapons taboos or humanitarian intervention. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink's examination of the spread of women's suffrage as a norm of civilized society may be an example of such scholarship-a work that is absent from Tickner's bibliography of scholarship on gender.18 This is less a matter of inherent incompatibility than of feminists and constructivists overcoming the notion that gender studies is a feminist preserve.

131

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AFF:Perm WeshouldacceptfeminismonlyasonegenderIRtheoryofmany.Nonfeministgender theoryispossible andnecessarytofillintheoreticalgaps.Feministshavetriedandfailedtodothis themselves.Whatis necessaryisamarriageofgendertheoryandconventionalIR Carpenter 02 (R. Charli, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, "Gender Theory in World Politics:
Contributions of a Non-Feminist Standpoint?", International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186468)

Research on gender in IR faces a conundrum. Feminist approaches-while rich, diverse, and a much needed critique-are substantively nonfeminist traditions face disciplinary barriers to appropriating "gender" in conventional frameworks. Given the significance of

narrow as their emphasis is women in world affairs rather than international politics itself. Yet scholars working in

gender in world politics and some of the limitations to feminist approaches described above, there are two questions for IR feminists and the broader community: Can

IR feminists adjust their frameworks to generate more inclusive analyses while retaining their focus on women's

emancipation? Can nonfeminist scholars interested in gender create a space for generating their own theories of gender in world politics while engaging with rather than substituting for the insights of feminist theory? Two recent books provide clues. The collection edited by Caroline Moser and Fiona Clark begins by questioning some of the stereotypes in earlier IR feminist work on gender. The editors wish to go beyond the essentializing of women as victims and men as perpetrators of violence, a view that they argue denies women agency, as well as obscures the complexity of gender in armed conflict. The book "aims to
contribute to a more comprehensive, global understanding of the complex roles, responsibilities and interests of women and men, whether as victims, perpetrators or

actors, in armed conflict and political violence" (p. 4). A promising agenda, but how well do the chapters in this book actually follow through? Of all the
articles, only one chiefly concerns men and masculinity; only two have a roughly balanced gender analysis that emphasizes the effects of armed conflict on the well-

being of both men and women. Although "gender" is in the title, it seems that women and women's mobilization remain the dependent variables. Lip service is given to the notion that gender affects men equally or that men may be victims as well as perpetrators. But disproportionately little empirical work here concerns men, children, or gender as it affects any other aspects of the war and peace process; and comments such as the goal being "a peaceful existence for women" (Simona Sharoni, p. 99) or "although war affected men and women alike, for women the losses are innumerable" (Ibanez, p. 117) are
hidden among the talk of theoretical advancement.12 Despite Cynthia Cockburn's remarkably coherent explanatory framework, articulated in the first chapter, few of

the chapters follow through on a systematic analysis of

gender. Instead, most of the authors confuse sex and gender (pp. 10, 30, 92). What is left is a great deal of descriptive research on sex-differentiated behavior, impacts, and issues in armed conflict but little explanatory analysis of how gender (identities, beliefs, and discourses) constructs these outcomes or how best to target those attitudes for change. The book remains a solid feminist description of women's troubles, with some attention given to the conjoint difficulties men face and a positive spin on how women can mobilize to create solutions. For example, Sharoni's
chapter on women activists on both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict and in Palestine examines variation in the impact of national struggles on women's liberties. Donny Meerten's analysis of displacement in Colombia

celebrates women's coping strategies as a buffer against the struggles of urban existence. Urvashi Butalia's work on women's feminist and antifeminist mobilization in India both undermines the idea of a generic pan-female solidarity and explains the paradox of female support for bloody communalism and suttee. These chapters indeed move feminist work on political violence beyond simple formulas, capturing situational nuance and providing new puzzles and new answers. Yet the book does little to generate an inclusive agenda for showing how gender affects political outcomes in general. Thus the book, while an excellent contribution to scholarship on women, leaves out much that could have been discussed pertaining to gender as it affects not women per se, but patterns of armed conflict and political violence generally. Where the Moser and Clark book
tries to transcend feminist biases while retaining a focus on women, Goldstein brings feminist theories to bear on the

"conventional" agenda of IR: the war system. His task is not to critique or engage but to test hypotheses: sociocultural versus sociobiological approaches to explaining male predominance in organized warfare. War and Gender does not read like Francis
Fukuyama's facile argument about the relative utility of one side in the nature/nurture debate.13 Goldstein sees value in both approaches and wishes to

capture the interplay between sex and gender, between biology and culture, which are both interdependent and mutually constitutive: "biology provides
diverse potential, and cultures limit, select and channel them" (p. 2). Goldstein compiles, sorts, and analyzes evidence for or against a long list of hypotheses drawn from evolutionary biology and feminist theories (essentialist

and constructivist). His survey is remarkably thorough, accounting both for sex differentiation in the location of human beings in institutions of war and peace and for the gendered cultural constructions that sustain them. The work will be important in placing "gender" in the feminist sense on the agenda of those interested in understanding the social dynamics of warfare. Moreover, War and Gender will become an important teaching resource in undergraduate IR courses, which may do more than anything to mainstream concepts of gender in the discipline. Goldstein's work is groundbreaking as an example of how gender as an explanatory instrument may be combined with a conventional IR agenda using empirical science rather than interpretivism. He avoids engaging with current theoretical debates, but his work demonstrates that the disjunction Tickner identifies is one between feminism and
conventional IR, not between gender theory and IR. According to Goldstein, gender can and should be deployed in conventional analysis to understand precisely the "real world issues ... of war in and between states" that

feminists wish to push beyond.'4 Yet this work is only a first step toward integrating gender as a theory into conventional IR. On the subject of how gender may best intersect with contemporary debates, Goldstein has little to say. He represents a voice in
an emerging "conversation" but does not lay out parameters for the conversation itself. Relative to the complexity of feminist approaches to gender, Goldstein's analytical framework seems oversimplified. For example, while

his hypotheses can be categorized according to whether they assign causal value to culture or biology, Goldstein denies that these are separate analytically. In using "gender to cover masculine and feminine roles and bodies alike" (p. 2), he is doing reflectively what many writers and policymakers do subconsciously. This enables Goldstein to provide some important insights, such as destabilizing the notion that biology is deterministic and cultural malleable: "In truth, scientists understand, control and change biology much more easily ... than social scientists or politicians understand and control culture and social relationships, including gender and war" (p. 131). Laying out the multiple points of overlap between bodies and ideas is an important contribution because so much literature continues to posit a false dichotomy between them. Nonetheless, the distinction between sex and gender remains important for operationalizing the two, and the intelligibility of Goldstein's analysis, particularly to the lay reader, suffers as a result of this conflation. Moreover, Goldstein sets up male predominance in organized fighting as a constant rather than exploring what variation exists. He then seeks to explain it by referring to configurations in physiology and culture that actually do vary greatly. What is lacking is
reference to specific research agendas within mainstream theory: the democratic peace, ethnic conflict, nuclear

proliferation, collective security. Goldstein has demonstrated the breadth of intersections among sex, gender, and the war system and has demonstrated that mainstream IR agenda of explaining variation in international political outcomes. The remaining section sketches such a possible marriage of explanatory gender theory with "conventional constructivism." 132

objective empirical theory on gender is possible in IR. But gender as an analytical category must also be welded to the

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFF:Perm

AconstructivisttheoryofgenderinIRwouldleadtotheunderstandingofgenderin politicsinthree
ways:byrefiningtheterminology,incorporatingtheoryaboutgroupsbesideswomen,and creating moreaccuratemodels Carpenter 02 (R. Charli, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, "Gender Theory in World Politics:
Contributions of a Non-Feminist Standpoint?", International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186468)

What could this explanatory gender theory look like, and how could it contribute to understanding gender and world politics? It could do so in three ways: conceptually, substantively, and analytically. Conceptually, a conversation between nonfeminist and feminist gender theories would help refine much of the loose and inconsistent terminology pertaining to gender as a concept. For example, one outcome of such a conversation might be to clarify the sex/gender distinction. Much
feminist theory routinely conflates

these two concepts, either for theoretical reasons 19 or because of the way gender has been appropriated in colloquial usage.20 Yet to destabilize the assumption that embodied men and women correlate to gendered ascriptive and prescriptive notions, it seems that sex and gender must be discussed separately in scholarly literature. Although operationalizing sex versus gender in this way does abstract away from some of the issues that postmodernists point to, and from certain anomalies in human biology, it usefully maps onto the constructivist distinction between "material forces" and "ideas." For example, John Searle has distinguished between "brute facts" (objects that exist in the
real world like tanks, nuclear weapons, or people with uteruses) and "social facts" like money, Christmas, marriage, or misogyny, which require intersubjective

agreement on their existence and constitution.21 It is an empirical fact that human beings are divided into roughly two categories based on biological roles and reproduction; this would still be true whether gender ideologies that assign social importance to this distinction exist or not. The existence and nature of those gender ideologies are separate from the sheer
physiology of humans; gender ideologies, institutions, and identities built on them are social facts. That the social and material interrelate does not mean, as Goldstein

insists, that the distinction is analytically irrelevant. It may be true, for example, that nuclear weapons would have no actual destructive power without institutional

and social arrangements that make it possible to actually deploy them.22 But this does not mean that nuclear weapons are not objectively real. It is an analysis of the mutual interaction of the social and material worlds that is the task of constructivist IR in its critical and explanatory versions. An engagement of conventional constructivists with these operationalization questions is certain to generate interesting dialogue between mainstream and feminist IR. Substantively, "gender constructivism" can fill some of the niches left by IR feminism mentioned above. Beyond expanding the study of gender to men, children, and nonfeminist women's issues, nonfeminist social constructivists' main niche to be filled is in generating a richer body of literature in which the international system is the dependent variable. Feminist IR has
already created a large body of work to

draw on in this capacity, emphasizing links between masculinism and militarism, the role of gender in constructing national identities and interests, the embeddedness of gendered thinking in foreign policy discourses and its influence on political action, and the importance of gender beliefs in sustaining the international political economy. But the key purpose of feminist theory is to investigate and argue for improvements in the well-being of women. As Tickner emphasizes, it is women, not interactions between states, that are the primary dependent variable in feminist IR (p. 139). Conversely, gender constructivists can use the analytical category feminists have developed to understand the IR agenda as conventionally defined. A rich variety of questions pertinent to mainstream IR theory is possible. Were American women allowed to fight in the Gulf War
for manpower reasons, to satisfy domestic women voters, or as a part of psychological warfare against the opponent's male-dominated forces? Were these strategies

effective, or does increasing hostility among allied Middle Eastern publics constitute a variety of "blowback" effect? Do the strategic advantages of shifts of sex composition of modern militaries outweigh the social and institutional challenges? How best can states uphold morale among soldiers programmed with militarized identities while successfully achieving the pacifist imperatives of humanitarian interventions? Can assumptions about gender embedded in international custom help explain patterns of intervention? How do gender relations influence the personality and the behavior of political leaders during international events? Is there no apparent relationship? How do sea changes in ideologies about gender relations change the political arena in which states must secure legitimacy? Analytically, gender theory in IR would benefit from the development of distinctions between different causal and constitutive pathways by which gender affects world politics. Much of this also could map onto models used in conventional constructivism to explain how norms and identities operate. These could
include distinctions among gender

identity (individual beliefs about one's masculinity or femininity), gender ideology (principled beliefs about relations between men and women), and gender structure (distribution of embodied men and women into social and political institutions). All three of these influence and are manipulated by gender norms (collectively held causal and prescriptive beliefs regarding gender roles), and all constitute and reinforce a global (but changing) gender regime. Specifying and generating explanatory models for how these interrelate in different contexts, with reference to specific issue areas relevant to studying world politics, can do much more than advance knowledge on women's subordination. It can advance knowledge on IR itself.

133

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFF:Perm
CombiningtraditionalIRwithgenderenablesustounderstandtheworld
Carpenter 02 (R. Charli, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, "Gender Theory in World Politics:
Contributions of a Non-Feminist Standpoint?", International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186468)

If we accept that feminism is inherently critique but that gender per se is simply an analytical category, then scholarship on gender may -- indeed must -- be undertaken not only by feminists interested in "generating demands for change"
(Cockburn, p. 16), but also by "conventional" scholars who wish to understand the world as it is. If we take the explanatory claims of IR feminism seriously -- as I believe we must -- then conventional IR theorists must recognize gender, whether or not

they wish to be feminists, in the course of furthering their own agenda. This research should be undertaken in such a way as to complement and engage, rather than substitute for, feminist IR theory. Perhaps this could engender the substantive dialogue between feminists and "the mainstream" that Tickner so fervently seeks. AFF China Perm

Cooperation in space creates an ethic of hospitality that suspends territorialized sovereignty Battaglia Forthcoming [Debbora, Professor of Anthropology at Mount Holyoke College, Arresting Hospitality: The
Case of the Handshake in Space,

Draft. In Press. Candea, M. and Da Col, G., eds. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Special Issue on 'Hospitality', http://arc5.academia.edu/DEBBORABATTAGLIA/Papers/332022/Arresting_Hospitali ty_The_Case_of_the_Handshake_in_Space] Denying rights to hosting, authoring, or authorizing hospitality other than cooperatively, fieldworking astronauts and cosmonauts 'acted out' a separation from the tyranny of territory, opening political as well as cultural space for modeling a space ethics of hospitality. As if in one voice, they iterate the separation that Derrida performs from Kant's
position that another should not be treated with hostility when arriving on someone else's territory. With territory deferred and displaced into an

unmarked future, hospitality opens to faith-based acts of relation: 'the welcomed guest is a stranger treated as a friend or ally, as opposed to the stranger treated as an enemy (friend/enemy, hospitality/hostility)' (2000:4).
The further extension is the effect of this political-aesthetic regime on notions of sovereignty. Space as related to sovereignty is often written as an elision of 'space' and

'place'.' However, space-as-itself absorbs this discursive field. Allowing that its properties have very specific

warping effects on entities, social practices and institutions, it is itself unshapeable and as such, can be pressed into service of sovereign narratives and images only as a rhetorical device. Outer space refuses specificity other
than as places like Moon or Mars, which reduce empire to terran dimensions for the imaginaries of conquest or colonization they elicit, and iterate as nomadic spacecraft analogs. But not on the occasion of the 'handshake'. The craft and persons suspended in space likewise

suspend, if only for the space of a mission, their own sociopolitical dimensions (that is, commit the permeability of boundaries of metal and
human skins) to becoming deferentially of space, allied there in non-negotiable submission to its laws. To take up sidelong the point that Agamben (2005) carries forward from Carl Schmitt for defining sovereignty, space-as-itself is the only possible sovereign

power: that to which exceptions to human laws source. It is in this sense that the cosmonauts and astronauts of Apollo-Soyuz were acting owed their allegiance committed to this value explicitly in official rhetorics of colonization and/or conquest. It is

both humbly and boldly as 'little gods' who would deny a politics of territory a place of privilege in space or on Earth, even as the powers to which they

thus that space creates space for a God concept in the company of which both religious orthodoxies and orthodox science can only be uncomfortable (cf. Derrida 2002).

134

UTNIF 2011 Gender K Aff: Perm Satellites

Alttofeminismsolvesallevensatellites
Liftin 97 (Karen, U. of Wash., Dept. of Poli-Sci, Ph.D @ UCLA, A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites,
Frontiers: A Journal of Women

Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, Intersections of Feminisms and Environmentalisms, pp. 2647. University of Nebraska Press)
Yet, while global satellite-based science has the earmarks of a mammoth technocratic enterprise, it is not immune to public opinion, nor are its fruits available only to

the elite. Remote sensing is not just Big Science; environmental groups and indigenous peoples are increasingly turning to satellite data in order to press their claims on behalf of nature and cultural survival. Perhaps most intriguing is the use of satellite data by indigenous groups for mapping their customary land rights and documenting the role of the state and multinational corporations in ecological destruction."' Environmental advocacy groups and indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, the Amazon, and the Pacific Northwest are at-to their traditional into modern scientific tempting integrate knowledge methodologies through the use of satellitegenerated data and mapping software.62 These examples suggest that there is an alternative to viewing the earth as alien Other, as an object of knowledge and an object of control. Evelyn Fox Keller's work provides one example of the sort of reorientation that might be involved in such an alternative: Rather than positing a basic adversarial relation-ship between subject and object, "dynamic objectivity" draws upon the commonality between mind and nature as a resource for understanding. Keller likens dynamic objectivity to empathy, a way of knowing others that draws upon a commonality of feelings and experience in order to enhance one's understanding of another individual.63But if the other is to retain his integrity as other, then empathy must not degenerate into projection; the knower must maintain an awareness of her own subjective assumptions and experiences and a conception of self that is distinct yet not disconnected. Informed by a sense of dynamic objectivity, Earth remote sensing could approach nature with a sense of empathy and respect, rather than as an object of planetary management. The global perspective afforded by satellites could honor local cultures and the needs of those whose voices are not heard in the current discourse of global environmental management. Perhaps such an orientationwould make it possible for the earth to speak to us

through the satellites, "to declare its subjecthood.""64Might the view from space, along with fourteen petabytes of data and computer-simulated graphics, induce not

only a state of awe-not so much of the earth itself but of human scientific and technological prowess-but also something resembling the sense of empathy that informs Keller's notion of dynamic Once the celebratory discourse surrounding satellitebased objectivity?65 monitoring of the earth is seen for the masking mechanism that it
is, and once the alienating discourse of the environment as a system to be managed is aban-doned, such a possibility might be realized. A more postmodern

feminist rehabilitation of Earth-observing satellites is also possible. Keller's ideas, like those of ecofeminism, are rooted in a gender psychology of difference, although they clearly recognize the social construction of gender and are therefore less vulnerable to the charges of essentialism that have ecofeminism.66Kathleen notion of and
Plagued Ferguson's "mobile subjectivities" of Donna notion of catch some of the Haraway's "cyborgs" fascinating ambiguity indigenous peoples and environmental

groups using satellite data to press their claims.67Here, there is no pure and unitary conception of woman to counter patriarchal modernity; nor is the line between humans and nature sharply drawn. Just as Christine Sylvester cites "the imaginative reworkings of seemingly fixed identities" in the "elephant-artist,"68 so might Earth-remote sensing promote such identities as "ecological technician" or "indigenous multispectral analyst."

135

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AFF: Perm Solves The use of space as a new frontier allows for alternative conceptions to emerge. Brandt 06 (Stefan, Professor of North American Culture and Literature, University of Siegen, Germany, "Astronautic
Subjects: Postmodern Identity and the

Embodiment of Space in American Science Fiction", Gender Forum, Issue 16, 2006, http://www.genderforum.org/index.php?id=311) Modern criticism has long debated the function(s) of utopian fantasies for the process of cultural self-fashioning, pointing to the peculiar link between visions of the future and references to the present. "[B]y examining people's ideas about the future," Claudia Springer observes, "we can learn about their responses to present-day issues, for contemporary cultural battles find expression in even the most shocking and improbable speculations about
the future" (15). Conceived in this manner, the obsession of contemporary science fiction with images of transgression can be

seen as a comment on the current dilemma concerning identity roles. The realm of science fiction abounds with visions of gender-neutral or matriarchal societies, of sex-changes and miraculous bodily transformations, of hypersexual, multisexual, and sometimes asexual creatures. In this essay, I will argue that the motif of identity subversion is combined in American science fiction with another key image most characteristic of cultural self-models: the discovery and utilization of new frontiers. The merging of gender issues with issues of cultural self-fashioning is necessarily ambiguous, revealing
a model of the future that can be both affirmative and subversive. This model may reconstruct old frontiers in the guise of new ones,

but it may also open up truly alternative ways of conceptualizing the world.

The alternative requires the plan to ground and center its contestation HARAWAY, professor in the History of Consciousness program at UC- Santa Cruz, 1992 (Donna, THe Promises of
Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for

Inappropriate/d Others, Cultural Studies eds. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A Treichler, p 319) From the start, the event was conceived as an action that linked social justice and human rights, environmentalism, anti-militarism, and anti-nuclearism. On the T-shirt, there is, indeed, the perfect icon of the union of all issues under environmentalism's rubric: the "whole earth," the lovely, cloud-wrapped, blue, planet earth is simultaneously a kind of fetus floating in the amniotic cosmos and a mother to all its own inhabitants,
germ of the future, matrix of the past and present. It is a perfect globe, joining the changeling matter of mortal bodies and the

ideal eternal sphere of the philosophers. This snapshot resolves the dilemma of modernity, the separation of

Subject and Object, Mind and Body. There is, however, a jarring note in all this, even for the most devout. That particular image of the earth, of Nature, could only exist if a camera on a satellite had taken the picture, which is, of course, precisely the case. Who speaks for the earth? Firmly in the object world called nature, this bourgeois, family-affirming snapshot of mother earth is about as uplifting as a loving commercial Mother's Day card. And yet, it is beautiful, and it is ours; it must be brought into a different focus. The T-shirt is part of a complex collective entity, involving many circuits, delegations, and displacements of competencies. Only in the context of the space race in the first place, and the militarization and commodification of the whole earth, does it make sense to relocate that image as the special sign of an anti-nuclear, anti-militaristic, earth-focused politics. The relocation does not cancel its other resonances; it contests for their outcome. I read Environmental Action's
"whole earth" as a sign of an irreducible

artifactual social nature, like the Gaia of SF writer John Varley and biologist Lynn Margulis. Relocated on this particular T-shirt, the satellite's eye view of planet earth provokes an ironic version of the question, who speaks for the earth (for the fetus, the mother, the jaguar, the object
world of nature, all those who must be represented)? For many of us, the irony made it possible to participate-indeed, to

participate as fully committed, if semiotically unruly, eco- feminists. Not everybody in the Mother's and Others' Day Action would agree; for many, the T-shirt image meant what it said, love your mother who is the earth. Nuclearism is misogyny. The field of readings in tension with each other is also part of the point. Eco-feminism and the non-violent
direct action movement have been

based on struggles over differences, not on identity. There is hardly a need for affinity groups and their endless process if sameness prevailed. Affinity is precisely not identity; the sacred image of the same is not gestating on this Mother's and Others' Day. Literally, enrolling the satellite's camera and the peace action in Nevada into a new collective, this Love Your Mother image is based on diffraction, on the processing of small but consequential differences. The processing of differences, semiotic action, is about ways of life

136

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AFF: Astronaut turn

AFF:Thefigureoftheastronautcanundogender.
Brandt 06 (Stefan, Professor of North American Culture and Literature, University of Siegen, Germany, "Astronautic
Subjects: Postmodern Identity and the

Embodiment of Space in American Science Fiction", Gender Forum, Issue 16, 2006, http://www.genderforum.org/index.php?id=311) 7 The figure of the astronaut stands at the center of such fantasies. Sci-fi texts can either accentuate the spacewalker's national affiliation or point to his/her resistance to any form of collective identity. The fashioning of "astronautic subjects," however, is not limited to the realm of science fiction, nor is it restricted to a certain terrain within the cultural imagination. The "astronautic subject" is a quite real phenomenon of postmodern social and cultural practice. Since it ostentatiously conceals the protagonist's actual biological sex behind a thick uniform, the concept of astronautic subjectivity encourages us to question the validity of any form of core identity. Moreover, by
highlighting the astronaut's desire to conquer new terrains, it intimates the possibility of a far-reaching transformation of social patterns. 8 Hence, the astronaut

can be seen as a chronotope for the transcendence - and eventually subversion - of (gender) identity. In a Bakhtinian
sense, the space traveler not only transgresses time and space, but also condenses time in space.[2]The name "Chris" can be interpreted as a metonymy, referring to the

pioneer status of the astronaut in the 1960s. Like Jesus Christ, the astronaut is both a missionary and a martyr. The iconic function of the astronaut in <em>You Only Live Twice</em> is underpinned by the fact that the actor who plays Chris is not specified in the film's credits which only refer to Norman Jones and Paul Carson as the actors playing the two astronauts on the first spacecraft. The images of the first spacewalker, Edward H. White, taken in June, 1965, can hardly be distinnational icons attached to it and the helmet (which even hides facial features), we guished from the pictures of Bruce McCandless, shot almost twenty years later. Time seems to be meaningless for the spacewalker. In such illustrations, astronautic identity is portrayed as a surface - consistent in its utter appearance, but also inscrutable as far as the structure behind it is concerned. The lack of mimic play and outward gestures makes the astronaut a projection field of our own ideas. Since the astronaut's appearance is marked mainly by the
spacesuitwith its are continuously looking for clues behind this cold faade - some hidden meaning, a sign that enlightens us about the astronaut's true identity.

The concept of "astronaut", influenced by the idea of the postmodern body, is becoming more and more androgynous, even in NASA literature Brandt 06 (Stefan, Professor of North American Culture and Literature, University of Siegen, Germany, "Astronautic

Subjects: Postmodern Identity and the

Embodiment of Space in American Science Fiction", Gender Forum, Issue 16, 2006, http://www.genderforum.org/index.php?id=311)

26 Astronauts are often depicted in Western cultural imagery as postmodern migrants, independently traveling or rather floating towards new territories. While the motif of the nomad evokes a clear-cut and manageable range or radius in which the individual operates, astronauts are faced with the task of conquering, interconnecting, and traversing new galaxies. Astronauts are travelers not only in space but also in time. Instead of remaining within the geographical limits of cultural affiliation, the astronaut is searching for "the final frontier," to quote the opening lines of the original Star Trek series. The starship Enterprise, the narrator tells us, sets out to explore "strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." Since the 1960s, central parameters of astrophysics have been integrated into the postmodern imagination. Galaxies - this is a key thesis of modern space research - are not singular or homogeneous objects, but agglomerations, complex structures with unstable limits and a heterogeneous distribution of mass in relation to time and space. The postmodern subject has recognized in the metaphor of the "new frontier" his and her own situation, which is equally marked by a multiplication and complication of life worlds. Due to fundamental changes in the ideological and social fabric of society in the course of the 20th century, the postmodern individual learned to make adaptability part of his and her body scheme. The result of this development is, as Susan Bordo has demonstrated, a type of "postmodern body" that builds its self-conception on a logic of constant transformation and assimilation: "[T]he postmodern body is the body of the mythological Trickster, the shape-shifter:
of indeterminate sex and changeable gender [] who continually alters her/his body, creates and recreates a personality [] [and] floats

across time, from period to period, place to place." ("Feminism" 467) 27 The image of "floating across time, from period to period, place to
place," conjured up by Bordo, can equally be applied to the figure of the astronaut. In the image of the independent

spacewalker, the components of spatial and temporal boundary crossing are represented in a condensed form. Like

hardly any other mythological figure, the astronaut stands for the ideals of exploration and conquest of new territories. Comparable only to the courageous settler in the early phases of the westward movement, the space

pioneer epitomizes the aspirations and yearnings of the American quest. Western cultural imagination has found the ideal expression for this belief in Neil Armstrong's famous words, articulated after he first set his foot on the moon: "That's one small step for man - one giant leap for mankind." The astronaut in this imagery is not only a rugged individualist. Moreover, his masculinity is a model for humanity itself. Such gendered ascriptions were confirmed in the Sixties and Seventies with the medial presence of spacemen such as Neil Armstrong und John Glenn. It was not until the Eighties that, with female astronauts like Sally Ride and Judy Resnik, a more diversified image was established. In the past twenty years, the figure of the astronaut has not only feminized visibly, it also become more "androgynous." The term "androgyny" is explicitly used by NASA experts to signify a need for balance and harmony during space expeditions. A recent study published on the

official homepage of NASA, titled appropriately "Living Aloft:

Human Requirements for Extended Spaceflight," contains the following statement: "[A]ndrogyny appears highly desirable for astronauts, for a strong instrumentality

combined with interpersonal sensitivity should be associated with both task accomplishment and social harmony." (9) Androgynous personalities, the study concludes, are endowed with positive self concepts and the ability to develop satisfying interpersonal relations. By "androgynous personalities," the scientists define individuals of either biological sex who are capable of performing different social roles in everyday practice in space. "Androgynous crewmembers," the scientists claim, "may have the value of increasing social variety within a crew" (ibid). The question of a transformability of traditional gender roles raised in the NASA report touches upon a number of issues situated in the nexus of social and cultural practice. To the extent that the boundary lines within our imagination are altered, the figure of the mythological boundary crosser, too, becomes multi-layered.

137

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AFF: Astronaut Turn Science fiction proves that challenging gender norms is not just possible, but successful. Analyzing "the astronaut" is key to resist dualisms and encourage alternative ways of thinking Brandt 06 (Stefan, Professor of North American Culture and Literature, University of Siegen, Germany, "Astronautic
Subjects: Postmodern Identity and the

Embodiment of Space in American Science Fiction", Gender Forum, Issue 16, 2006, http://www.genderforum.org/index.php?id=311) 35 The genre of science fiction offers consumers an ambivalent image of identity. Whereas some texts are exaggerated or comical, others
make a genuine attempt to re-fashion the ideological patterns of Western thinking. In any case, there is more than just one function to this diverse genre: Neither is it

meant for entertainment purposes alone, nor is its single goal self-empowerment, or even subversion. Even the more "progressive" science-fiction texts are often based on an ambiguous premise: While pointing to the possibility of fundamental changes in society, they are also loaded with concessions to hegemonic culture, often culminating in a hidden affirmation of existing structures. This applies in particular to the processes of gendering, disgendering and regendering in utopian fiction. It is left up to the audiences who consume these texts if the search for a gender-free space can continue on a more pragmatic level or if it remains an illusion. As Treut's film Gendernauts, among others, has suggested, there are numerous structural analogies between utopian fiction and social reality - analogies which can be instrumentalized and "acted out" by citizens and consumers (no matter of transsexual,
multisexual, or metrosexual) every day. The postmodern individual is especially inclined to make use of such connections

in order to break out of the perceived ghetto of social constraints and find selfaffirmation. In the age of expressive

individualism[8]Winfried Fluck uses this term to describe the fundamental transformations in values that occurred in postmodern societies between the mid 60s and the

late 70s. "The culture of expressive individualism," Fluck explains, "is not primarily concerned with a social rise to respectability but with the possibility of selfrealization" ("Cultures" 216). Marked by the desire to find gratification and selfempowerment at almost any cost, expressive individualism implies components of radical behaviour as well as a tendency to "outradicalize" others. In its willingness to "burn bridges" and break new ground, the astronautic subject stands in the tradition of expressive individualism, participating in a virtual contest over the most innovative and most satisfying modes of self-fulfillment., such attempts have to be radical and uncompromising in nature. The affinity of authorship and utopianism is at the heart of such creative operations. Marge Piercy's science-fiction novel He, She, and It (1991) offers a remarkable vision of a collective boundary subversion in the near future. Set in the mid-21st century in a place called Norika (actually
the former North America - now a contaminated wasteland permeated by huge environmental domes), the novel encourages us to make use of existing

structures of thought and organization to fundamentally change the path of

progress. In the final passages of her tale, Piercy

draws a connection between the act of creating science fiction and the manufacturing of cyborgs described in the book: Both the author herself and the characters

participate in a "strange and instructive journey" (446), the outcome being not clear yet. 38 The astronaut is a crucial figure for a discussion of postmodern subjectivity. Like the cyborg, he/she seems to resist stable inscriptions, being endowed with a sense of autonomy that detaches his/her body from patterns bound to a certain time or location. The astronaut is clearly marked as
a creature of future times, an inhabitant of territories not yet discovered. Unlike the nomad who, in Braidotti's phrase, "blurs boundaries without burning bridges," the

astronaut does burn bridges. The astronautic subject is not only a mythological explorer of new terrains; moreover, he/she is a composite creature, meandering between both genders and traveling between the realms of social practice and utopia. Most importantly, the concept evokes a figuration of overcoming the traditional dualisms of mind and space. As astronautic subjects, we are courageous enough to enter new spheres and independent enough to develop alternative forms of thinking - even at the risk of sometimes losing our sense of orientation.

138

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AFF:ButlerCounterK Thesearchforauniversalstructureofpatriarchytochallengedeniesthemultiplicityof womensidentity. Butler 99 (Judith, Ph.D @ Yale, Maxine Elliott professor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley,
Gender Trouble, p. 6-7)

Apart from the foundationalist fictions that support the notion of the subject, however, there is the political problem that feminism encounters in the assumption that the term women denotes a common identity. Rather than a stable signifier that commands the
assent of those whom it purports to describe and represent, women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term, a site of

contest, a cause for anxiety. As Denise Rileys title suggests, Am I That Name? is a question produced by the very possibility of the names multiple

significations.3 If one is a woman, that is surely not all one is; the term fails to be exhaustive, not because a pregendered person transcends the specific paraphernalia of its gender, but because gender is not always constituted coherently or consistently

in different historical contexts, and because gender inter- sects with racial, class, ethnic, sexual, and regional modalities of discur- sively constituted identities. As a result, it becomes impossible to separate out gender from the political and cultural intersections in which it is invariably produced and maintained. The political assumption that there must be a universal basis for feminism, one which must be found in an identity assumed to exist cross-culturally,
often accompanies the notion that the oppression of women has some singular form discernible in the universal or

hege- monic structure of patriarchy or masculine domination. The notion of a universal patriarchy has been widely criticized in recent

years for its failure to account for the workings of gender oppression in the con- crete cultural contexts in which it exists. Where those various contexts have been

consulted within such theories, it has been to find exam- ples or illustrations of a universal principle that is assumed from the start. That form of feminist theorizing has come under criticism for its efforts to colonize and appropriate non-Western cultures to support highly Western notions of oppression, but because they tend as well to construct a Third World or even an Orient in which gender oppres- sion is subtly explained as symptomatic of an essential, non-Western barbarism. The urgency of feminism to establish a universal status for patriarchy in order to strengthen the appearance of feminisms own claims to be representative has occasionally motivated the shortcut to a categorical or fictive universality of the structure of domination, held to produce womens common subjugated experience. Masculine/Feminine binaries, and viewing women as a homogenous group creates refusal to accept feminist thought.

Butler 99 (Judith, Ph.D @ Yale, Maxine Elliott professor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley,
Gender Trouble, p. 7-8)

Although the claim of universal patriarchy no longer enjoys the kind of credibility it once did, the notion of a generally shared conception of women, the corollary to that framework, has been much more difficult to displace. Certainly, there have been plenty of debates: Is there some commonality among women that preexists their oppression, or do women have a bond by virtue of their oppression alone? Is there a specificity to womens cultures that is
independent of their sub- ordination by hegemonic, masculinist cultures? Are the specificity and integrity of womens cultural or

linguistic practices always specified against and, hence, within the terms of some more dominant cultural formation? If there is a region of the specifically feminine, one that is both differentiated from the masculine as such and recognizable in its difference by an
unmarked and, hence, presumed universality of women? The masculine/feminine binary constitutes not only the exclusive

framework in which that specificity can be recognized, but in every other way the specificity of the feminine is once again fully decontextualized and separated off analytically and politically from the constitution of class, race, ethnicity, and other axes of power relations that both constitute identity and make the singular notion of identity a misnomer. My suggestion is that the presumed universality and unity of the subject of feminism is effectively undermined by the constraints of the representational discourse in which it functions. Indeed, the premature insistence on a stable subject of feminism, understood as a seamless category of women, inevitably generates multiple refusals to accept the category. These domains of exclusion reveal the coercive and regulatory consequences of that construction, even when the construction has
been elaborated for emancipatory purposes. Indeed, the fragmentation within feminism and the paradoxical opposition to feminism from women whom feminism

claims to represent suggest the necessary limits of identity politics. The suggestion that feminism can seek wider representation for a subject that it itself constructs has the ironic consequence that feminist goals risk failure by refusing to take account of the constitutive powers of their own representational claims. This problem is not ameliorated through an appeal to the category of women for merely strategic purposes, for strategies always
have meanings that exceed the purposes for which they are intended. In this case, exclusion itself might qualify as such an unintended yet

consequential meaning. By conforming to a requirement of representational politics that feminism articulate a stable subject, feminism thus opens itself to
charges of gross misrepresentation.

139

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AFF:ButlerCounterK We need to reject current preconceptions of gender, and view women as equals as a prerequisite to change. Butler 99 (Judith, Ph.D @ Yale, Maxine Elliott professor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley,
Gender Trouble, p. 8-9)

Perhaps there is an opportunity at this juncture of cultural politics, a period that some would call postfeminist, to reflect from within a feminist perspective on the injunction to construct a subject of feminism. Within feminist political practice, a radical rethinking of the ontological constructions of identity appears to be necessary in order to formulate a representational
politics that might revive feminism on other grounds. On the other hand, it may be time to entertain a radical critique that seeks to free

feminist theory from the necessity of having to construct a single or abiding ground which is invariably contested by those identity positions or anti-identity positions that it invariably excludes. Do the exclusionary practices that ground feminist theory in a notion of women as subject paradoxically undercut feminist goals to extend its claims to representation? Perhaps the problem is even more serious. Is the construction of the category of women as a coherent and stable subject an unwitting regulation and reification of gender relations? And is not such a reifica- tion
precisely contrary to feminist aims? To what extent does the cate- gory of women achieve stability and coherence only in the context of the heterosexual matrix? If a

stable notion of gender no longer proves to be the foundational premise of feminist politics, perhaps a new sort of feminist politics is now desirable to contest the very reifications of gender and identity, one that will take the variable construction of identity as both a methodological and normative prerequisite, if not a political goal.

Uniformfeministidentityunnecessaryforchange
Butler 99 (Judith, Ph.D @ Yale, Maxine Elliott professor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley,
Gender Trouble, p. 181-183)

The foundationalist reasoning of identity politics tends to assume that an identity must first be in place in order for political interests to be elaborated and, subsequently, political action to be taken. My argument is that there need not be a doer behind the deed, but that the doer is variably constructed in and through the deed. This is not a return to an existential
theory of the self as constituted through its acts, for the exis- tential theory maintains a prediscursive structure for both the self and its acts. It is precisely the

discursively variable construction of each in and through the other that has

interested me here. The question of locating agency is usually associated with the viability of the subject, where the subject is understood to have some stable existence prior to the cultural field that it
negotiates. Or, if the subject is culturally constructed, it is nevertheless vested with an agency, usually figured as the capacity for reflexive mediation, that remains intact

regardless of its cultural embeddedness. On such a model, culture and discourse mire the subject, but do not constitute that subject. This move to qualify and enmire the preexisting subject has appeared necessary to establish a point of agency that is not fully determined by that
culture and discourse. And yet, this kind of reasoning falsely presumes (a) agency can only be established through recourse

to a prediscursive I, even if that I is found in the midst of a discursive convergence, and (b) that to be constituted by discourse is to be determined by discourse, where determination forecloses the possibility of agency. Even within the
theories that maintain a highly qualified or situated subject, the subject still encounters its discursively constituted environment in an oppositional epistemological

frame. The culturally enmired subject negotiates its constructions, even when those con- structions are the very predicates of its own identity. In Beauvoir, for example, there is an I that does its gender, that becomes its gender, but that I, invariably associated with its gender, is nevertheless a point of agency never fully identifiable with its gender. That cogito is never fully of the cultural world that it
negotiates, no matter the narrowness of the ontological distance that separates that subject from its cultural predicates. The theories of feminist identity that elaborate

predicates of color, sexuality, ethnicity, class, and able-bodiedness invariably close with an embarrassed etc. at the end of the list. Through this horizontal trajectory of adjectives, these positions strive to encompass a situat- ed subject, but invariably fail to be complete. This failure, however, is instructive: what political impetus is to be derived from the exasperat- ed etc. that so often occurs at the end of such lines? This is a sign of exhaustion as well as of the illimitable process of signification itself. It is the supplement, the excess that necessarily accompanies any effort to posit identity once and for all. This illimitable et cetera, however, offers itself as a new departure for feminist political theorizing.

140

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AFF: Butler Counter-K Gender binaries hurt the feminist cause, and should be contested Butler 99 (Judith, Ph.D @ Yale, Maxine Elliott professor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley,
Gender Trouble, p. 186-188)

Practices of parody can serve to reengage and reconsolidate the very distinction between a privileged and naturalized gender configuration and one that appears as derived, phantasmatic, and mimetica failed copy, as it were. And surely parody has been used to further a politics of despair, one which affirms a seemingly inevitable exclusion of marginal genders from the territory of the natural and the real. And yet this failure to become real and to embody the natural is, I would argue, a constitutive failure of all gender enactments for the very rea- son that these ontological locales are fundamentally uninhabitable. Hence, there is a subversive laughter in the pastiche-effect of parodic practices in which the original, the authentic, and the real are themselves constituted as effects. The loss of gender norms would have the effect of proliferating gender configurations, destabilizing substantive identity, and depriving the naturalizing narratives of compulsory heterosexuality of their central protagonists: man and woman. The parodic repetition of gender exposes as well the illusion of gender identity as an intractable depth and inner substance. As the effects of a subtle and politically enforced performativity, gender is an act, as it were, that is open to splittings, selfparody, self-criticism, and those hyperbolic exhibitions of the natural that, in their very exaggeration, reveal its fundamentally phantasmatic status. I have tried to suggest that the identity categories often presumed to be foundational to feminist politics, that is, deemed necessary in order to mobilize feminism as an identity politics, simultaneously work to limit and constrain in advance the very cultural possibilities that feminism is supposed to open up. The tacit constraints that produce culturally intelligible sex ought to be understood as generative political structures rather than naturalized foundations. Paradoxically, the reconceptualization of identity as an effect, that is, as produced or generated, opens up
possibilities of agency that are insidiously fore- closed by positions that take identity categories as foundational and fixed. For an identity to be an effect means that it

is neither fatally determined nor fully artificial and arbitrary. That the constituted status of identity is misconstrued along these two conflicting lines suggests the ways in which the feminist discourse on cultural construction remains trapped within the unnecessary binarism of free will and determinism. Construction is not opposed to agency; it is the necessary scene of agency,
the very terms in which agency is articulated and becomes culturally intelligible. The critical task for feminism is not to establish a point of view outside of constructed

identities; that conceit is the construction of an epistemological model that would disavow its own cultural location and, hence, promote itself as a global subject, a

position that deploys precisely the imperialist strategies that feminism thought to criticize. The critical task is, rather, to locate strategies of subversive repetition enabled by those constructions, to affirm the local possibilities of intervention through participating in precisely those practices of repetition that constitute identity and, therefore, present the immanent possibility of contesting them.

141

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

142

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AFF:SpaceTurn Their characterization of the link is wrong space exploration, particular in the context of space station cooperation, replaces dominant masculine rhetorics of conquest and leadership Day 4 [Dwayne, Washington, Doctorate in Political Science DC based space policy analyst, The feminization of
American space policy, April 12,

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/130/1] Throughout the 1990s, the old language and symbolism of space policy continued to erode. NASA began to justify its existence to the
American public to a greater extent upon its ability to teach and to inspire, and its ability to solve health care problems what Lord and Jamieson have called

feminine issues. It became commonplace for NASA and aerospace company officials to claim that a vigorous exploration program was necessary to inspire students to pursue careers in math, science and engineering. The NASA administrator regularly touted the value of the International Space Station in terms of its ability to contribute to research on health problems of the aging such as osteoporosis and Alzheimers

disease. In the 1980s political junkets by congressmen were justified in terms of Congress oversight duties, but when John Glenn flew aboard a space shuttle in 1998

he justified it in terms of conducting research on human aging. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin regularly decried the fact that so much of the agency workforce was male, pale and stale. These changes in the rhetoric of the space program mirrored larger American society, where a focus on health care became the major debate of the early-to-mid 1990s and where soccer moms became a
major voting demographic. There was a fringe of the American space community where the more traditional, masculine imagery and language survived, however. That

fringe was the Mars Society, led by its zealous spokesman Robert Zubrin. Zubrin makes no effort to be politically correct with his language and frequently talks of the conquest and colonization of Mars. He uses language and imagery about Americas western frontier that is at odds with current scholarship about this subject and that even some members of his own organization have found offensive. His language would have been unnoticeable in 1967, but seems anachronistic today. A clash of visions and language Instead of conquest or leadership, or science, the goal has become exploration. In fact, in his
speech Bush mentioned the word exploration eleven times. He mentioned the word science only once, and then in

terms of the role that future space exploration can play in inspiring children to pursue careers in sciencethe traditional feminine language of the modern space program. President Bushs new space vision in many ways highlights the uneasy relationship between more traditional space goals and the newer language and symbolism
that has developed since the end of the Cold War. A program of returning Americans to the moon and eventually sending them

to Mars has traditionally been justified in terms of masculine language that is no

longer acceptable to larger audiences. In order to build the coalitions necessary to pursue this new policy, Bush could not embrace the old language about conquering the heavens or even
leading the world. So he has adopted the word exploration as a compromise term. Similarly, NASA itself has embraced the word exploration to define its goals without

clearly describing the relationship between science and exploration. And in speeches by the NASA Administrator and the agencys literature, the goal of inspiring children is oft-repeated as a reason for conducting space exploration. Clearly over the years the goals of the civilian space program have evolved and changed in response to the larger political environment. It is not simply politics, however, that affects the space program. It is the larger social context that molds politics as well. There is probably no returning to the masculine rhetoric of space exploration of days past, even if space policy has adopted more ambitious and challenging goals. Politicians and bureaucrats will try to develop new language and descriptions to broaden the appeal of these plans.

143

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

144

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AffHarawayIndict Haraway over-emphasizes the influence of discourse the celebration of the cyborg is a concession all too easily co-opted by masculine technoscience Salleh 9 [Ariel, School of Social and Political Sciences, Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, The
dystopia of technoscience: An ecofeminist

critique of postmodern reason, Futures Volume 41, Issue 4, May 2009, Pages 201209] US theorist Donna Haraway, one of the most creative representatives of the postmodern tendency, is not unsympathetic to the idea of an ecofeminism. And her most famous book Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, does touch base with the word from time to time [7] and [8]. Haraway also seeks a usable doctrine of objectivity, although in line with her immaculate social constructionism, she is reluctant to agree to any epistemology inscribed in the daily experience of women and men. However, her rejection of embodied feminist standpoints as naive empiricism seems to cancel her own celebration of permeable discursive boundaries between the materialisms of biota,
technologies and texts. Significantly, Haraway actually cites with approval Evelyn Fox Keller's radical feminist need to hold to some non-discursive grounding in

sex and nature. Is this a momentary admission on Haraway's part, that some things might be immediately known by the senses; that discourse might not be total, as social constructionists so often imply [9]?3 Again with ecofeminists, Haraway talks about new and possibly utopian forms of political subjectivity resisting metaphysical closure. But in her own account, this implies a poststructuralist death of the subject and even of the organism. She commends sociobiologist Dawkins postmodern sensibility, citing his image of the
body as a strategic assemblage of genes. Likewise, she endorses Heidegger, Gadamer and systems theorists Maturana, Winograd and Flores, who contribute a

doctrine of interdependence of knowing and known entities [11].4 Yet grassroots feminist thought drawing on women's embodied awareness, whether in the Anglo or French traditions, has always breached the boundaries of subject and object [12]. Ecofeminists take this transgression further by contesting the traditional Eurocentric nature/culture dualism; for many, a daily avoidance of meat eating carries that politics into practice. However, Haraway's cyborg philosophy eschews ecofeminist re-identification with nature, preferring instead, the reinvention of nature blended with man-made machine. As she writes: Perhaps, ironically, we can learn from our fusions with animals and machines how not to be Man [13]. To ecofeminists, this concession to technoscience, is a contradiction in terms. Since Western men have defined themselves precisely by the technological project of re-fashioning nature, why should women

accept that kind of arrogance as a path to emancipation? Haraway's social constructionism is unusual, in that it blends what is fundamentally an hermeneutic method with trappings of
the positivist epistemology of 1950s science, and even scientific socialism. Rehabilitating the famous hierarchy of the sciences, she argues: There is no

fundamental, ontological separation in our formal knowledge of machine and organism, of technical and organic [14]. But by this ostensibly neutralist logic, if machines are simply extensions of man's body, innocent prostheses, then a nuclear installation is as benign as an ant hill. Similarly, in Primate Visions, she describes the typically
Western masculinist research project along these lines: in the beginning, there was difference, and so began the struggle of some minds to gain an advantage over

others. This is a fragment of strategic narrative, oedipal narrative, and modern technological narrative, where survival - possible futures - is at stake in a technofetal world of almost minds Children, AI computer programs, and nonhuman primates [15]. The remote voice of Haraway's text seems to be intended to convey both non-judgemental reportage and feminist irony. Her focus as ever, remains with the synchronicities of discourse, and its all but a priori status.

145

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

146

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AffHarawayIndict Alt doesnt solve the valorization of the cyborg collapses their politics by abstracting from the material experience of marginalized women in the service of techno-patriarchy Salleh 9 [Ariel, School of Social and Political Sciences, Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, The
dystopia of technoscience: An ecofeminist

critique of postmodern reason, Futures Volume 41, Issue 4, May 2009, Pages 201209] The struggle of capitalist patriarchal men against their naturalised others women, natives, earth has brought biotechnology to the cutting edge of 21st century neo-colonialism. Bryld and Lykke note that following the Bruntland Commission's
definition of space and oceans as global commons, the United Nations as panopticon began monitoring the new biopolitical order authoritatively from outer space.

Simultaneously, UN agencies got down to the nitty-gritty of pollution, deforestation, global warming, and population control. In some quarters, there was an assumption that in order to maintain the militarised defence of Western masculine goals, extra terrestrial resourcing of mineral deposits would be necessary. It was assumed that terraforming or the domestication of other planets would help protect planet earth for the enjoyment of tourists, at least. Haraway's technoscience is tacitly wedded to this high consumption growth paradigm, and seemingly unselfconscious about its own situatedness in the USA. There may be moments of irony in what she writes, but the medium of her message surely carries the day. In reference to ecodestruction, Haraway invokes the contemporary scientific fantasy of a self-rescuing Gaia. However, according to Indian ecofeminist Vandana Shiva, a trenchant critic of mal-development, the world does not necessarily resist reduction. This is well illustrated by the decimation of Indian farming by the Green Revolution and related technology transfers from the North. But the happy consciousness of

Haraway's high tech move from reproduction to genetic replication, loses an opportunity to discuss the deeply flawed and misogynist foundations of Western science in its corporatist phase.12 Moreover Haraway puts aside

Merchant's ecofeminist historical research into the systematic witch hunting of women's knowledge of natural processes; a purge that made possible the capitalist

patriarchal Enlightenment and its peculiar model of science. As if continuing this same tradition, Haraway's postmodern technoscience strives for a complete break with organicism, and with utopian visions that draw on AmerIndian or Afro-American ways of knowing [47]. But returning
to the woman question, why do the postmoderns insist that women's political activities be de-coded and de-

naturalised? What kind of self-loathing is this, that perpetuates the patriarchal value hierarchy of discourse over materiality, culture over nature? Should it be demeaning to say that women fight for peace as mothers, when it is not demeaning to say that they fight for the
environment as farmers or citizens? Women's mothering labour does denote specific structural relationships, and as far as the utopian dream of a universal

democracy goes, these familial relations will very likely be the last to unravel. In the meantime, the postmodern indictment of maternalism is

abusive to the greater majority of women world wide, whose labours are encumbered with needy dependants.
Ecofeminists can agree with the postmodern feminist program to reclaim despised identities. But the identity of the mother would have to be the most universally

maligned political category of all and too much postmodern feminist writing is complicit in that.13 Many women in the economic North have traded off biocultural realisation, in exchange for highly salaried professional identities. But in the process, they leave behind quite a bit of emotional debris to be absorbed by feminist theory. The problematic image of the mother is a direct expression of this status consciousness within North Atlantic feminism. To recall Adrienne Rich's words in Of Woman Born: The body has been made so problematic for women that it has often seemed easier to shrug it off and travel as a disembodied spirit [50]. Does this explain Haraway's flight for refuge in an utopia of cyborgs half-humanhalfmachine, post gender, post-nuke. But what practical sense does the cyborg icon make to women activists whose farmland has been enclosed by agribusiness? What use is the emancipatory cyborg to women whose neighbourhoods are toxic industrial wastelands? Haraway claims that it is
irresponsible under present historical conditions to pursue anti-scientific tales about nature that idealise women [51]. But whose interest does this judgement serve?

From an ecofeminist perspective, it is irresponsible not to attend to the spontaneous politics by which women have begun to assume leadership for life on earth. An historically based re-evaluation of women's materially embodied labour and related expertise should never be confused with idealisation.

147

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFF:AT:ThreatCon
Ourimpactsarenotconstructed:Traditionally,weunderreacttothreats.Give moreweighttoour
impactclaims. Schweller 04 (Randal, associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, Unanswered Threats, International Security, Volume 29, Number 2, p.159-160) International politics, too, has seen many instances of this type of folly, where threatened countries have failed to recognize a clear and present danger or, more typically, have simply not reacted to it or, more typically still, have responded in paltry and imprudent ways. This behavior, which I call under- balancing, runs
directly contrary to the core prediction

of structural realist theory, namely, that threatened states will balance against dangerous accumulations of power by forming alliances or building arms or both. Indeed, even the most cursory glance at the historical record reveals many important cases of underbalancing. Consider, for instance, that none of the great powers except Britain consistently balanced against Napoleonic France, and none emulated its nation-in-arms innovation. Later in the century, Britain watched passively in splendid isolation as the
North defeated the South in the American Civil hegemony over Europe. Bismarck then deaed

War and as Prussia defeated Austria in 1866, and then France in 1871, establishing German balance of power logic by cleverly creating an extensive hub-and-spoke alliance system that effectively isolated France and avoided a counterbalancing coalition against Germany. The Franco-Russian alliance of 1893 emerged only after Bismarcks successor, Leo von Caprivi, refused to renew the 1887 Reinsurance Treaty with Russia for domestic political reasons and despite the czars plead- ings to do otherwise. Thus, more than twenty years after the creation of the new German state, a balancing coalition had anally been forged by the dubi- ous decision of the new German chancellor combined with the kaisers soaring ambitions and truculent diplomacy. Likewise, during the 1930s, none of the great powers (i.e., Britain, France, the United States, the Soviet Union, Italy, and Japan) balanced with any sense of urgency against Nazi Germany. Instead, they bandwagoned, buck-passed, appeased, or adopted ineffective half measures in response to the growing German threat. A similar reluctance to check unbalanced power characterizes most interstate relations since 1945. With the exception of the U.S.-Soviet bipolar rivalry, a survey of state behavior during the Cold War yields few instances of balancing behavior. As K.J. Holsti asserts: Alliances, such a common feature of the European diplomatic landscape since the seventeenth century, are notable by their absence in most areas of the

Third World. So are balances of power. Holsti further notes: The search for continental hegemony is rare in the Third World, but was a common feature of European diplomacy under the Habsburgs, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Wilhelmine Germany, Hitler, and Soviet Union and, arguably, the United States.3 In a continuation of this pattern, no peer competitor has yet emerged more than a decade after the end of U.S.Soviet bipolarity to balance against the United States. Contrary to realist predictions, unipolarity has not provoked global alarm to restore a balance of power.

Alternativecantsolve:statesmustacttoquellthreatsnow.
Schweller 04 (Randal, associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, Unanswered Threats, International Security, Volume 29, Number 2, p.163-164) From the policymakers perspective, however, balancing superior power and filling power vacuums hardly appear as laws of nature. Instead, these behaviors, which carry considerable potential political costs and uncertain policy risks,
emerge through the medium of the political

process; as such, they are the product of competition and consensus building among elites with differing ideas about the political-military world and divergent views on the nations goals and challenges and the means that will best serve those purposes.14 As Nicholas Spykman observed many years ago, Political equilibrium is neither a gift of the gods nor an inherently stable condition. It results from the active intervention of man, from the operation of political forces. States cannot afford to wait passively for the happy time when a miraculously achieved balance of power will bring peace and security. If they wish to survive, they must be willing to go to war to preserve a balance against the growing hegemonic power of the period. In an era of mass politics, the decision to check unbalanced power by means of arms and alliesand to go
to war if these deterrent measures failis

very much a political act made by political actors. War mobilization and aghting are distinctly collective undertakings. As such, political elites carefully weigh the likely domestic costs of balancing behavior against the alternative means avail- able to them (e.g., inaction, appeasement, buck-passing, bandwagoning, etc.) and the expected external beneats of a restored balance of power. Structural imperatives rarely, if ever, compel leaders to adopt one policy over another; decision makers are not sleepwalkers buffeted about by inexorable forces be- yond their control. This is not to say, however, that they are oblivious to structural incentives. Rather, states respond (or not) to threats and opportunities in ways determined by both internal and external considerations of policy elites, who must reach consensus within an often decentralized and competitive political process.

148

UTNIF 2011 Gender K AFF:Altcantsolve

Thepatriarchalideasthenegativekritikswillcontinuetomanifest,regardlessof ourattemptsto
changeourmindset.Thenegativealternativecannotsolveformaledominance,simply becauseitis masculinenature. Goldberg96,(Steven,Nov11,formerpresidentofthesociologydepartmentatCityCollege ofNewYork, IsPatriarchyInevitable?Menrulenotbecausetheyaretoldto,butbecauseitistheirnatureto doso. N NationalReview.) Infivehundredyearstheworld,inalllikelihood,willhavebecomehomogenized.Thethousandsof varied societiesandtheirdramaticallydifferingmethodsofsocialization,cohesion,family,religion,economy,andpoliticswill havegivenwaytoa universalculture.Fortunately,culturalanthropologistshavepreservedmuchofourpresentdiversity,whichmay
keepourdescendantsfromtoo

hastilyallowingtheirnaturalhumanegoandethnocentricitytoconcludethat theirsistheonlywaytomanageasociety.However,theanthropological swordistwoedged.Whilediversityiscertainlyapparentfromanthropological investigations,itisalsoclearthattherearerealities whichmanifestthemselvesnomatterwhatthevariedformsoftheaforementioned institutions. i Becausetheseuniversalrealitiescutacrossculturallines,theyarecrucialtoour understandingofwhatsocietybyitsnatureisand,perhaps,ofwhathuman beingsare.Itisimportant,then,thatweaskwhy,whensocietiesdifferasmuchasdo thoseoftheIturiPygmy,theJivaro,theAmerican,theJapanese,anda thousandothers,someinstitutionsareuniversal.Itisalwaysthecasethattheuniversal institutionservessomeneed rootedinthedeepestnatureofhumanbeings.Insomecasestheexplanationofuniversalityisobvious(e.g.,
whyeverysocietyhas

methodsoffoodgathering).Butthereareotheruniversalitieswhichareapparent,though withoutanyobvious explanation.Ofthethousandsofsocietiesonwhichwehaveanyevidencestrongerthanmyth(aformofevidencethat

wouldhaveusbelievein

Cyclopes),thereisnoevidencethattherehaseverbeenasocietyfailingtoexhibitthree
institutions:1.Primary

hierarchiesalwaysfilledprimarilybymen.AQueenVictoriaoraGoldaMeirisalways anexceptionandisalwayssurroundedbyagovernmentofmen.Indeed, theconstraintsofroyallineagemayproducemorefemalesocietalleadersthan doesdemocracythereweremorefemaleheadsofstateinthefirsttwo thirdsofthesixteenthcenturythantherewereinthefirsttwothirdsofthetwentieth. 2.Thehigheststatusrolesaremale.Therearesocietiesinwhichthe womendomostoftheimportanteconomicworkandrearthechildren,whilethemen seemmostlytohangloose.But,insuchsocieties,hanginglooseisgiven higherstatusthananynonmaternalroleprimarilyservedbywomen.Nodoubtthisis partlyduetothefactthatthemalesholdthe t
(ditchdiggingismaleandlow

positionsofpower.However,itisalsolikelythathighstatusrolesaremalenotprimarilybecausetheyaremale

status),butbecausetheyarehighstatus.Thehighstatusrolesaremalebecausetheypossessfor

whateversociallydeterminedreasonin

whicheverspecificsocietyhighstatus.Thishighstatusexertsamorepowerful influenceonmalesthanitdoeson females.Asaresult,malesaremorewillingtosacrificelife'sotherrewardsforstatus dominance thanarefemales.IntheirNotinOurGenes,RichardLewontin,LeonKamin,andStephenRosewho,alongwith

StephenJayGouldarethebest

knowndefendersoftheviewthatemphasizestheroleofenvironmentandde emphasizesthatofheredityattempttofindfaultwithmyworkbypointing outthatmostfamilydoctorsintheSovietUnionarewomen.Hovi/ever,they acknowledgethatintheSovietUnion"familydoctoring[had]lowerstatusthanin theUnitedStates."Whichispreciselythepoint.Noonedoubtsthatwomencanbe doctors.Thequestioniswhydoctors(orweavers,orloadbearers,etc.)are primarilywomenonlywhenbeingadoctorisgivenlowerstatusthanarecertainroles playedmostlybymenandfurthermore,why,evenwhenthisisthe case(asinRussia)theupperhierarchicalpositionsrelevanttothatspecificareaareheld bymen.3.Dominanceinmalefemale relationshipsisalwaysassociatedwithmales."Maledominance"referstothefeeling,of bothmen andwomen,thatthemaleisdominantandthatthewomanmust"getaround"themaleto attain power.Socialattitudesmaybeconcordantordiscordantwiththerealityofmaledominance.Inourownsocietytherewasa timewhentheman's"taking thelead"waspositivelyvaluedbymostwomen(as30s'moviesattest);todaysucha viewispurportedlydetestedbymany.Butattitudestowardmale dominancebehaviorarecausallyunimportanttotherealitytheyjudgeandarenot muchmorelikelytoeliminatetherealitythanwouldasocialdislikeof men'sbeingtallerbeabletoeliminatemen'sbeingtaller.

149

U UTNIF 2011 Gender K

150

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFF:NomasculineSpaceProgramNow
Thespaceprogramhasbecomemoreandmorefeminineandlessdependenton leadership. l
Day 04 (Dwayne, Day works for the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences.. He received a doctorate degree in political science from The George Washington University.He specialized in space policy. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/130/1 The feminization of American Space Policy) P Early discussions of space exploration were filled with masculine language and imagery, often connected to militant
imagery. Books and magazine articles in the1950s regularly touted the conquest of space or the heavens, and were dominated by discussions of competition and

national security. The Apollo program was discussed as a race and a Time magazine cover even featured two space-suited figures sprinting for the moon. Because of the close ties between the civilian space program and military interests, it is not surprising that the space program borrowed the language, goals and symbolism common to the national security world. Air Force officers worked for NASA, and the space agency was publicly demonstrating American technological prowess on the world stage. Once the race was over, it was hard to argue that space had been conquered. But the end of Apollo also coincided with major developments in the world, such as the Vietnam War and the overthrow of many colonial governments in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Discussions of conquest and colonizing the moon or other planets now seemed offensive to larger numbers of people. This
language even prompted debates within pro-space

activist groups such as the L-5 Society. More liberal members were offended by what they viewed as the language of oppression. Activists began talking of space settlements rather than space colonies. Discussions of conquest and colonizing the moon or other planets now seemed offensive to larger numbers of people. Activists began talking of space settlements rather than space
colonies. This change in the language and imagery was gradual, beginning in the 1970s and continuing over the

next several decades.

The first major civilian space project after Apollo, the space shuttle, was still justified in masculine terms. The goal of civil space

policy was no longer to demonstrate leadership but to maintain it. Nevertheless, by the late 1970s there were changes in the American space program itself that contributed to the feminization of language, policy and symbolism. In 1978 NASA finally admitted women to its hallowed corps of astronauts. The shuttles alleged utility as a
research station also expanded the

justifications for a civil space program to include things like new medical breakthroughs. By the mid-1980s NASA had selected its first citizen in space candidate, from what is widely regarded as a feminine profession in American society, elementary education. Christa McAuliffe was scheduled to conduct a classroom in space when she was tragically lost along with the other six members of the crew of the space shuttle Challenger in January 1986. The introduction of women into the largely male confines of the civilian space program required some changes in the language used to describe that program. For instance, the term manned spaceflight was banned, although it persisted for many years. It also led to attempts to diversify the NASA workforce and public image. This gradual transformation of the language and symbology was still constrained by world politics, however. President Ronald Reagan approved the civilian space station program in 1983 because of a concern that the Soviet Union had a space station and the United States did not. Americas NATO allies were included in the project in part because of the symbolism of a western alliance leading the world in a high technology effort. After the Challenger disaster there was much public hand-wringing about the future direction of the civil space program, but there was little challenge to the view that maintaining leadership was the ultimate goal.

Americanpolicy,especiallyonthetopicofspace,hasrapidlybecomefeminizedin thepastfew
decades. Day 04 (Dwayne, Day works for the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences.. He received a doctorate degree in
political science from The George Washington University.He specialized in space policy. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/130/1 The feminization of American

S Space Policy)
argues that

Carnes Lord, a professor at the Naval War College and author of The Modern Prince: What Leaders Need to Know Now,

America over the past few decades has seen a feminization of politics, where virtually all policies are justified in terms of their impact on children. This has also corresponded with a decrease in more masculine interests such as national security. Lord claims that the traditional concept of leadership has become problematic for democracies. Leadership includes some element of traditionally manly qualities as competitiveness, aggression, or for that matter, the ability to command. Those qualities are no longer popular in modern democracies and hence politicians generally do not speak in those terms. Reflecting a change that has happened in other areas of American politics, masculine language and imagery have been replaced by feminine language and imagery in the civilian space program. Lord was not the first person

to notice this change in American politics. As early as 1988 Kathleen Hall Jamieson in
her book Eloquence in an Electronic Age argued that modern presidents have adopted what she described as the Effeminate Style. When women first began to enter into politics, they learned that if they argued as boldly

as their male opponents they were often labeled shrill. So they adopted a different language and a more personal style. Jamieson claimed that ultimately male politicians began to adopt this style as well, emphasizing subjects such as children and health care in their public speeches in order to attract more voters. This happened even before the end of the Cold War made it possible for leaders to downplay national security issues and talk more about social concerns. Clearly American rhetoric and symbolism was changing somewhat independent of the national security environment. 151

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFF:Patriarchydoesntexist
Womenarenotauniformgroupandneitheraremen.Patriarchalcritiquesofthe statearenot
inclusiveofallmen. Rhode 94 (Deborah L, Professor of Law, Stanford University,Symposium:changing imagesofthestate: feminismandthestate,p.35)
Thisaccountisalsoproblematiconmanylevels.To

treat women as a class obscures other

characteristics, such as race and economic status, that can be equally powerful in ordering social relations. Women are not "uniformly oppressed."n22Nor are they exclusively victims. Patriarchy cannot account adequately for the mutual dependencies and complex power dynamics that characterize male-female relations. Neithercanthestatebeunderstoodsolelyasaninstrumentofmen'sinterests.Asa thresholdmatter,whatconstitutesthoseinterestsisnotselfevident,as MacKinnon'sownillustrationssuggest.If,forexample,policies liberalizing abortion serve male objectives by enhancing access to female sexuality, policies curtailing abortion presumably also serve male objectives by reducing female autonomy.n23In effect, patriarchal frameworks verge on tautology.Almostany
genderrelatedpolicycanbeseen

aseitherdirectlyservingmen'simmediateinterests,orascompromisingshort termconcernsintheserviceofbroader,longtermgoals,suchas"normalizing" thesystemandstabilizingpowerrelations.Aframeworkthatcancharacterizeall stateinterventionsasdirectlyorindirectlypatriarchalofferslittlepractical guidanceinchallengingtheconditionsitcondemns.Andif women are not a homogenous group with unitary concerns, surely the same is true of men.Moreover,ifthestateisbestunderstoodasanetworkofinstitutionswithcomplex,
sometimescompeting

agendas,thenthepatriarchalmodelofsinglemindedinstrumentalismseems highlyimplausible.Itisdifficulttodismissalltheantidiscriminationinitiatives ofthelastquartercenturyaspurelycounterrevolutionarystrategies.Anditis preciselytheseinitiatives,withtheirappealto"male"normsof"objectivityand theimpersonalityofprocedure,that[havecreated][*1186]leverageforthe representationofwomen'sinterests."n24 Cross-cultural research also suggests that the status of women is positively correlated with a strong state, which is scarcely the relationship that patriarchal frameworks imply.n25Whilethe"tyrannies"ofpublicandprivatedependence
areplainlyrelated,many

feministschallengetheclaimthattheyarethesame.AsCarolePatemannotes,

womendonot"livewiththestateandarebetterabletomakecollective struggleagainstinstitutionsthanindividuals."Toadvancethatstruggle,feminists need more concrete and contextual accounts of state institutions than patriarchal frameworks have supplied. Lumping together police, welfare workers, and Pentagon officials as agents of a unitary patriarchal structure does more to obscure than to advance analysis.Whatseemsnecessaryisacontextualapproachthatcanaccountforgreatercomplexitiesinwomen's
relationshipswithgoverninginstitutions.

Yetdespitetheirlimitations,patriarchaltheoriesunderscoreaninsightthatgenerally informsfeministtheorizing.AsPartIIreflects,governmental institutionsareimplicatedinthemostfundamentalstructuresofsexbased inequalityandinthestrategiesnecessarytoaddressit.

152

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFF:AltnoSolvo
Evenifwomengainmorepower,nothingwillchange
Rhode 94 (Deborah L, Professor of Law, Stanford University,Symposium:changing imagesofthestate: feminismandthestate,p.1617) Yet although gender parity in political representation is valuable in its own right, its achievement would by no means guarantee the broader agenda outlined above. Securing women's equal opportunity within established institutions will not necessarily transform those institutions to accommodate values traditionally associated with women. In politics as in other contexts, claims about women's "different voice" build on exaggerated and essentialist assumptions about women's nature. While some gender variations in voting and
legislative behavior have become

increasingly noticeable, over time the similarities have been far stronger than the differences. n128 Although women voters have exhibited somewhat greater support than men for [*1207] environmental and welfare measures, as well as greater opposition to the use of military force, women have also been more conservative on some feminist issues, such as gay/lesbian rights and sex education. n129 Moreover, gender is not nearly as important in predicting attitudes on these issues as other factors such as education, race, and employment status. n130 Nor has the gender gap in electoral behavior been significant on questions most directly related to gender, such as the Equal Rights Amendment or abortion restrictions. n131So too, despite female politicians' somewhat greater support for women's issues, less than half of surveyed female legislators consider themselves feminists and only ten percent have given top priority to women's rights issues. n132 Party affiliation has been more critical than gender in determining votes on social service
expenditures, even on matters such as childcare.

n133 Although it is often assumed that female politicians need to reach higher positions or a greater critical mass before broader changes are possible, the evidence to date casts doubt on this assumption. For example, some state legislatures that have the highest percentages of women provide the least support for family services. n134 Among world leaders, none of the women who have been in a position to develop more caring substantive agendas or egalitarian participatory styles have actually done so. Putting women in power is not the same as empowering women.

153

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFF:VictimTurn
TURN:Feministtheoryassumeswomenarealwaysthevictims,ignoringother possibilitiesandthus
perpetuatinggenderstereotypes Carpenter 02 (R. Charli, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, "Gender Theory in World Politics:
Contributions of a Non-Feminist Standpoint?", International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186468)

The need to fit scholarship on gender into the axiological mold of feminist theory not only has kept nonfeminists out, but also has

affected both the substance of IR gender research and its discursive structure. Women's subordination and victimization is too often assumed by feminists rather than examined contextually,
and there is little substantive

work on how gender constrains the life chances of "people called men" in different contexts or affects political outcomes more generally. A reading of Tickner's text, with an eye to the hidden assumptions within feminist discourse, reveals a perpetuation rather than a questioning of certain gender stereotypes. This is indicative
not so much of Tickner's

substantive summary but of the linguistic and philosophical structure of the feminist subfield. For example, the notion that women but not men are located as caretakers (pp. 50, 106) is a gendered construction that should be destabilized,
perhaps through an emphasis on "parents" rather than "mothers." The trope "civilians now account for about 90 percent of

war casualties, the majority of whom are women and children" (p. 6) is a gendered construction of the "civilian" that flies in the face of, among other things, refugee statistics and the widespread targeting of civilian men and boys for massacre in armed conflicts around the world.4 Men as gendered subjects seldom appear in feminist work: of the now numerous IR feminist books on "gender and world politics," almost none deal explicitly with men and masculinity.5 When "masculinities" are dealt with, they are conceptualized as a
social problem; conversely,

"femininities" have been greatly undertheorized, often dropping out of phrases like "men and masculinities ... and women" (p. 134).6 Where the term "gender violence" is used to mean "violence against women" (p. 114), other forms of gender violence-such as against gays, against male partners by women or men, or against children deemed "illegitimate" by a patriarchal system-are rendered invisible, thus truncating the use of gender

analytically.7 When "family violence" is portrayed as violence against women and children, it obscures abuse of children at the hands of female adults (pp. 63, 113). The fact that, as Tickner writes,
"feminists have been reluctant to

take on the question of paid domestic service ... since it is women who usually employ, and often exploit, other women" suggests the quandary that feminists encounter as simultaneously normative and explanatory researchers. Writing with a declared agenda for promoting the interests of all women, feminists run up against empirical and theoretical difficulties when the results of gender in operation conflict with their normative agenda. Tickner's
comments on the "democratic

family," for example (p. 123), have important implications not just for husband/wife relations, but also for the license women may take with their children. Therefore, it may not follow that understanding gender and overcoming the hierarchies it generates may always coincide with promoting the liberties of women or the "satisfaction of women's needs" in every context.8

154

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFF:CedeThePolitical
The alternative cedes the political to elites means extinction Boggs 1997 [Carl, National University, Los Angeles, Theory and Society, The great retreat: Decline of the public sphere in late twentieth-century America]
The decline of the public sphere in late twentieth-century America poses a series of great dilemmas and challenges. Many ideological currents

scrutinized here localism, metaphysics, spontaneism, post-modernism, Deep Ecology intersect with and reinforce each other.

While these currents have deep origins in popular movements of the 1960s and 1970s, they remain very much alive in the 1990s. Despite their different outlooks and

trajectories, they all share one thing in common: a depoliticized expression of struggles to combat and overcome alienation. The false sense of empowerment that comes with such mesmerizing impulses is accompanied by a loss of public engagement, an erosion of citizenship and a depleted capacity of individuals in large groups to work for social change. As this ideological quagmire worsens, urgent problems that are destroying the fabric of American society will go unsolved perhaps even unrecognized only to fester more
ominously in the future.

And such problems (ecological crisis, poverty, urban decay, spread of infectious diseases, technological displacement of workers) cannot be understood outside the larger social and global context of internationalized markets, finance, and
communications. Paradoxically, the widespread retreat from politics, often inspired by localist sentiment, comes at a time

when agendas that ignore or sidestep these global realities will, more than ever, be reduced to impotence. In his
commentary on the state of citizenship today, Wolin refers to the increasing sublimation and dilution of politics, as larger numbers of people turn away from public

concerns toward private ones. By diluting the life of common involvements, we negate the very idea of politics as a source of public ideals and visions. 74 In the meantime, the fate of the world hangs in the balance. The unyielding truth is that, even as the
ethos of anti-politics

becomes more compelling and even fashionable in the United States, it is the vagaries of political power that will continue to decide the fate of human societies. This last point demands further elaboration. The shrinkage of politics hardly means that corporate colonization will be less of a reality, that social hierarchies will somehow disappear, or that gigantic state and military structures will lose their hold over peoples lives. Far from it: the space abdicated by a broad citizenry, well-informed and ready to participate at many levels, can in fact be filled by authoritarian and reactionary elites an already familiar dynamic in many lesserdeveloped countries. The fragmentation and chaos of a Hobbesian world, not very far removed from the rampant individualism, social

Darwinism, and civic violence that have been so much a part of the American
landscape, could be the prelude to a powerful Leviathan designed to impose order in the face of disunity and

atomized retreat. In this way the eclipse of politics might set the stage for a reassertion of politics in more virulent guise or it might help further rationalize the existing power structure. In either case, the state would likely
become what Hobbes anticipated: the embodiment of those universal, collective interests that had vanished from civil society. 75

AFF Predictions Good Debates about dystopian imagery solve extinction Kurasawa 2004 Professor of Sociology, York University of Toronto [Fuyuki, Cautionary Tales: The Global Culture of Prevention and the Work of Foresight, Constellations 11.4, December, ebsco]
In recent years, the rise of a dystopian imaginary has accompanied damning assessments and widespread recognition

of the international communitys repeated failures to adequately intervene in a number of largely preventable disasters (from the genocides in the ex-Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and East Timor to climate change and the spiraling AIDS pandemics in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and Asia). Social movements, NGOs, diasporic groups, and concerned citizens are not mincing words in their criticisms of the United Nations system and its memberstates, and thus beginning to shift the discursive and moral terrain in world affairs. As a result, the callousness implicit in disregarding the future has been exposed as a threat to the survival of humanity and its natural surroundings. The Realpolitik of national selfinterest and the neoliberal logic of the market will undoubtedly continue to assert themselves, yet demands for farsightedness are increasingly reining them in. Though governments, multilateral institutions, and
transnational corporations will probably

never completely modify the presentist assumptions underlying their modes of operation, they are, at the very least, finding themselves compelled to account for egregious instances of short-sightedness and rhetorically commit themselves to taking corrective steps. What may seem like a modest development at first glance would have been unimaginable even a few decades ago, indicating the extent to which we have moved toward a culture of prevention. A new imperative has come into being, that of preventive foresight. 155

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFFAT:Reps1st
Elevating representations above reality replaces political engagement with abstract musing Taft-Kaufman 1995 [Jill, Professor at the Department of Speech Communication And Dramatic Arts at Central Michigan University, Southern Communication Journal, Spring]
In its elevation of language to the primary analysis of social life and its relegation of the de-centered subject to a set of language positions, postmodernism

ignores the way real people make their way in the world. While the notion of decentering does much to remedy the idea of an essential,

unchanging self, it also presents problems. According to Clarke (1991): Having established the material quality of ideology, everything

else we had hitherto thought of as material has disappeared. There is nothing outside of ideology (or discourse). Where

Althusser was concerned with ideology as the imaginary relations of subjects to the real relations of their existence, the connective quality of this view of ideology has been dissolved because it lays claim to an outside, a real, an extra-discursive for which there exists no epistemological warrant

without lapsing back into the bad old ways of empiricism or metaphysics. (pp. 2526) Clarke explains how the same disconnection between the discursive and the extradiscursive has been performed in semiological analysis: Where it used to contain a relation between the signifier (the representation) and the signified (the referent), antiempiricism has taken the formal arbitrariness of the connection between the signifier and signified and replaced it with the abolition of the signified (there can be no real objects out there, because there is no out there for real objects to be). (p. 26) To the postmodernist, then, real objects have vanished. So, too, have real people. Smith (1988) suggests that postmodernism has canonized doubt about the availability of the referent to the point that "the real often disappears from consideration" (p. 159). Real individuals become abstractions. Subject positions rather than subjects are the

focus. The emphasis on subject positions or construction of the discursive self engenders an accompanying critical sense of irony which recognizes that "all conceptualizations are limited" (Fischer, 1986, p. 224). This postmodern position evokes what Connor (1989) calls "an absolute

weightlessness in which anything is imaginatively possible because nothing really matters" (p. 227). Clarke (1991) dubs it a "playfulness that produces emotional and/or political disinvestment: a refusal to be engaged" (p. 103). The luxury of being able to muse about what constitutes the self is a posture in keeping with a critical venue that divorces language from material objects and bodily subjects.

AFF: AT: NVTL Securing life is a prerequisite to determining value Schwartz, 2002 [Lisa, Medical Ethics, http://www.fleshandbones.com/readingroom/pdf/399.pdf]
The second assertion made by supporters of the quality of life as a criterion for decision- making is closely related to the first, but with an added dimension. This

assertion suggests that the determination of the value of the quality of a given life is a subjective determination to be made by the person experiencing that life. The important addition here is that the decision is a personal one that, ideally, ought not to be made externally by another person but internally by the individual involved. Katherine Lewis made this
decision for herself based on a comparison between two stages of her life. So did James Brady. Without this element, decisions based on quality of life criteria lack

salient information and the patients concerned cannot give informed consent. Patients must be given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they think their lives are worth living or not. To ignore or overlook patients judgement in this matter is to violate their autonomy and their freedom to decide for themselves on the basis of relevant informa- tion

about their future, and comparative con- sideration of their past. As the deontological position puts it so well, to do so is to violate the imperative

that we must treat persons as rational and as ends in themselves. It is important to remember the subjectiv-ity assertion in this context,
so as to empha-size that the judgement made about the value of a life ought to be made only by the person concerned and not by others.

156

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

AFF:AT:Epistemology
Epistemology does not come first defer to rational policymaking Owen 2002 [David, Reader of Political Theory at the Univ. of Southampton, Millennium, Vol 31, No 3]
Commenting on the philosophical turn in IR, Wver remarks that [a] frenzy for words like epistemology and ontology often

signals this philosophical turn, although he goes on to comment that these terms are often used loosely.4 However, loosely deployed or not, it is clear

that debates concerning ontology and epistemology play a central role in the contemporary IR theory wars. In one respect, this is unsurprising since it is a characteristic

feature of the social sciences that periods of disciplinary disorientation involve recourse to reflection on the philosophical commitments of different theoretical approaches, and there is no doubt that such reflection can play a valuable role in making explicit the commitments that characterise (and help individuate) diverse theoretical positions. Yet, such a philosophical turn is not without its dangers and I will briefly mention three before turning to consider a confusion that
has, I will suggest, helped to promote the IR theory wars by motivating this philosophical turn. The first danger with the philosophical turn is

that it has an inbuilt tendency to prioritise issues of ontology and epistemology over explanatory and/or interpretive power as if the latter two were merely a simple function of the former. But while the explanatory and/or interpretive power of a theoretical account is not wholly independent of its ontological and/or epistemological commitments (otherwise criticism of these features would not be a criticism that had any value), it is by no means clear that it is, in contrast, wholly dependent on these philosophical commitments. Thus, for example, one need not be sympathetic to rational
choice theory to recognise that it can provide powerful accounts of certain kinds of problems, such as the tragedy of the commons in which dilemmas of collective

action are foregrounded. It may, of course, be the case that the advocates of rational choice theory cannot give a good account of why this type of theory is powerful in accounting for this class of problems (i.e., how it is that the relevant actors

come to exhibit features in these circumstances that approximate the assumptions of rational choice theory) and, if this is the case, it is a philosophical

weaknessbut this does not undermine the point that, for a certain class of problems, rational choice theory may provide the best account available to us. In other words, while the critical judgement of theoretical accounts in terms of their ontological and/or epistemological sophistication is one kind of critical judgement, it is not the only or even necessarily the most important kind. The second danger run by the philosophical turn is that because prioritisation of ontology and epistemology promotes theory-construction from philosophical first principles, it cultivates a theory-driven rather than problem-driven approach to IR. Paraphrasing Ian Shapiro, the point can be put like this: since it is the

case that there is always a plurality of possible true descriptions of a given action, event or phenomenon, the challenge is to
decide which is the most apt in terms of getting a perspicuous grip on the action, event or phenomenon in question given the purposes of the inquiry; yet, from this

standpoint, theory-driven work is part of a reductionist program in that it dictates always opting for the description that calls for the explanation that flows from the preferred model or theory.5 The justification offered for this strategy rests on the mistaken belief that it is necessary for social science because general explanations are required to characterise the classes of phenomena studied in similar terms. However, as Shapiro points out, this is to misunderstand the enterprise of science since whether there are general explanations for classes of phenomena is a question for social-scientific inquiry, not to be prejudged before conducting that inquiry.6 Moreover, this strategy easily slips into the promotion of the pursuit of generality over that of empirical validity. The third danger is
that the preceding two combine to

encourage the formation of a particular image of disciplinary debate in IRwhat might be called (only slightly tongue in cheek) the Highlander viewnamely, an image of warring theoretical approaches with each, despite occasional temporary tactical alliances, dedicated to the strategic achievement of sovereignty over the disciplinary field. It encourages this view because the turn to, and prioritisation of, ontology and epistemology stimulates the idea that there can only be one theoretical approach which gets things right, namely, the theoretical approach that gets its ontology and epistemology right. This image feeds back into IR exacerbating the first and second dangers, and so a potentially vicious circle arises.

157