UTNIF 2011 Gender Kritik

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
1
Ladies and Gentlemen, We are floating in space.

The Gender K
1NCs
1NC: Ladies in Space (Mars, RLV, China) ..................................................................................................... 4
1NC: Cosmodolphins (Satellites) ................................................................................................................... 9
1NC (eco)Ieminist imaginaries (Space Elevators) ........................................................................................ 15

Links
Link: Apocalypse ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Link: Beyond the Earth`s Mesosphere .......................................................................................................... 24
Link: Colonization ....................................................................................................................................... 25
LINK: COOPERATION .............................................................................................................................. 30
LINK: Data transparency ............................................................................................................................. 31
LINK: Debate **** ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Link: Democracy ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Link: Development ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Link Economy ............................................................................................................................................. 34
Link: Environmental Control Causes Warming ......................................................................................... 34
Link Extinction Discourse/Space Exploration ........................................................................................... 35
Link: Frontier .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Link: Gender Invisibility ............................................................................................................................. 38
Link: Gendered Language............................................................................................................................ 39
Link: Hegemony .......................................................................................................................................... 41
Link: International Relations ....................................................................................................................... 42
Link: NASA ................................................................................................................................................ 43
Link: NASA/ISS/Apocalypse ...................................................................................................................... 49
Link: Nuclear War ....................................................................................................................................... 49
LINK: POLITICS ........................................................................................................................................ 50
Link: Peacekeeping ..................................................................................................................................... 51
Link: Satellites............................................................................................................................................. 52
Link: Science ............................................................................................................................................... 54
Link: Space ................................................................................................................................................. 56
Link: Space competition .............................................................................................................................. 58
Link: Space Exploration .............................................................................................................................. 59
Link: Space Exploration and Development .................................................................................................. 60
Link: SpaceIlight ..................................................................................................................................... 61
Link: Space Privacy ..................................................................................................................................... 62
Link: Surveillance ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Link: Survivalism ........................................................................................................................................ 63
Link: Objectivity ......................................................................................................................................... 63
Link: Technology ......................................................................................................................................... 66
Link: Techno-Reproduction ......................................................................................................................... 67
Link: Tech/Science/Economy ...................................................................................................................... 68
Link: Utopianism ......................................................................................................................................... 69
Link: War/Solving War ................................................................................................................................ 75

Impacts
Impact Turns Economy ............................................................................................................................. 76
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
2
Impact: Environment ................................................................................................................................... 77
Impact NVTL .............................................................................................................................................. 78
Impact: Space war ....................................................................................................................................... 78
IMPACT: Structural Violence and War ........................................................................................................ 79
IMPACT: War .............................................................................................................................................. 79
Impact: Warming ......................................................................................................................................... 80
Impact Calculus: Ethics/Oppression ............................................................................................................. 81

Alternatives
Alt: Consciousness ...................................................................................................................................... 82
Alt: Consciousness: Solves Gendered Language .......................................................................................... 84
Alt: Cyberspace ........................................................................................................................................... 84
Alt: cyber-space solves. ............................................................................................................................... 85
Alt: Deconstruction ..................................................................................................................................... 87
Alt: Ethics key ............................................................................................................................................. 87
Alt Ethics: Solves Environment ................................................................................................................... 90
Alt (To Utopianism) Feminist Realism ......................................................................................................... 91
ALT: Haraway ............................................................................................................................................. 94
Alt: Gender IR ............................................................................................................................................. 97
ALT: Rhetorical Intervention ....................................................................................................................... 98
ALT: Standpoint Epistemology .................................................................................................................... 99
Alt: Transexuality ...................................................................................................................................... 101

2NC ANS To:
2NC OVERVIEW : Framework, alt, turns the case .................................................................................... 102
2NC: ALT IS A PREREQ .......................................................................................................................... 103
PERMUTATION BLOCK ......................................................................................................................... 104
Framing card: ............................................................................................................................................. 111
AT: Alt Bad................................................................................................................................................ 111
AT: Astronaut turn ...................................................................................................................................... 111
AT: Alt no solvo environment ..................................................................................................................... 112
AT: Case O/W ............................................................................................................................................ 113
AT: Cede the Political ................................................................................................................................. 114
AT: Cede the Political: Cyborg//Link to Utopian Ptx ................................................................................... 115
AT Cyborg NOT REAL WORLD ............................................................................................................... 115
AT: Essentialism (Butler) ............................................................................................................................ 116
AT: Gender Equity Now ............................................................................................................................. 117
AT: Human Nature: Ethics .......................................................................................................................... 118
AT: Link oI Omission ................................................................................................................................ 120
AT: Overview EIIect .................................................................................................................................. 121
A/T REALISM INEVITABLE .................................................................................................................. 122
AT: Science is objective ............................................................................................................................. 125
AT: You`re anti-science .............................................................................................................................. 126

AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSES (Sorry not as organized)
AFF: Perm ................................................................................................................................................. 127
AFF China Perm .................................................................................................................................. 130
AII: Perm Satellites ................................................................................................................................... 131
AFF: Perm Solves...................................................................................................................................... 132
AFF: Astronaut turn ................................................................................................................................... 133
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
3
AFF: Butler Counter-K .............................................................................................................................. 135
AFF: Space Turn ....................................................................................................................................... 138
AII Haraway Indict ................................................................................................................................. 139
AFF: AT: Threat Con ................................................................................................................................. 141
AFF: Alt can`t solve .................................................................................................................................. 142
AFF: No masculine Space Program Now ................................................................................................... 143
AFF: Patriarchy doesn`t exist ..................................................................................................................... 144
AFF: Alt no Solvo ..................................................................................................................................... 145
AFF: Victim Turn ...................................................................................................................................... 146
AFF: Cede The Political ............................................................................................................................ 147
AFF Predictions Good ............................................................................................................................... 147
AFF AT: Reps 1st ...................................................................................................................................... 148
AFF: AT: NVTL ........................................................................................................................................ 148
AFF: AT: Epistemology ............................................................................................................................. 149

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

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

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
4
1NC: Ladies in Space (Mars, RLV, China)

REALIST SPACE POLICY IS BUILT AROUND A PERSUASIVE ARCHITECTURE OF HETERO-
MASCULINITY. 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 oI New South Wales, The
spaces between us: The gendered politics oI outer space in Bormann, N. and Sheehan, M. (eds), Securing Outer Space. London and New York: Routledge, pp.59-75.)

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 oIfcial discourse. The politics oI outer space
exploration, militarization and commercialization as they are conceived oI and practiced in the US, embody a
distinction between public and private (and appropriate behaviours, meanings and identities therein) highly dependent upon
heteronormative hierarchies oI property and propriety.1 The central aim oI this chapter is to show how US outer space
discourse, an imperial discourse oI technological, military and commercial superiority, confgures and
prescribes success and successIul behaviour in the politics oI outer space in particularly gendered Iorms. US
space discourse is, I argue, predicated on a heteronormative discourse oI conquest that reproduces the dominance
oI heterosexual masculinity(ies), and which hierarchically orders the construction oI other (subordinate) gender
identities. Reading the politics oI outer space as heteronormative suggests that the discourses through which
space exists consist oI institutions, structures oI understanding, practical orientations and regulatory practices
organized and privileged around heterosexuality. As a particularly dominant discursive arrangement oI outer space politics, US space
discourse (re)produces meaning through gendered assumptions oI 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 oI outer space, is thus Iormed Irom and upon institutions, structures oI understanding, and practical
orientations that privilege and normalize heterosexuality as universal. As such, the hegemonic discursive rationalizations oI 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 oI outer space can thus Iar be held up as a mirror oI, rather than a
challenge to, existent, terrestrially-bound, political patterns, behaviours and impulses. The new possibilities Ior
human progress that the application and development oI space technologies dares us to make are grounded only
in the strategy obsessed (be it commercially, militarily or otherwise) realities oI contemporary global politics.
Outer space is a conceptual, political and material space, a place Ior 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 oI us, not in spite oI us, and it is
this that means that it only makes sense in social terms, that is, in relation to our own constructions oI 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 Iuture policy-making is
embedded in relation to certain perIormances oI power and reconfgurations oI identity that are always, and not
incidentally, gendered. EIIective and appropriate behaviour in the politics oI outer space is confgured and
prescribed in particularly gendered Iorms, with heteronormative gender regulations endowing outer space`s
hierarchies oI technologically superior, conquesting perIormance 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
5
IT IS QUITE ODD THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE`S 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
OF US SPACE POLICY, WAR IS GAURANTEED.
WORKMAN, assistant proIessor oI political science at the University oI New Brunswick, 1996 (Thom, 'Pandora`s Sons: The Nominal Paradox oI Patriarchy
and War, YCISS Occasional Paper Number 31, January, www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31-Workman.pdI )
As we created "man" and "woman" we simultaneously created war. Contemporary warIare, in complementary terms, emerges within
the inner-most sanctums oI gendered liIe. Gender constructs are constitutive oI war; they drive it and imbue it
with meaning and sense. War should not be understood as simply derivative oI the masculine ethos, although it numerous Iacets accord with the narratives
and lore oI masculinity. The Iaculty oI war is our understanding oI man and women, oI manliness and womanliness, and
particularly oI the subordination oI the Ieminine to the masculine. It is the twinning oI the masculine and the
Ieminine that nourishes the war ethic. This can be illustrated by examining the inIusion oI the language oI war
with heterosexual imagery typically oI patriarchy, that is, with ideas oI the prowess-laden male sexual subject
conquering the servile Iemale sexual object. Both sex and war are constituted through understandings oI male
domination and Iemale subordination. The language is bound to be mutually reinIorcing and easily
interchangeable. War is a metaphor Ior sex and sex is a metaphor Ior war. A recent study oI nicknames Ior the penis revealed that men were much
more inclined to metaphorize the penis with reIerence to mythic or legendary characters (such as the Hulk, Cyclops, Genghis Khan, The Lone Ranger, and Mac the KniIe), to authority Iigures and symbols (such as Carnal
King, hammer oI the gods, your Majesty, Rod oI Lordship, and the persuader), to aggressive tools (such as screwdriver, drill, jackhammer, chisel, hedgetrimmer, and Iuzzbuster), to ravening beasts (such as beast oI burden,
King Kong, The Dragon, python, cobra, and anaconda), and to weaponry (such as love pistol, passion riIle, pink torpedo, meat spear, stealth bomber, destroyer, and purple helmeted love warrior).11 The intuitive collocation
oI sexuality with domination, conquering, destruction, and especially instruments oI war is conIirmed by this study. Both sex and war, however, are maniIestations oI the gendered notions oI power over, submission,
inequality, injury, contamination, and destruction. Both practices are integral expressions oI patriarchal culture and proximate to its reproduction. It is hardly surprising that the language oI sexuality and war is seamless.
War is masculinist in the sense that it is bound up with the Ilight Irom woman to man; it is a repudiation oI
Ieminine characteristics and traits in Iavour oI those understood as masculine. War is inscribed with the celebration oI manliness
and the concomitant loathing oI womanliness. We can speak oI war in terms oI its migration "to the masculine" and its Ilight "from the feminine". With respect to the
Iormer, war is associated explicitly with the achievement and recovery oI masculinity. Embedded within the Iabric oI masculinity are the rituals oI violence and
destruction. Violence and aggression are not incidental to masculinity; they are integral to its meaning. War arises
as the quintessential practice oI masculine conIirmation; in and through war manliness is achieved. The tapestry oI virility
embodies the war ethic. The masculinity oI the war-maker is not doubted. War becomes the exclusive sanctuary oI masculinized males (and occasionally oI masculinized Iemales). The extensive role oI "women" in the
Iunctioning oI 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 AIrica, paper submitted in part IulIilment oI the requirements Ior the degree oI master oI 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 diIIerent direction. But due to
patriarchal values inIiltrated in science the type oI technology developed is meant to dominate, oppress, exploit
and kill. One reason is that patriarchal societies identiIy masculinity with conquest. Thus any technical innovation will
continue to be a tool Ior more eIIective oppression and exploitation. The highest priority seems to be given to
technology that destroys liIe. Modern societies are dominated by masculine institutions and patriarchal ideologies. Their
technologies prevailed in Auschwitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, AIghanistan and in many other
parts oI the world. Patriarchal power has brought us acid rain, global warming, military states, poverty and
countless cases oI suIIering. We have seen men whose power has caused them to lose all sense oI reality, decency and imagination, and we must Iear
such power. The ultimate result oI unchecked patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe and nuclear holocaust.
Such actions are denial oI wisdom. It is working against natural harmony and destroying the basis of existence. But as long as
ordinary people leave questions oI technology to the "experts" we will continue the Iorward stampede. As long
as economics Iocus on technology and both are the Iocus oI politics, we can leave none oI them to experts. Ordinary
people are oIten more capable oI 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
6
THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO RE1ECT THE AFFIRMATIVE`S GENDERED ENFRAMING OF
THE WORLD-SIMPLY 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 oI Political Science and International Studies, University oI Birmingham, 'Gender, Violence and Global Politics:
Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, EBSCO|

As discussed above, ideas about masculinity and Iemininity, dignity and sacriIice may not only be violent in themselves, but are also the product/productive oI physical
violences. With this in mind, the Ieminist argument that 'peacetime' is analytically misleading is a valid one. OI interest are the
'in-between days' and the ways in which labelling periods oI war or peace as such can divert attention away Irom the myriad
violences that inIorm and reinIorce social behaviour. W|ar can surely never be said to start and end at a clearly
deIined moment. Rather, it seems part oI a continuum oI conIlict, expressed now in armed Iorce, now in economic
sanctions or political pressure. A time oI supposed peace may come later to be called 'the pre-war period'. During the Iighting oI a war,
unseen by the Ioot soldiers under Iire, peace processes are oIten already at work. A time oI 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 oI power that demarcate times as such. In doing so, not only is the remit oI recognisable violence (violence
worthy oI study) expanded, but so too are the parameters oI what counts as IR. Everyday violences and acts oI everyday resistance ('a Iashion show, a tour, a small
display oI children's books' in Enloe, 2007, pp. 11720) are the stuII oI relations international and, thus, oI a comprehensive understanding oI security. In the Iollowing
section I outline the ways in which taking these claims seriously allows us to engage critically with the representations of
international relations that inIorm our research, with potentially proIound implications. As well as conceiving oI gender
as a set oI discourses, and violence as a means oI reproducing and reinIorcing the relevant discursive limits, it is possible to see security as a set of
discourses, as I have argued more Iully elsewhere (Shepherd, 2007; 2008; see also Shepherd and Weldes, 2007). Rather than pursuing the study
oI security as iI it were something that can be achieved either in absolute, partial or relative terms, engaging with security as
discourse enables the analysis oI how these discourses Iunction to reproduce, through various strategies, the domain oI
the international with which IR is selI-consciously concerned. Just as violences that are gendering reproduce gendered subjects, on this
view states, acting as authoritative entities, perIorm violences, but violences, in the name oI security, also perIorm states. These processes occur simultaneously, and
across the whole spectrum oI social liIe: an instance oI rape in war is at once gendering oI the individuals involved and oI the
social collectivities states, communities, regions they Ieel they represent (see Bracewell, 2000); building a Ience in the name
oI security that separates people Irom their land and extended Iamilies perIorms particular kinds oI violence (at checkpoints, during patrols) and perIorms particular
subject identities (oI the state authority, oI the individuals aIIected), all oI which are gendered. All oI the texts under discussion in this essay argue that it is
imperative to explore and expose gendered power relations and, Iurther, that doing so not only enables a
rigorous critique oI realism in IR but also reminds us as scholars oI the need Ior such a critique. The critiques oI IR
oIIered by Ieminist scholars are grounded in a rejection oI neo-realism/realism as a dominant intellectual Iramework Ior academics in the discipline and policy makers
alike. As Enloe reminds us, 'the government-centred, militarized version oI national security derived Irom a realist Iramework|
remains the dominant mode oI 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" oI
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 oI the key analytical contributions oI all three texts is the way in which they all
challenge what it means to be 'doing' IR, by recognising various Iorms oI 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 reconIigure what 'counts' as IR, challenging orthodox notions oI who can 'do' IR and
what 'doing' IR means. The practices oI power needed to maintain dominant conIigurations oI international
relations are exposed, and critiquing the productive power oI realism as a discourse is one way in which the authors
do this. Sjoberg and Gentry pick up on a recent theoretical shiIt in Anglo-American IR, Irom 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 oI Hobbes' construction oI the autonomous rational actor. 'T|he
narrowness oI 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
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
7

2008, p. 200, emphasis added). Without paying adequate attention to the construction oI individuals as gendered beings, or to the reproduction oI
widely held ideas about masculine and Ieminine behaviours, Sjoberg and Gentry remind us that we will ultimately Iail '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 reIlection oI realism's (male) agendas and priorities' (2008, p. 169). The 'agendas and priorities' identiIied by Roberts
and acknowledged by Sjoberg and Gentry as being productive oI particular biases in scholarship are not simply 'academic' matters, in the
pejorative sense oI the term. As Roberts argues, 'Power relationships oI inequality happen because they are built that
way by human determinism oI security and what is required to maintain security (p. 171). Realism, as academic discourse and
as policy guideline, has material eIIects. Although his analysis employs an unconventional deIinition oI the term 'social construction' (seemingly interchangeable with
'human agency') and rests on a novel interpretation oI the three Ioundational assumptions oI 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 Ior the conventional study oI IR a devastating conclusion: the dominance oI neo-
realism/realism and the state-based study oI security that derives Irom this is potentially pathological, in that it is in part productive oI the violences it seeks to
ameliorate. I suggest that critical engagement with orthodox IR theory is necessary Ior the intellectual growth oI the
discipline, and considerable insight can be gained by acknowledging the relevance oI Ieminist understandings
oI gender, power and theory. The young woman buying a T-shirt Irom a multinational clothing corporation with her Iirst pay cheque, the group oI young
men planning a stag weekend in Amsterdam, a group oI students attending a demonstration against the bombing oI AIghanistan studying these signiIicant actions
currently Ialls outside the boundaries oI 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 oI both that which we claim to be relevant in international politics and what we assume to be
legitimate ways oI 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 proIessor in the Department oI Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 'Reconstructing
Science and Technology Studies Views Irom Feminist Standpoint Theory, Frontier: a Journal oI Womyn`s Studies, Volume 30, Number 1, 2009 Muse|

Accomplishing the ambitious goal oI governing technoscience more wisely and Iairly requires concerted thinking about what incentives might lead technoscientiIic
elites to ally with social justice-oriented groups. Current science and technology policy 'disappears most Iorms oI social
vulnerability along with basic questions oI social reproduction. II we are trying to understand why technoscientiIic enterprises are
organized to cut out relevant groups who in Iact need a reasonable scientiIic basis Ior making reconstructivist claims upon society and state, or whose work might
meaningIully redirect research trajectories, Ieminist standpoint-directed governance oIIers a more Iulsome answer than
analyses based on notions oI the 'power elite End Page 11| or pluralist denials oI uneven power diIIerentials. The
concerns oI powerIul social groups have been raised to a privileged position, while the concerns oI other social groups are rendered irrelevant or 'antiscientiIic. The
absence oI diversity among practitioners oI technoscience has epistemological as well as political consequences.37 Setting science
upon a Iairer Iooting would require undoing the assimilation oI the goals oI science to the relations oI ruling. This is unlikely to happen without due consideration oI
how social reproduction takes placeand the key role oI the market and its supporting institutions in arranging that it continue to take place privately. Gender
diIIerentials and racial disparities structure the social worlds oI technoscientiIic elites in ways that eIIectively
cut them oII Irom those whose problems they are trying to solve. These relatively silent but implicated actors'the poor, the
'other 90 percenthaunt the corridors oI an R&D enterprise, the political economy oI which is organized so as to endorse and thereby
reinIorce certain identities and not others. Credibility, legitimacy, and authority are accorded on the basis oI 'endorsed
identities.38 An especially clear example oI this has recently been provided in science and technology studies by Steven Epstein, Inclusion: The Politics oI
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
8

DiIIerence in Medical Research (University oI Chicago Press, 2007). Epstein credits the Ieminist and womyn`s health movement with
instigating a movement against 'standardization in clinical trials. The emergence oI what Epstein calls the
'identity-and-diIIerence 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 oI that ways in
which certain identities are endorsed, and others unconsidered in ways that are consequential. Until relevant
social groups can meaningIully participate in setting priorities and guide research trajectories, it is hard to see technoscience
serving social justice ends (unless, oI course, there is a commercial compulsion). Unless steps are taken to restructure scientiIic inquiry according to equity
criteria, technoscientiIic innovation will continue to take place only at the behest oI the market system (see Barker 2009, this volume). Most people have little place in
the R&D enterprise; the eIIects oI technoscientiIic practices and products upon social reproduction will likely continue to be pernicious. Restructuring inquiry so as to
be relevant to multiple communities oI practice is as much an epistemological question as a pragmatic one.39 Yet the deliberative, participatory processes on oIIer,
among them the science shops or consensus conIerences,40 Iall short on epistemological and research design questions, not to speak oI their impracticality in large-
scale democracies. II we look closely at the sociality oI technoscientiIic 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 scientiIic
inquiry thus means opening research design to scrutiny in ways that would make it subject to inIluence by
current 'outsiders whose achieved standpoints allow them to see matters now invisible or insigniIicant to
insiders. It also means not overlooking the hierarchies oI credibility that situate the 'needs oI those who beneIit Iinancially Irom the R&D enterprise over the needs
oI those who do not.41 Those hierarchies are reproduced through the social organization oI knowledge-producing
enterprises, and so it is no wonder they veer away Irom latter and steer toward the Iormer in ways that place
most technoscience as reinIorcing elite privilege and Iailing to be relevant to all others. Moving toward 'Iair
science requires understanding which aspects oI inequality are salient Ior whom, rather than presuming to
know in advance what is or is not a meaningIul diIIerence Irom a particular standpoint. II social inequality is to be better
taken into account, part oI the process will also entail unlearning the presumptions oI privilege. What matters is
constructed in the process oI negotiation, rather than constituted a priori. Which diIIerences draw meaningIul boundaries between
various domains within a community oI practice? How are these diIIerences experienced? Why do particular aspects oI inequalitybut not otherscontinue to be
salient diIIerences in technoscientiIic domains? What can be done to address the persistence oI gender inequalities that are seemingly glued tightly onto the map oI
diIIerential power relations in technoscientiIic domains?

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
9
1NC: Cosmodolphins (Satellites)

INSTEAD OF BEGINNING FROM AN ASSESSMENT OF THE AFFIRMATIVE THROUGH COST-
BENEFIT ANALYSIS, WE ASK THE CRITIC TO CONSIDER WHAT SILENT HISTORIES ARE
BUNDLED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE`S 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, proIessor in the History oI Consciousness program at UC- Santa Cruz, 1992 (Donna, 'THe Promises oI Monsters: A Regenerative Politics Ior
Inappropriate/d Others, ultural Studies eds. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A Treichler, p 315-7)

An ecosystem is always oI a particular type, Ior example, a temperate grassland or a tropical rain Iorest. In the iconography oI
late capitalism, Jane Goodall did not go to that kind oI ecosystem. She went to the "wilds oI Tanzania," a mythic
"ecosystem" reminiscent oI the original garden Irom 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 oI AIrica was coded as dense, damp, bodily, Iull oI sensuous creatures who touch intimately and intensely. In contrast, the
extraterrestrial is coded to be Iully general; it is about escape Irom the bounded globe into an anti-ecosystem
called, simply, space. Space is not about "man`s" origins on earth but about "his" Iuture, the two key allochronic
times oI salvation history. Space and the tropics are both utopian topical Iigures in Western imaginations, and
their opposed properties dialectically signiIy origins and ends Ior the creature whose mundane liIe is supposedly
outside both: modern or postmodern man. The Iirst primates to approach that abstract place called "space" were
monkeys and apes. A rhesus monkey survived an 83 mile-high Ilight in 1949. Jane Goodall arrived in "the wilds oI Tanzania" in 1960 to encounter and name
the Iamous Gombe Stream chimpanzees introduced to the National Geographic television audience in 1965. However, other chimpanzees were vying Ior the spotlight in
the early 1960s. On January 31, 1961, as part oI the United States man-in-space program, the chimpanzee HAM,
trained Ior his task at Holloman Air Force Base, 20 minutes by car Irom Alamogordo, New Mexico, near the
site oI the Iirst atom bomb explosion in July 1945, was shot into suborbital Ilight (Figure 8). HAM's name
inevitably recalls Noah's youngest and only black son. But this chimpanzeets name was Irom a diIIerent kind oI text. His name was
an acronym Ior the scientiIic-military institution that launched him, Holloman AeroMedical; and he rode an arc that traced the birth
path oI modern science-the parabola, the conic section. HAM's parabolic path is rich with evocations oI the history oI Western
science. The path oI a projectile that does not escape gravity, the parabola is the shape considered so deeply by
Galileo, at the Iirst mythic moment oI origins oI modernity, when the unquantiIiable sensuous and countable
mathematical properties oI bodies were separated Irom each other in scientiIic knowledge. It describes the path
oI ballistic weapons, and it is the trope Ior "man's" doomed projects in the writings oI the existentialists in the
1950s. The parabola traces the path oI Rocket Man at the end oI World War II in Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow (1973). An understudy Ior man, HAM went
only to the boundary oI space, in suborbital Ilight. On his return to earth, he was named. He had been known only as #65 beIore his successIul Ilight. II, in the oIIicial
birth-mocking language oI the Cold War, the mission had to be "aborted," the authorities did not want the public worrying about the death oI a Iamous and named, even
iI not quite human, astronaut. In Iact, #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 Ior man in the conquest oI space" (Eimerl and De
yore, 1965, p. 173). His hominid cousins would transcend that closed parabolic Iigure, Iirst in the ellipse oI orbital Ilight, then in the open trajectories oI escape Irom
earth's gravity. HAM, his human cousins and simian colleagues, and their englobing and interIacing technology were implicated in a reconstitution oI masculinity in
Cold War and space race idioms. The movie The Right StuII (1985) shows the Iirst crop oI human astronau(gh)ts struggling with their aIIronted pride when they realize
their tasks were competently perIormed by their simian cousins. They and the chimps were caught in the same theater oI the Cold War, where the masculinist, death-
deIying, and skillrequiring heroics oI the old jet aircraIt test pilots became obsolete, to be replaced by the media-hype routines oI projects Mercury, Apollo, and their
sequelae. AIter chimpanzee Enos completed a Iully automated orbital Ilight on November 29,1961, John Glenn, who would be the Iirst human American astronaut to
orbit earth, deIensively "looked toward the Iuture by aIIirming his belieI in the superiority oI astronauts over chimponauts." Newsweek announced Glenn's orbital Ilight
oI February 20,1962, with the headline, "John Glenn: One Machine That Worked Without Flaw."40 Soviet primates on both sides oI the line oI 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 oI war,
science, and popular culture. Henry Burroughs's Iamous photograph oI an interested and intelligent, actively participating HAM, watching the hands oI a white,
laboratory-coated, human man release him Irom his contour couch, illuminated the system oI meanings that binds humans and apes together in the late twentieth
century (Weaver, 1961). HAM is the perIect child, reborn in the cold matrix oI space. Time described chimponaut Enos in his "Iitted contour couch that looked like a
cradle trimmed with electronics.41 Enos and HAM were cyborg neonates, born oI the interIace oI the dreams about a technicist automaton and masculinist autonomy.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
10

There could be no more iconic cyborg than a telemetrically implanted chimpanzee, understudy Ior man,
launched Irom earth in the space program, while his conspeciIic in the jungle, "in a spontaneous gesture oI
trust," embraced the hand oI a woman scientist named Jane in a GulI Oil ad showing "man's place in the
ecological structure." On one end oI time and space, the chimpanzee in the wilderness modeled communication
Ior 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 Iuture made possible by the socialtechnical systems oI the
"inIormation age" in a global context oI threatened nuclear war. The closing image oI a human Ietus hurtling through space in Stanley
Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completed the voyage oI discovery begun by the weaponwielding apes at the Iilm's gripping opening. It was the project(ile) oI
selI- made, reborn man, in the process oI being raptured out oI history. The Cold War was simulated ultimate war; the media and
advertising industries oI nuclear culture produced in the bodies oI animals--paradigmatic atives and aliens--the
reassuring images appropriate to this state oI pure war (Virilio and Lotringer, 1983).42 In the aItermath oI the Cold War,
we Iace not the end oI nuclearism, but its dissemination. Even without our knowing his ultmate Iate as an adult caged chimpanzee, the
photograph oI HAM rapidly ceases to entertain, much less to ediIy. ThereIore, let us look to another cyborg image to Iigure possible emergencies oI 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 ProIessor Emerita in the History oI Consciousness Department at UC Santa
Cruz, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, The Reinventing oI Nature)

This is the context in which the projections Ior world-wide structural unemployment stemming Irom the new
technologies are part oI the picture oI the homework economy. As robotics and related technologies put men out oI work in 'developed' countries and exacerbate
Iailure to generate male jobs in Third World 'development', and as the automated oIIice becomes the rule even in labour-surplus countries, the Ieminization oI work
intensiIies. Black women in the United States have long known what it looks like to Iace the structural underemployment ('Ieminization') oI black men, as well as their
own highly vulnerable position in the wage economy. It is no longer a secret that sexuality, reproduction, Iamily, and community liIe are interwoven with this economic
structure in myriad ways which have also diIIerentiated the situations oI white and black women. Many more women and men will contend with similar situations,
which will make cross-gender and race alliances on issues oI basic liIe support (with or without jobs) necessary, not
just nice. The new technologies also have a proIound eIIect on hunger and on Iood production Ior subsistence world-wide. Rae Lessor Blumberg (1983) estimates that
women produce about 50 per cent oI the world's subsistence Iood.'7 Women are excluded generally Irom beneIiting Irom the increased high-tech commodiIication oI
Iood and energy crops, their days are made more arduous because their responsibilities to provide Iood 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 oI labour and diIIerential gender migration
patterns. The new technologies seem deeply involved in the Iorms oI 'privatization' that Ros Petchesky (1981) has analysed, in
which militarization, right-wing Iamily ideologies and policies, and intensiIied deIinitions oI corporate (and
state) property as private synergistically interact. 18 The new communications technologies are Iundamental to the eradication oI 'public liIe' Ior
everyone. This Iacilitates the mushrooming oI a permanent high-tech military establishment at the cultural and
economic expense oI most people, but especially oI women. Technologies like video games and highly miniaturized televisions seem
crucial to production oI modern Iorms oI 'private liIe'. The culture oI video games is heavily orientated to individual competition
and extraterrestrial warIare. High-tech, gendered imaginations are produced here, imaginations that can
contemplate destruction oI the planet and a sci-Ii escape Irom its consequences. More than our imaginations is
militarized; and the other realities oI electronic and nuclear warIare are inescapable. These are the technologies that promise
ultimate mobility and perIect exchange - and incidentally enable tourism, that perIect practice oI mobility and exchange, to emerge as one oI the world's largest single
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
11

industries. The new technologies aIIect the social relations oI both sexuality and oI reproduction, and not always in
the same ways. The close ties oI sexuality and instrumentality, oI views oI the body as a kind oI private
satisIaction- and utility-maximizing machine, are described nicely in sociobiological origin stories that stress a
genetic calculus and explain the inevitable dialectic oI domination oI male and Iemale gender roles.19 These
sociobiological stories depend on a high-tech view oI the body as a biotic component or cybernetic communications system. Among the many transIormations oI
reproductive situations is the medical one, where women's bodies have boundaries newly permeable to both 'visualization' and 'intervention'. OI course, who controls
the interpretation oI bodily boundaries in medical hermeneutics is a major Ieminist issue. The speculum served as an icon oI women's claiming their bodies in the
1970s; that handcraIt tool is inadequate to express our needed body politics in the negotiation oI reality in the practices oI cyborg reproduction. SelI-help is not enough.
The technologies oI visualization recall the important cultural practice oI hunting with the camera and the deeply predatory nature oI a photographic consciousness,z
Sex, sexuality, and reproduction are central actors in high-tech myth systems structuring our imaginations oI personal and social possibility. Another critical aspect oI
the social relations oI the new technologies is the reIormulation oI expectations, culture, work, and reproduction Ior the large scientiIic and technical work-Iorce. A
major social and political danger is the Iormation oI a strongly bimodal social structure, with the masses oI women and men oI all ethnic groups, but especially people
oI colour, conIined to a homework economy, illiteracy oI several varieties, and general redundancy and impotence, controlled by high-tech repressive apparatuses
ranging Irom entertainmcnt to surveillance and disappearance. An adequate socialistIeminist politics should address women in the privileged occupational categories,
and particularly in the production oI science and technology that constructs scientiIic-technical discourscs, processes, and objcctS.21 This issue is only one
aspect oI enquiry into the possibility oI a Ieminist science, but it is important. What kind oI constitutive role in
the production oI knowledge, imagination, and practice can new groups doing science have? How can these
groups be allied with progressive social and political movements? What kind oI political accountability can be
constructed to tie women together across the scientiIic-technical hierarchies separating us? Might there be ways
oI developing Ieminist science/technology politics in alliance with anti-military science Iacility conversion
action groups? Many scientiIic and technical workers in Silicon Valley, the high-tech cowboys included, do not want to work on military science.22 Can these
personal preIerences and cultural tendencies be welded into progressive politics among this proIessional middle class in which women, including women oI colour, are
coming to be Iairly numerous? Let me summarize the picture oI women's historical locations in advanced industrial societies, as these positions have been restructured
partly through the social relations oI science and technology. II it was ever possible ideologically to characterize women's lives by the distinction oI public and private
domains - suggested by images oI the division oI working-class liIe into Iactory and home, oI bourgeois liIe into market and home, and oI gender existence into
personal and political realms - it is now a totally misleading ideology, even to show how both terms oI these dichotomies construct each other in practice and in theory. I
preIer a network ideological image, suggesting the proIusion oI spaces and identities and the permeability oI boundaries in the personal body and in the body politic.
INetworking' is both a IeIninist practice and a multinational corporate strategy - weaving is Ior 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, proIessor in the department oI sociology at Lancaster University,1995 (Sarah, 'science as culture, cultures oI science, nnual Review of
Anthropology, 24, 166)

Although a pro- and antiscience division is oIten drawn between critical science studies, such as the study oI science as culture by anthropologists, and so-called real
science undertaken by proIessional scientists, this is one oI many divisions, or borders, deIining science that are currently breaking down (92, 93, 106), Science studies
has its own groupings that divide along the Iaultlines oI "realism" vs "relativism," the view oI science as knowledge or practice, the validity oI constructivist or
objectivist approaches to science, and the question oI where science is located (124, 150), Many oI the same contentious issues seen to be at stake between critical
science studies and mainstream scientiIic
practice are in Iact reproduced within science studiesan isomorphism that is oIten least surprising Irom an anthropological vantage point, which would see both
intellectual traditions as derivative oI a shared cultural context. In other words, certain cultural values are equally invisible within both science studies and within
science itselI. The claim, Ior example, that empiricism can be unmarked, that is, can provide an evidentiary basis that
"speaks Ior itselI," is aIter all a point oI view, and one that may be held by science studies scholars as well as by
scientists themselves. Moreover, it is a point oI view with a history that establishes a cultural tradition: the tradition
oI "value-neutrality" or transparency. To distinguish between pure and applied knowledge, between hard and
soIt sciences invokes not only this value system, but the hierarchical nature oI it, thus exempliIying the kind oI
cultural Iact at issue here.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
12

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. oI Wash., Dept. oI Poli-Sci, Ph.D UCLA, 'A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites, rontiers. Journal of Women Studies,
Vol. 18, No. 2, Intersections oI Feminisms and Environmentalisms, pp. 26-47. University oI Nebraska Press)

The miniaturization oI the earth made possible by satellite photography appeals to the managerial impulse; the
"blue-and-white Christmas ornament" can be "managed" Iar more easily that a world oI 5.5 billion people and
thou-sands oI cultures. The distinctive combination oI will-to-power and the sense oI the earth's Iragility that
typiIies the remote sensing project is expressed in the words oI astronaut "Buzz"Aldrin: "The earth was eventually so small I could blot it out oI the
universe by holding up my thumb."60 From space, the ultimate domination oI the earth, or at least the illusion oI it, becomes
possible. While it is the earth that is objectiIied by the planetary gaze, ultimately "managing planet earth" will
mean controlling human behavior, not the earth itselI. 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 oI remote sensing perpetuate the
knowledge/power nexus with respect not only to human domination oI nature, but also to social control. Thus, the
six assumptions implicit in the project oI global environmental monitoring by satellite turn out to be plagued with internal
inconsistencies, pa-rochial biases, and moral diIIiculties. Neither the science nor the technology oI Earth remote sensing is neutral. The vast
quantities oI data generated by satellites are unlikely to lead to either scientiIic certainty or rational policy. Indeed, EOS
technology, at least as presently constituted, seems to reinIorce the drive to industrialization and the interrogatory approach to nature that lie at the heart oI modernity.
The global view that it purports to provide may become a totalizing perspective that omits human agency and
substitutes the vantage point oI a tech-nical elite Ior the collective experiences oI the diversity oI 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 oI plan-etary management that pervades discussions oI EOS suggests that the disciplin-ary
power inherent in the managerial impulse is at the heart oI the remote sens-ing project.

THE SEMIOTIC BUNDLING IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS - LEAVING THE TROPE OF
MASCULINE TECHNOSCIENCE IN TACT IS NOT 1UST AN EXCUSE OR APOLOGY FOR
CONFLICT; NOR IS IT ~1UST A ROOT CAUSE. INSISTANCE ON MAINTAINING THE TROPE
OF SCEINTIFIC OB1ECTIVITY IS A RHETORICAL PERFORMANCE OF WAR.
HARAWAY, proIessor in the History oI Consciousness program at UC-Santa Cruz, 1996 (Donna, 'Modest Witness: Feminist DiIIractions in Science Studies,
%he Disunity of Science. Boundaries, ontexts, and Power, 435-7)
A central issue requires compressed comment here: the structure oI heroic action in science. Several scholars have commented on the
proliIeration oI violent misogynist imagery in many oI the chieI documents oI the ScientiIic Revolution. The
modest man had at least a tropic taste Ior the rape oI nature. Science made was nature undone, to embroider on Bruno
Latour`s metaphors in his important Science in ction. Nature`s coy resistance was part oI the story, and getting nature to reveal
her secrets was the prize Ior manly valorall, oI course, merely valor oI the mind. At the very least, the encounter oI the
modest witness with the world was a great trial oI strength. In disrupting many conventional accounts oI scientiIic objectivity, Latour and others have masterIully
unveiled the selI-invisible modest man. At the least, that is a nice twist on the usual direction oI discursive unveiling and the heterosexual epistemological erotics. Steve
Woolgar would then keep the light relentlessly on this modest being, the 'hardest case or 'hardened selI that covertly guarantees the truth oI a representation and
emerges simply as the Iacat oI the matter. That crucial emergence depends on many kinds oI transparency in the grand narratives oI the experimental way oI liIe.
Latour and others eschew Woolgar`s relentless insistence on reIlextivity, which, in perhaps ungenerously read
versions seems not be able get beyond self-vision as the cure seem to be practically the same thing, iI what
you are aIter is another kind oI world and worldliness. DiIIraction, the production oI diIIerence patterns, should
be a more useIul metaphor Ior the needed work than reIlexivity. Latour is generally less interested than his colleague in Iorcing the
Wizard oI Oz to see himselI as linchpin in the technology oI scientiIic representation. Latour wants to Iollow the action in science-in-the-making. He wants to make us
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
13

swerve Irom the unlively analytical habits oI contemplating science already made. Perversely, however, the structure oI heroic action is only intensiIied in this project
both in the narrative oI science and in the discourse oI the science-studies scholar. For the author oI Science in Action, technoscience itself is war, the
demiurge that makes and unmakes worlds. Privileging the younger Iace as science-in-the-making, Latour adopts as the Iigure oI his argument
the double-Iaced Roman god, Janus is the keeper oI the gate oI heaven, and the gates to his temple in the Roman Forum were always open in times oI war and close in
times oI 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 Ieats oI strength, amassing oI allies, Iorging oI worlds in the strength and numbers oI coerced allies. All action is
agonistic; the creative abstraction is both breathtaking and numbingly conventional. Trials oI strength decide
whether representation holds or not. Period. To complete, one must have the Iorce equivalent oI a
counterlaboratory capable oI winning in these high-stakes trials oI strength, or give up dreams oI making
worlds. Victories and perIormances are the action sketched in this all-too-seminal book: 'The list oI trials becomes a thing; it is literally reiIied. War is the
paradigmatic rhetorical performance-the perfect technique of physical-spiritual persuasion. The word is
perIormative. The word is spermatic; it is made Ilesh. This is an old Iigure in sacred secular technoscience narratives. This powerIul
tropic system is like quicksand. Science in ction works by relentless, recursive mimesis. The story is told by the same story. The
object studied and the method oI 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 oI the book is 'penetrating science Irom outside,
Iollowing controversies and accompanying scientists up to the end, being slowly led out oI science in the making. The reader is taught how to resist both the scientist`s
and the Ialse science studies scholar`s recruiting pitches. The prize is not getting stuck in the maze, but exiting the space oI technoscience a victor, with the strongest
story. No wonder Steven Shapin began his review oI this book with the gladiator`s 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 ProIessor Emerita in the History oI Consciousness Department at UC Santa
Cruz, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, The Reinventing oI Nature)

I would like to proceed by placing metaphorical reliance on a much maligned sensory system in Ieminist
discourse: vision. Vision can be good Ior avoiding binary oppositions. I would like to insist on the embodied
nature oI all vision, and so reclaim the sensory system that has been used to signiIy a leap out oI the marked
body and into a conquering gaze Irom 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 signiIies the unmarked positions oI Man and White, one oI the many nasty tones oI
the world objectivity to Ieminist ears in scientiIic and technological, late industrial, militarized, racist and male
dominant societies, that is, here, in the belly oI the monster, in the United States in the late 1980s. I would like a doctrine oI
embodied objectivity that accommodates paradoxical and critical Ieminist science projects: Ieminist objectivity means quite simply situated know/edges. The eyes
have been used to signiIy a perverse capacity - honed to perIection in the history oI science tied to militarism,
capitalism, colonialism, and male supremacy - to distance the knowing subject Irom everybody and everything
in the interests oI unIettered power. The instruments oI visualization in multinationalist, postmodernist culture have compounded these meanings oI
dis-embodiment. The visualizing technologies are without apparent limit; the eye oI any ordinary primate like us can be endlessly enhanced by sonography systems,
magnetic resonance imaging, artiIicial intelligence-linked graphic manipulation systems, scanning electron microscopes, computer-aided tomography scanners, colour
enhancement techniques, satellite surveillance systems, home and oIIice VDTs, cameras Ior every purpose Irom Iilming the mucous membrane lining the gut cavity oI a
marine worm living in the vent gases on a Iault between continental plates to mapping a planetary hemisphere elsewhere in the solar system. Vision in this
technological Ieast becomes unregulated gluttony; all perspective gives way to inIinitely mobile vision, which
no longer seems just mythically about the god-trick oI seeing everything Irom nowhere, but to have put the
myth into ordinary practice. And like the god-trick, this eye Iucks the world to make techno-monsters. Zoe SoIoulis
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
14

(1988) calls this the cannibal-eye oI masculinist extra-terrestrial projects Ior excremental second birthing. A tribute to this ideology oI direct,
devouring, generative, and unrestricted vision, whose technological mediations are simultaneously celebrated
and presented as utterly transparent, the volume celebrating the IOOth anniversary oI the National Geographic Society closes its survey oI the
magazine's quest literature, eIIected through its amazing photography, with two juxtaposed chapters. The Iirst is on 'Space', introduced
by the epigraph, 'The choice is the universe - or nothing' (Bryan, 1987, p. 352). Indeed. This chapter recounts the exploits
oI the space race and displays the colour enhanced 'snapshots' oI the outer planets reassembled Irom digitalized
signals transmitted across vast space to let the viewer 'experience' the moment oI discovery in immediate vision
oI the 'object,.8 These Iabulous objects come to us simultaneously as indubitable recordings oI what is simply
there and as heroic Ieats oI techno-scientiIic production. The next chapter is the twin oI outer space: 'Inner Space', introduced by the
epigraph, 'The stuII oI stars has come alive' (Bryan, 1987, p. 454). Here, the reader is brought into the realm oI the inIinitesimal, objectiIied by means oI radiation
outside the wave lengths that 'normally' are perceived by hominid primates, i.e., the beams oI lasers and scanning electron microscopes, whose signals are processed
into the wonderIul Iull-colour snapshots oI deIending T cells and invading viruses. But oI course that view oI inIinite vision is an illusion, a
god-trick. I would like to suggest how our insisting metaphorically on the particularity and embodiment oI all
vision (though not necessarily organic embodiment and including technological mediation), and not giving in to
the tempting myths oI vision as a route to disembodiment and second-birthing, allows us to construct a usable,
but not an innocent, doctrine oI objectivity. I want a Ieminist writing oI the body that metaphorically
emphasizes vision again, because we need to reclaim that sense to Iind our way through all the visualizing tricks
and powers oI modem sciences and technologies that have transIormed 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 oI mental and physical space we hardly know how to name. So, not so perversely, objectivity turns out to be about particular and speciIic
embodiment, and deIinitely not about the Ialse vision promising transcendence oI all limits and responsibility. The moral is simple: only partial
perspective promises objective vision. This is an objective vision that initiates, rather than closes oII, the
problem oI responsibility Ior the generativity oI all visual practices. Partial perspective can be held accountable Ior both its promising
and its destructive monsters. All Western cultural narratives about objectivity are allegories oI the ideologies oI the relations oI what we call mind and body, oI distance
and responsibility, embedded in the science question in Ieminism. Feminist objectivity is about limited location and situated
knowledge, not about transcendence and splitting oI subject and object. In this way we might become
answerable Ior 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 Iovea and very Iew retinal cells Ior colour vision, but with a huge neural processing and sensory area Ior SOleUs. It is a lesson available Irom
photographs oI how the world looks to the compound eyes oI an insect, or even Irom the camera eye oI a spy
satellite or the digitally transmitted signals oI space probe-perceived diIIerences 'near' Jupiter that have been
transIormed into coIIee table colour photographs. The 'eyes' made available in modem technological sciences
shatter any idea oI passive vision; these prosthetic devices show us that all eyes, including our own organic
ones, are active perceptual systems, building in translations and speciIic ways oI seeing, that is, ways oI liIe.
There is no unmediated photograph or passive camera obscura in scientiIic accounts oI bodies and machines; there are only highly speciIic visual possibilities, each
with a wonderIully detailed, active, partial way oI organizing worlds. AIl these pictures oI the world should not be allegories oI inIinite mobility and interchangeability,
but oI elaborate speciIicity and diIIerence and the loving care people might take to learn how to see IaithIully Irom another's point oI view, even when the other is our
own machine. That's not alienating distance; that's a possible allegory Ior Ieminist versions oI objectivity. Understanding how these visual systems work, technically,
socially, and psychically ought to be a way oI embodying Ieminist objectivity.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
15
1NC (eco)feminist imaginaries (Space Elevators)
A QUESTION HAUNTS MODERN POLITICS, 1UST 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, Second Sex trans Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier)

I hesitated a long time beIore writing a book on woman. The subject is irritating, especially Ior women; and it is not new. Enough ink has Ilowed over the quarrel about Ieminism; it is now almost over: let's not talk about it any more. Yet it is still
being talked about. And the volumes oI idiocies churned out over this past century do not seem to have clariIied the problem. Besides, is there a problem? And what is it? Are there even women? True, the theory oI the eternal Ieminine still has its
Iollowers; they whisper, 'Even in Russia, women are still very much women'; but other well-inIormed people - and also at times those same ones - lament, 'Woman is losing herselI, woman is lost.' It is hard to know any
longer iI women still exist, iI they will always exist, iI 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 Iirst, what is a woman? 'rota mulier in utero: she is a
womb,' some say. Yet speaking oI certain women, the experts proclaim, 'They are not women', even though they
have a uterus like the others. Everyone agrees there are Iemales in the human species; today, as in the past, they make up about halI oI humanity; and yet we are told that 'Iemininity is in jeopardy'; we are urged,
'Be women, stay women, become women: So not every Iemale human being is necessarily a woman; she must take part in this mysterious and endangered reality known as Iemininity. Is Iemininity secreted by the ovaries? Is it enshrined in a
Platonic heaven? Is a Irilly 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 Irom a
clairvoyant's vocabulary. In St Thomas's time it was an essence deIined with as much certainty as the sedative quality oI a poppy. But conceptualism has lost ground: biological and social sciences no
longer believe there are immutably determined entities that deIine given characteristics like those oI the woman,
the Jew or the black; science considers characteristics as secondary reactions to a situation. II there is no such thing today as Iemininity, it is because there never was. Does the word 'woman', then, have
no content? It is what advocates oI 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. II some backward individual still takes herselI Ior a woman, her Iriends advise her to undergo psychoanalysis to get rid oI this obsession. ReIerring to a book - a very irritating
one at that - Modern Woman: The Lost Sex, Dorothy Parker wrote: 'I cannot be Iair about books that treat women as women. My idea is that all oI us, men as well as women, whoever we are, should be considered as human beings: But
nominalism is a doctrine that Ialls a bit short; and it is easy Ior anti-Ieminists to show that women are not men.
Certainly woman like man is a human being; but such an assertion is abstract; the Iact is that every concrete human being is always uniquely situated. -
Rejecting the notions oI the eternal Ieminine, 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 Ior those concerned, but an inauthentic Ilight. Clearly, no woman can claim without bad Iaith to be situated beyond her sex. A
Iew years ago, a well-known woman writer reIused to have her portrait appear in a series oI photographs devoted speciIically to women writers. She wanted to be included in the men's category; but to get this privilege, she used her husband's
inIluence. Women who assert they are men still claim masculine consideration and respect. I also remember a young Trotskyite standing on a platIorm during a stormy meeting, about to come to blows in spite oI her obvious Iragility. She was
denying her Ieminine Irailty; but it was Ior the love oI a militant man she wanted to be equal to. The deIiant position that American women occupy proves they are haunted by the sentiment oI their own Iemininity. And the truth
is that anyone can clearly see that humanity is split into two categories oI individuals with maniIestly diIIerent
clothes, Iaces, bodies, smiles, movements, interests and occupations; these diIIerences are perhaps superIicial;
perhaps they are destined to disappear. What is certain is that Ior the moment they exist in a strikingly obvious
way. II the Iemale Iunction is not enough to deIine woman, and iI we also reject the explanation oI the 'eternal Ieminine', but iI 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 signiIicant that I pose it. It would never occur to a man to write a book on the singular situation oI males in humanity.* II I want to deIine myselI, I
Iirst have to say, 'I am a woman'; all other assertions will arise Irom this basic truth. A man never begins by
positing himselI as an individual oI a certain sex: that he is a man is obvious. The categories 'masculine' and 'Ieminine' appear as symmetrical in a Iormal
way on town hall records or identiIication papers. The relation oI the two sexes is not that oI 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 oI the word 'vir' being assimilated into the general meaning oI 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 deIence is to answer, 'I think it because it is true,' thereby
eliminating my subjectivity; it was out oI 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 oI being
man; it is the woman who is in the wrong. In Iact, just as Ior the ancients there was an absolute vertical that deIined 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 Iorgets that his anatomy also includes hormones and testicles. He grasps
his body as a direct and normal link
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
16

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 Iemale is Iemale by virtue oI a certain lack oI qualities,' Aristotle said. 'We should regard women's nature as suIIering Irom
natural deIectiveness.' 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 iI drawn Irom Adam's 'supernumerary' bone, in Bossuet's words. Humanity is male, and man deIines
woman, not in herselI, but in relation to himselI; she is not considered an autonomous being. 'Woman, the relative being ... " writes
Michelet. Thus Monsieur Benda declares in Uriel's Report:' 'Aman's body has meaning by itselI, disregarding the body oI the woman, whereas the woman's body seems devoid oI meaning without reIerence to the male. Man thinks himselI
without woman. Woman does not think herselI 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; Ior him she is sex, so she is it in the absolute.
She determines and diIIerentiates herselI in relation to man, and he does not in relation to her; she is the inessential in Iront oI the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute. She is the
Other. *2 The category oI Other is as original as consciousness itselI. The duality between SelI and Other can be Iound in the most primitive societies, in the most ancient mythologies; this division did not always Iall into the category oI
the division oI 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 Ieminine
element is involved at the outset; neither in Good-Evil, auspicious and inauspicious, leIt and right, God and LuciIer; alterity is the Iundamental category oI human thought. No group ever deIines itselI as One without immediately setting up the
Other opposite itselI. It only takes three travellers brought together by chance in the same train compartment Ior the rest oI the travellers to become vaguely hostile 'others'. Village people view anyone not belonging to the village as suspicious'
others'. For the native oI a country, inhabitants oI other countries are viewed as 'Ioreigners'; Jews are the' others' Ior anti-Semites, blacks Ior racist Americans, indigenous people Ior colonists, proletarians Ior the propertied classes. AIter studying
the diverse Iorms oI primitive society in depth, Levi-Strauss could conclude: 'The transition Irom Nature to Culture is determined by man's ability to think oI biological relationships as systems oI oppositions; duality, alternation, opposition, and
symmetry, whether presented in deIinite Iorms or in imprecise Iorms, are not so much matters to be explained as basic and immediate data oI social reality. '*3 These phenomena could not be understood iI human reality were solely a Mitsein4
based on solidarity and Iriendship. On the contrary, they become clear iI, Iollowing Hegel, a Iundamental hostility to any other consciousness is Iound in consciousness itselI; the subject posits itselI only in opposition; it asserts itselI 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 Ioreigner; between villages,
clans, nations and classes there are wars, potlatches, agreements, treaties and struggles that remove the absolute meaning Irom the idea oI the other and bring out its relativity; whether one likes it or not, individuals and groups have no choice but
to recognise the reciprocity oI their relation. How is it then that between the sexes this reciprocity has not been put Iorward, that one oI the terms has been asserted as the only essential one, denying any relativity in regard to its correlative,
deIining the latter as pure alterity? Why do women not contest male sovereignty? No subject posits itselI spontaneously and at once as the inessential Irom the outset; it is not the Other who, deIining itselI as Other, deIines the One; the Other is
posited as Other by the One positing itselI as One. But in order Ior the Other not to turn into the One, the Other has to submit to this Ioreign point oI view. Where does this submission in woman come Irom? There are other cases where, Ior a
shorter or longer time, one category has managed to dominate another absolutely. It is oIten numerical inequality that conIers 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. OIten, the two opposing groups concerned were once independent oI each other; either they were not aware oI 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 Iacts with dates. In these cases, Ior the oppressed there was a beIore: 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 Iounded: proletarians are not a numerical minority either and yet they have never Iormed a separate group. However, not
one event, but a whole historical development, explains their existence as a class and accounts Ior the
distribution oI these individuals in this class. There have not always been proletarians: there have always been
women; they are women by their physiological structure; as Iar back as history can be traced, they have always been subordinate to men; their dependence is not the consequence oI an event or a becoming, it did not happen. Alterity
here appears to be an absolute, partly because it Ialls outside the accidental nature oI historical Iact. Asituation created over time can come undone at another time - blacks in Haiti Ior one are a good example; on the contrary, a natural condition
seems to deIy change. In truth, nature is no more an immutable given than is historical reality. II woman discovers herselI as the inessential, and never turns into the essential, it is because she does not bring about this transIormation herselI.
Proletarians say 'we'. So do blacks. Positing themselves as subjects, they thus transIorm the bourgeois or whites into' others'. Women - except in certain abstract gatherings such as
conIerences - do not use 'we'; men say 'women' and women adopt this word to reIer 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 Iighting 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 itselI in opposition.
They have no past, no history, no religion oI their own; and unlike the proletariat, they have no solidarity oI labour or interests; they even lack their own space that makes communities oI American blacks, or the Jews in ghettos, the workers in
Saint-Denis or Renault Iactories. They live dispersed among men, tied by homes, work, economic interests and social conditions to certain men - Iathers 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 Ianatic Jew or black could dream oI seizing
the secret oI the atomic bomb and turning all oI humanity entirely Jewish or entirely black: but a woman could not even dream oI exterminating males. The tie that binds her to her oppressors is unlike any other. The division oI 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 Iundamental unit with the ~o halves riveted to each other: cleavage oI society by sex is not
possible: This is the Iundamental characteristic oI woman: she is the Other at the heart oI a whole whose two
components are necessary to each other. One might think that this reciprocity would have Iacilitated her
liberation; when Hercules spins wool.at Omphale's Ieet, 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 Iormidable upper hand. In Lysistrata, Aristophanes light-heartedly imagined a group oI women who, uniting together Ior the social good, tried to take advantage oI men's need Ior 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 Ior posterity - which makes the male dependent on the Iemale, has not liberated women socially. Master and slave are also linked by a reciprocal
economic need that does not Iree the slave. That is, in the master-slave relation, the master does not posit the
need he has Ior the other; he holds the power to satisIy this need and does not mediate it; the slave, on the other
hand, out oI dependence, hope or Iear, internalises his need Ior the master; however equally compelling the need
may be to them both, it always plays in Iavour oI the oppressor over the oppressed: this explains the slow pace oI workingclass liberation, Ior example. Now woman has always been, iI 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 oIten it puts her at a considerable
disadvantage. Even when her rights are recognised abstractly, long-standing habit keeps them Irom being concretely
maniIested in customs. Economically, men and women almost Iorm two castes; all things being equal, the
Iormer have better jobs, higher wages and greater chances to succeed than their new Iemale 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 reinIorced 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 oI the world, this world still belongs to men: men have no doubt about this,
and women barely doubt it. ReIusing to be the Other, reIusing complicity with man, would mean renouncing all
the advantages an alliance with the superior caste conIers on them. Lord-man will materially protect liege-woman and will be in charge oI justiIying her existence:
along with the economic risk, she eludes the metaphysical risk oI a Ireedom that must invent its goals without help. Indeed, beside every individual's claim to assert himselI as subject - an ethical claim - lies the temptation to Ilee Ireedom and to
make himselI into a thing: it is a pernicious path because the individual, passive, alienated and lost, is prey to a Ioreign will, cut oII Irom his transcendence, robbed oI all worth. But it is an easy path: the anguish and stress oI authentically
assumed existence are thus avoided. The man who sets the woman up as an Other will thus Iind in her a deep complicity. Hence woman makes no claim Ior herselI 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 oIten derives satisIaction Irom her role as Other. But a question immediately arises: how did this whole story begin? It is understandable that the duality oI the
sexes, like all duality, be expressed in conIlict. It is understandable that iI one oI the two succeeded in imposing its superiority, it had to establish itselI as absolute. It remains to be explained how it was that man won at the outset. It seems
possible that women might have carried oII 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 oI the world between men and
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
17

women or not? These questions are Iar Irom new; they have already had many answers; but the very Iact that woman is Other challenges all the justiIications
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 little-
known seventeenth-century Ieminist. Males have always and everywhere paraded their satisIaction oI Ieeling they are kings oI creation. 'Blessed be the Lord our God, and the Lord oI all worlds that has not made me a woman,' Jews say in their
morning prayers; meanwhile their wives resignedly murmur: 'Blessed be the Lord Ior creating me according to His will: Among the blessings Plato thanked the gods Ior was Iirst being born Iree and not a slave, and second, a man and not a
woman. But males could not have enjoyed this privilege so Iully had they not considered it as Iounded in the absolute and in eternity: they sought to make the Iact oI their supremacy a right. 'Those who made and compiled the laws, being men,
Iavoured 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 proIitable on earth. Religions Iorged by men reIlect this will Ior domination: they Iound ammunition in the legends oI Eve and Pandora. They have put philosophy and theology in their service, as seen in the previously cited
words oI 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 Irom Jean de Meung. This hostility seems sometimes Iounded but is oIten gratuitous; in truth, it covers up a more or less skilIully camouIlaged will to selI-justiIication. 'It is easier to accuse one sex than to excuse the
other,' says Montaigne. In certain cases, the process is transparent. It is striking, Ior example, that the Roman code limiting a wiIe's rights invokes 'the imbecility and Iragility oI the sex' just when a weakening Iamily 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 oI St Augustine aIIirming 'the wiIe is an animal neither reliable nor stable' is called on, whereas the unmarried woman is recognised
as capable oI managing her own aIIairs. Montaigne well understood the arbitrariness and injustice oI the lot assigned to women: 'Women are not at all wrong in reIusing 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 Iar as to champion their cause. It is only in the eighteenth century that deeply democratic men begin to consider the issue objectively. Diderot, Ior one, tries to prove
that, like man, woman is a human being. Abit later, John Stuart Mill ardently deIends women. But these philosophers are exceptional in their impartiality. In the nineteenth century the Ieminist quarrel once again becomes a partisan quarrel; one
oI the consequences oI the industrial revolution is that women enter the labour Iorce: at that point, women's demands leave the realm oI the theoretical and Iind economic grounds; their adversaries become all the more aggressive; even though
landed property is partially discredited, the bourgeoisie clings to the old values where Iamily solidity guarantees private property: it insists all the more Iiercely 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 Ior low salaries. * To prove women's inIeriority, anti-Ieminists began to
draw not only, as beIore, 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 Iormula is most signiIicant: it
is exactly that Iormula the Jim Crow laws put into practice with regard to black Americans; this so-called egalitarian segregation served only to introduce the most extreme Iorms oI discrimination. This convergence is in no way pure chance:
whether it is race, caste, class or sex reduced to an inIerior condition, the justiIication process is the same. 'The eternal Ieminine' corresponds to 'the black soul' or 'the Jewish character'. However, the Jewish problem on the whole is very diIIerent
Irom the two others: Ior the anti-Semite, the Jew is more an enemy than an inIerior and no place on this earth is recognised as his own; it would be preIerable to see him annihilated. But there are deep analogies between the situations oI women
and blacks: both are liberated today Irom the same paternalism, and the Iormer master caste wants to keep them 'in their place', that is, the place chosen Ior them; in both cases, they praise, more or less sincerely, the virtues oI the 'good black', the
careIree, childlike, merry soul oI the resigned black, and the woman who is a 'true woman' - Irivolous, inIantile, irresponsible, the woman subjugated to man. In both cases, the ruling caste bases its argument on the state oI aIIairs it created itselI.
The Iamiliar line Irom George Bernard Shaw sums it up: 'The white American relegates the black to the rank oI shoeshine boy, and then concludes that blacks are only good Ior shining shoes.' The same vicious circle can be Iound in all analogous
circumstances: when an individual or a group oI individuals is kept in a situation oI inIeriority, the Iact is that he or they are inIerior. But the scope oI the verb to be must be understood; bad Iaith means giving it a substantive value, when in Iact it
has the sense oI the Hegelian dynamic: to be is to have become, to have been made as one maniIests oneselI. Yes, women in general are today inIerior to men, that is, their situation provides them with Iewer possibilities: the question is whether
this state oI aIIairs 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 Ieel 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 Irom us.' That student never questioned his rights over this world.
Economic interests are not the only ones in play. One oI the beneIits that oppression secures Ior the oppressor is that the humblest among them Ieels superior: in the USA, a 'poor white' Irom the South can console himselI Ior not being a 'dirty
nigger'; and more prosperous whites cleverly exploit this pride. Likewise, the most mediocre oI males believes himselI a demigod next to women. It was easier Ior M. de Montherlant to think himselI a hero in Iront oI 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 oI his articles in Figaro Litteraire in September 1948, M. Claude Mauriac - whom everyone admires Ior his powerIul originality - could*
write about women: 'We listen in a tone sic!| oI polite indiIIerence ... to the most brilliant one among them, knowing that her intelligence, in a more or less dazzling way, reIlects ideas that come Irom us.' Clearly his Iemale interlocutor does not
reIlect M. Mauriac's own ideas, since he is known not to have any; that she reIlects ideas originating with men is possible: among males themselves, more than one oI them takes as his own opinions he did not invent; one might wonder iI it
would not be in M. Claude Mauriac's interest to converse with a good reIlection oI Descartes, Marx or Gide rather than with himselI; what is remarkable is that with the ambiguous we, he identiIies with St Paul, Hegel, Lenin and Nietzsche, and
Irom their heights he looks down on the herd oI women who dare to speak to him on an equal Iooting; Irankly I know oI more than one woman who would not put up with M. Mauriac's 'tone oI polite indiIIerence'. I have stressed this example
because oI its disarming masculine naivety. Men proIit in many other more subtle ways Irom woman's alterity. For all those suIIering Irom an inIeriority complex, this is a miraculous liniment; no one is more arrogant towards women, more
aggressive or more disdainIul, than a man anxious about his own virility. Those who are not threatened by their Iellow men are Iar more likely to recognise woman as a counterpart; but even Ior them the myth oI the Woman, oI the Other, remains
precious Ior many reasons;* they can hardly be blamed Ior not wanting to light-heartedly sacriIice all the beneIits they derive Irom the myth: they know what they lose by relinquishing the woman oI their dreams, but they do not know what the
woman oI tomorrow will bring them. It takes great abnegation to reIuse to posit oneselI as unique and absolute Subject. Besides, the vast majority oI men do not explicitly make this
position their own. They do not posit woman as inIerior: they are too imbued today with the democratic ideal not to recognise all human beings as equals. Within the Iamily, the male child and then the young man sees the
woman as having the same social dignity as the adult male; aIterwards, he experiences in desire and love the resistance and independence oI the desired and loved woman; married, he respects in his wiIe the spouse and the mother, and in the
concrete experience oI married liIe, she aIIirms herselI opposite him as a Ireedom. He can thus convince himselI that there is no longer a social hierarchy
between the sexes and that on the whole, in spite oI their diIIerences, woman is an equal. As he nevertheless recognises some points oI
inIeriority - proIessional incapacity being the predominant one - he attributes them to nature. When he has an attitude oI benevolence and partnership towards a woman, he applies the principle oI 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 himselI to disavow abstract equality.t This is how many men aIIirm, with
quasi-good Iaith, 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 diIIicult Ior men to measure the enormous extent oI social discrimination that seems insigniIicant Irom
the outside and whose moral and intellectual repercussions are so deep in woman that they appear to spring Irom an original nature. * The man most sympathetic to women never knows her concrete situation Iully. So there is no good reason to
believe men when they try to deIend privileges whose scope they cannot even Iathom. We will not let ourselves be intimidated by the number and violence oI
attacks against women; nor be Iooled by the selI-serving praise showered on the 'real woman'; nor be won over
by men's enthusiasm Ior her destiny, a destiny they would not Ior the world want to share. We must not, however, be any less mistrustIul
oI Ieminists' arguments: very oIten their attempt to polemicise robs them oI all value. II the 'question oI 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, inIerior or equal to man: created aIter Adam,
she is obviously a secondary being, some say; on the contrary, say others, Adam was only a rough draIt, and God perIected the human being when he created Eve; her brain is smaller, but
relatively bigger; Christ was made man: but perhaps out oI humility. Every argument has its opposite and both are oIten misleading. To see clearly, it is necessary to get out oI these
ruts; these vague notions oI superiority, inIeriority 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 Iirst place, who are we to ask it? Men are judge and party: so are women. Can an angel be Iound? In Iact, an angel would
be ill qualiIied to speak, would not understand all the givens oI the problem; as Ior the hermaphrodite, it is a case oI 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 oI women. It is a sophism to claim that Epimenides should be enclosed within the concept oI Cretan and all Cretans within the concept oI liar: it is not a mysterious essence that dictates good or bad Iaith to men and women; it is their
situation that disposes them to seek the truth to a greater or lesser extent. Many women today, Iortunate to have had all the privileges oI the human being restored to them, can aIIord the luxury oI impartiality: we even Ieel the necessity oI 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 oI the sexes, and indeed many oI us have never Ielt our
Iemaleness to be a diIIiculty 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 Ieminine world more
intimately than men do because our roots are in it; we grasp more immediately what the Iact oI being Iemale means Ior 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 Irom our point oI view: how will the Iact oI being women have aIIected 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 Ieminine literature is driven today by an attempt at lucidity more than by a will to make demands; coming out oI an era oI muddled controversy, this book is one attempt among others to
take stock oI the current state. But it is no doubt impossible to approach any human problem without partiality: even the way oI
asking the questions, oI adopting perspectives, presupposes hierarchies oI interests; all characteristics comprise
values; every so-called objective description is set against an ethical background. Instead oI trying to conceal those principles that are more or less
explicitly implied, it would be better to state them Irom the start; then it would not be necessary to speciIYon each page the meaning given to the words: superior, inIerior, better, worse, progress, regression, etc. II we examine some oI the books
on women, we see that one oI the most Irequently held points oI view is that oI public good or general interest: in reality, this is taken to mean the interest oI 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 Irom the point oI view oI the concrete opportunities they give to individuals. But neither do we conIuse the idea oI private interest with happiness: that is another
Irequently encountered point oI view; are women in a harem not happier than a woman voter? Is a housewiIe 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 oI 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 reIer to.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
18

THIS QUESTION MUST BE THE CENTRAL STARTING POINT FOR THIS TOPIC`S
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, proIessor oI Iilm and media studies at UC Santa Barbara, 1997 (Constance S%REK. Popular
Science and Sex in merica, 55-9)

McCullough`s Ms. Magazine piece also documented NASA`s discrimination against the women who applied Ior
the scientiIic slots in the program. In 1967, seventeen women with advanced degrees in Iields directly related to
space were among those reviewed by the 900-member, all-male selection panel. The women were all bypassed
Ior eleven men, including Iour men in their twenties and Iour others who had not yet obtained doctorates. Now
you might be saying to yourselI, 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
oI men and women to spend lengthy amounts oI 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 Iired Irom a NASA consulting team Ior merely raising the importance oI carrying out such studies iI women are going to be part oI long-range space
exploration. And a 1992 New York Times article on sex in space cited the audacity oI Dr. Yvonne Clearwater, head oI habitabilily research at
NASA's Ames Research Center, who said agency scientists and oIIicials at work on the space station's design
had an obligation "not to serve as judges oI morality but to support people in living as comIortably and
normally as possible. "47 A colleague, speaking on condition oI anonymity, said this statement just about killed Clearwater's career. In the same article the
editor oI Ad Adlra, the magazine oI 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." II NASA reIuses to study contraceptive techniques in weightlessness, Ior
example, this will ensure that women do not go into space, given the danger and inconvenience oI pregnancy in
an environment with so many unknown Iactors. People are still trying to Iind reasons why women are
physiologically unsuited to going into space. In the Iall oI 1992, PBS aired a new series on space exploration. One episode, "Quest Ior Planet
Mars," intersperses scenes oI NASA tests oI men and women Ior a lengthy Mars voyage with scenes oI a simulated trip to Mars. Toward the end oI the program, aIter
we have been told oI the two to three hours oI 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 Iigure in the world oI space. Ride, the Iirst American woman in
space, was the very model oI the coot proIessional. and scientiIIcally 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 Irom the space
program in 1987 said, however, that although she had been selected aIter intense competition, she was chosen (I think, like McAuliIIe) because
she was considered unlikely to display the kind oI independence that would cause NASA political problems.
But Ride did cause NASA political problems with her sudden resignation. BaIIled and dismayed, NASA oIIicials said, "We just can't Iigure it out. She was a real
symbol Ior us. She did us real proud during the hearings and we assumed she would be one oI the Iirst back in space. "As usual. Ride shunned publicity, and said very
little about her reasons Ior quitting. But it was not hard to surmise that she had simply lost conIIdence in NASA. Mae Jemison's equally sudden departure in 1993 also
surprised and even angered some NASA oIIIcials. She, too, had been such an important symbol Ior them, a major player in NASA's eIIort to look inclusive, to be
popular. Jemison had lectured widely on the space program and was generous in giving interviews, Ior which she was much in demand. NASA lost Ride, Jemison, and
Bondar in rapid succession Iollowing the more proIound losses oI Resnick and McAuliIIe, In "Now Voyager," a wrenching essay on McAuliIIe's death, Ellen Willis
speaks oI 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 McAuliIIe~a woman who, like herselI, 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 Iorget? did I have a deadline?" No, she decides, like many women she passed it up out oI anger that NASA's
iconography leIt her no room Ior Iantasies oI women in space. Working-through Because oI the way in which particularities oI
McAuliIIe`s liIe and death lend themselves to individual and collective Iantasy, her story has become densely inscribed in science Iictional, mythical, Iolkloric, and
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
19

ideological narratives about women, technology, and catastrophe. How might some of these narratives be rewritten? How can we
transIorm the popular image oI woman as the embodiment oI technological disaster, as someone who has no place in space? Simply remembering McAuliIIe
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 1UST FASCIST
REGIMES IN DRAG.

Kitch `00 (Sally, Director oI the Institute Ior Humanities Research CLAS Humanities ProIessor oI Women and
Gender Studies, 'Higher Ground, p.50-52)
Among the qualities oI utopian thought that limit the scope oI Ieminist theory is its tendency to concretize ideas,
to transIorm ambiguity and contingency into absolutes (Tillich 1966, 306-7). Because oI that tendency, utopianism typically
creates separate categories Ior ideas, people, and objects that disregard their connections. ThereIore, Ianaticism
and Iundamentalism are close relatives oI utopianism, as they exaggerate utopianism's need Ior exclusivity. Because one either belongs or
does not belong in utopia, people become overdetermined by the criteria established Ior membership in or exclusion
Irom the utopian vision. (Heterotopia would also suIIer Irom this Iate: could a modernist or a romantic survive in heterotopia?) To the Shakers, there were
two kinds oI people in the world: celibates and generatives. To Jim Jones~ everyone was either a Iriend or a Ioe oI the Peoples Temple. There were no hybrids, no
critical Iriends or Iriendly critics. Having assigned labels, utopian thinkers may never again consider their contingency or
arbitrariness. Utopian thinkers may not account Ior the role oI metaphor in label construction or in the terminology oI their belieI systems. They may
mistake the Iigurative, symbolic quality oI language Ior the literal. In addition, the Iounding ideas oI utopian
thought tend to become Iixed and to remain unexamined, even iI utopists themselves are diligently selI-critical about their own adherence to
those Iounding principles. Thus, as we have seen, Iew utopian experimenters analyzed the possible unintended consequences oI their Iundamental worldview. At
Oneida, Ior example, which was Iamous Ior its members' selIcriticism, the community's reproductive system that resulted in "stirpiculture" babies was not subject to
critique; the community's male leaders emphasized the presumed genetic beneIits oI group practices and gave little thought to their eIIects on the community'S young
women. Such habits oI utopian thought overlook the causal relationships that exist among all elements oI a system and ignore the Iact that any changes in a system
involve many related changes, oIten with unintended results (Richards 1980, 33). Without such analysis, the massive social overhauls
typical oI utopian schemes can become dangerously unpredictable and uncontrollable. That conclusion points to
utopianism's sometimes tragic irony: its present Iocus. Our own assumptions that modern people have surely outgrown that utopian Ilaw
illustrate it as well as the examples we have seen throughout the history oI utopian thought and experimentation. Through the beneIits oI hindsight we can identiIy, say,
Charles Lane's blind spot about sex roles in his analysis oI Abigail Alcott's excessive workload at Fruitlands. We are less able to see modern utopian pitIalls, however, as
in Aaron Betsky's heterotopian vision oI Los Angeles. A related Ilaw is utopianism's appeal to selI-interest. Just as my desire Ior the
kitchenless house emerged when I had small children, more women oI childbearing age joined the celibate Shaker societies than did men or women oI any other JJge
group or social circumstance.ll Added to utopianism's present Iocus, its accommodation oI selI-interest heightens its
potential Ior parochialism and creates the Ialse impression that analyzing a problem is tantamount to solving it,
when, in Iact, understanding what is wrong does not automatically reveal what is right (Richards 1980,38).
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
20

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 SUB1UGATED
WOMEN.

Haraway 97 (Donna, Ph.D Irom Yale, Distinguished ProIessor Emerita in the University oI CaliIornia, Taught Women`s Studies at the University oI Hawaii and
Johns Hopkins University. ModestWitnessSecondMillenium.FemaleManMeetsOncoMouse. Pgs. 41)
From a millennarian perspective, things are always getting worse. Evidence oI decay is exhilarating and mobilizing. Oddly, belieI in
advancing disaster is actually part oI a trust in salvation, whether deliverance is expected by sacred or pro-
revelations, through revolution, dramatic scientiIic breakthroughs, .or religious rapture. For example, Ior radical science activists like
me, the capitalist commodiIication oI the dance oI liIe is always advancing ominously; there is always evidence oI nastier and nastier technoscience dominations. An
emergency is always at hand, calling Ior the need Ior transIormative politics. For my twins, the true believers in the church oI
science, a cure Ior the trouble at hand is always promised. That promise justiIies the sacred status oI scientists, even, or especially,
outside their domains oI practical expertise. Indeed, the 574mise oI technoscience is, arguably, its principal social
weight. Dazzling promise has always been the underside oI the deceptively sober pose oI scientiIic rationality and modern progress within the culture oI no culture.
Whether unlimited clean energy through the peaceIul atom, artiIicial intelligence surpassing the merely human,
an impenetrable shield Irom the enemy within or without, or the prevention oI aging ever materializes is vastly less important than always
living in the time zone oI amazing promises. In relation to such dreams, the impossibility oI ordinary materialization is
intrinsic to the potency oI the promise. Disaster Ieeds radiant hope and bottomless despair, and I, Ior one, am satiated. We
pay dearly Ior living within the chronotope oI 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 oI the chronotope as a IIgure 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 oI cultural systems oI reIerence through which people enroll each other in
their realities. Bristling with ultimate threats and promises, drenched with the tones oI the apocalyptic and the comic, the gene and the computer both work as
chronotopes throughout ModestWitness SecondMillennium.

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, proIessor in the History oI Consciousness program at UC-Santa Cruz, 1996 (Donna, 'Modest
Witness: Feminist DiIIractions in Science Studies, %he Disunity of Science. Boundaries, ontexts, and Power,
431-2)
But there were conditions Ior being able to establish such Iacts 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 Ior the
experimental way oI liIe had to be rigorously deIined; not everyone could come in, and not everyone could
testiIy credibly. What counted as private and as public was very much in dispute in Boyle`s society. His opponents, especially Thomas Hobbes (1588-16790),
repudiated the experimental way oI liIe precisely because its knowledge was dependent on a practice oI witnessing by a special community, like that oI clerics and
lawyers. Hobbes saw the experimentalists to be part oI private, or even secret, and not civil, public space. Boyle`s 'open laboratory and its oIIspring evolved as a most
peculiar 'public space, with elaborate constraints on who legitimately occupies it: 'What in Iact 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 deIense lab, communicating only
to those with similar security clearances, and to be epistemologically in public, doing leading-edge science,
nicely cordoned oII Irom the venereal inIections oI 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 oI persuasion, and at the same time it
was constructed to be one oI the culture oI no-culture`s most highly regulated spaces. Managing the
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
21

public/private distinction has to be critical to the credibility oI the experimental way oI liIe. This novel way oI
liIe required a special, bounded community. Restructuring that spacematerially and epistemologicallyis very much at the heart oI late
twentieth-century reconsiderations oI what will count as the best science. Also, displaying the labor expended on stabilizing a matter oI Iact compromised its status.
Unmasking the labor required to Iact showed the possibility oI a rival account oI the matter oI Iact itselIa point not lost on Hobbes. Further, those actually, physically,
present at a demonstration could never be as numerous as those virtually present by means oI demonstration through the literary device oI the written report. Thus, the
rhetoric oI the modest witness, the 'naked way oI writing, unadorned, Iactual, compelling, was craIted. Only through such naked writing could the Iacts shine through,
unclouded by the Ilourishes oI any human author. Both the Iacts and the witnesses inhabit the privileged zones oI 'objective
reality through a powerIul writing technology. The technology is the Western scientiIic dream machine Ior the
escape Irom the utter materiality oI metaphoricity, the discrediting entrapments oI troping. II language could become
immaterial, in all senses oI the term Iigures and narratives could give way to explanations and Iacts. Ideas could not prevail until words were
subdued. And, Iinally, only through the routinization and instutionalization oI all three technologies Ior establishing matters oI Iact could the 'transposition onto
nature experimental knowledge be stably eIIected.
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 proIessor at the department oI Russia and east European studies; Nina, proIessor in gender and culture at the
department oI gender studies oI Linkoeping University, Comsodolphins: Feminist cultural studies oI technology, animals, and the sacred, p. 76-78)
To the Americans, the idea oI the universe as 'the high Irontier' or 'the new Irontier' has a strongly national-
romantically coloured meaning. The Irontier concept has deep roots in American history. ReIerring to the expansion towards the west in the nineteenth
century, 'the Irontier' represents the myth oI the borders to the 'Wild West', which challenged pioneers with promises oI Iertile land,
gold and a new liIe. At the same time, 'the Irontier' also signiIies the way into a tough, dangerous and unknown world.
This outlook has inIluenced the sense oI national identiIy so strongly that the myth oI the Irontier as being indispensable was even canonized in American
historiography in the Iirst halI oI the twentieth century. As the Irontier disappeared into the waves oI the PaciIic Ocean. The American historian Frederick J. Turner set
up a national monument to it, with his 'Irontier' thesis.1 His argument, which became immensely popular, speciIied the Irontier to the west as the matrix oI American
democracy and national character. The disappearance oI the Irontier, Turner warned, could seriously damage the development and identity oI the nation. Seen Irom this
perspective, the USA has been lacking a Irontier that could regenerate the national spirit Ior many decades now. As
iI in a healing response to this, the master narrative oI space Ilight came Iorward with alluring oIIers oI a new
mythical Irontier. Under the title The High Irontier: Human Colonies in Space (O'Neill 1978), a well-known proIessor oI physics, Gerard O'Neill, impressed by
the national successes in space oI the 1960s, contributed yet another enthusiastic chapter to the history oI the US Irontier myth. Even better, O'Neill's new Irontier
wholly overcomes : the problems raised by Turner. In contrast to the old Irontier, which was eventually devoured by the ocean,
the new one borders onto a 'wilderness' oI 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 oI the Vikings Ior a national-romantic icon to represent
the legendary voyage into the wild unknown, the Irontier myth sounds very alien. By contrast, to our American interviewees, this myth is an
unquestionable part oI their national identity. 'What has permeated the US since it was Iounded is going to the unknown,' JoAnn points out. She
considers the quest Ior the unknown, Ior new knowledge and adventure, to be part oI her national heritage. In others, this heritage has become so much second nature
that they even consider it to be an essential characteristic oI 'universal man's' biology. Dr B's version oI the Irontier myth goes as Iollows: 'Man has always
moved outwards ... II there was an ocean, we sailed across it. II 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 oI the beast.' In several discourses, a Turner-like argument pops up not only in a Iorm aiming to highlight the Irontier as a positive challenge,
but also in a negative version: what will happen to humanity iI we ignore this challenge? One oI several to voice this aspect, Irene strongly underlines the likelihood oI
intellectual degeneration should we Iail to constantly conIront new horizons. As iI echoing Turner, Shannon states that, since there is no more room Ior expansion on
Earth, we must venture into outer space to regain the pioneering spirit oI Iormer times. The cosmos is now 'the natural course oI advance'. A
major theme in the Irontier myth concerns the expansion oI the territory that we, in a physical, social and
scientiIic sense, can deIine as being domesticated - that is, the territory that we are able to utilize Ior our own
purposes. An expansion into the universe will, according to some o the interviewees, solve our demographic problems; others reIer to vision; oI mining the Moon
and the asteroids as a means oI overcoming (ht shortage oI natural resources on Earth. As part oI this line oI utilitariain expansionist arguments, the revolution in
communication technologies which depend on orbital satellites, is also emphasized. All oI these leitmotiIs appear in the legitimization oI space Ilight Co utilitarian
goals. But the desire Ior domestication represents only one side oI the Irontier myth, and should by no means
eliminate the existence oI the Irontier itselI In the cosmic-scale version oI the Irontier myth, the universe should
simultaneously be domesticated and remain a challenging gateway into the unknown.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
22
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
NUCLEAR OMNICIDE
Nhanenge 7 Jytte Masters at U South AIrica, paper submitted in part IulIilment oI the requirements Ior the degree oI master oI arts in the subject Development
Technology can be used to dominate societies or to enhance them. Thus both science and technology could have developed in a diIIerent direction. But due to
patriarchal values inIiltrated in science the type oI technology developed is meant to dominate, oppress, exploit
and kill. One reason is that patriarchal societies identiIy masculinity with conquest. Thus any technical innovation will
continue to be a tool Ior more eIIective oppression and exploitation. The highest priority seems to be given to
technology that destroys liIe. Modern societies are dominated by masculine institutions and patriarchal ideologies. Their
technologies prevailed in Auschwitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, AIghanistan and in many other
parts oI the world. Patriarchal power has brought us acid rain, global warming, military states, poverty and
countless cases oI suIIering. We have seen men whose power has caused them to lose all sense oI reality, decency and imagination, and we must Iear
such power. The ultimate result oI unchecked patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe and nuclear holocaust.
Such actions are denial oI wisdom. It is working against natural harmony and destroying the basis of existence. But as long as
ordinary people leave questions oI technology to the "experts" we will continue the Iorward stampede. As long
as economics Iocus on technology and both are the Iocus oI politics, we can leave none oI them to experts. Ordinary
people are oIten more capable oI 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: RE1ECT 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.
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 reIlect utopianism's desires. Realism can be an agent Ior social
change, but it typically starts Irom diIIerent premises than utopianism. Realism also seeks truth, but usually
through probing and complicating its variations rather than by deIending a Iixed position. Realism entails
validating knowledge, but it usually involves questioning rather than possessing it. Realism is more cognizant
oI ambiguity and contingency than utopianism tends to be. Realism enters the analysis when the arbitrary and
symbolic nature oI language is being explored, thereby revealing the mutability and Iluidity oI categories and
their labels. Realism recognizes that human knowledge and depictions oI truth may not constitute all knowledge
and truth. Realism considers the limits to establishing truth once and Ior 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 Ior their traitorous propensities and recognizes that even the
grandest oI ideas may contain the seeds oI their own destruction. Realism represents an alternative that seeks
the Iine line between the best and worst attributes oI 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.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
23
Link: Apocalypse
You can`t 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.
Johns Hopkins University. ModestWitnessSecondMillenium.FemaleManMeetsOncoMouse. Pgs. 10-11)
Auerbach examines Dante's development oI Iigural realism in %lie Divine C4medy. Dante's innovation was to draw the end oI man with such extraordinary vividness
and variety "that the listener is all too occupied by the Iigure in the IulIillment. . . . The Iullness oI liIe which Dante incorporates into that interpretation is so rich and so
strong that its maniIestations Iorce their way into the listener's soul independently oI any interpretation. The image oI man eclipses the image oI God" (1953:176). The
sense oI history as a totality remains in this humanist order, and the overwhelming power oI the images that
promise IulIillment (or damnation) on earth inIuses secular histories oI progress and apocalypse. Secular
salvation history depends on the power oI images and /the temporality oI ultimate threats and promises to
contain the heteroglossia ,and Ilux oI events. This is the sense oI time and oI representation that I think 'inIorms
technoscience in the United States. The discourses oI genetics and inIormation sciences are especially replete with
instances oI barely secularized Christian Iigural realism at work. The legacy oI Iigural realism is what puts my title's modest witness in the
sacred secular time zones oI the end oI the Second Millennium and the New World Order. Second Millennium is thetime machine that has to be.repro-grarnmed by
Nili's heretics, inIidels, and jews, who, it is crucial to remember, "have always considered getting knowledge part oI being human." Challenging the
material-semiotic practices oI technoscience is in the interests oI a deeper, broader, and more open scientiIic
literacy, which this book will call situated knowledges. Figuration has many meanings besides, or intersecting with, those proper to the
legacy oI Christian realism.* Aristotelian "Iigures oI discourse" are about the spatial arrangements in rhetoric. A Iigure is geometrical and rhetorical;
topics and tropes are both spatial concepts. The "Iigure" is die French term Ior the Iace, a meaning kept in English in the notion oI the lineaments
oI a story. "To Iigure" means to count or calculate and also to be in a story, to have a role. A Iigure is also a drawing. Figures pertain to graphic representation and
visual Iorms in general, a matter oI no small importance in visually saturated technoscientiIic culture. Figures do not have to be representational and mimetic, but they
do have to be tropic; that is, they cannot be literal and selI-identical. Figures must involve at least some kind oI displacement that can trouble identiIications and
certainties. Figurations are perIormative images that can be inhabited. Verbal or visual, Iigurations can be condensed maps oI contestable
worlds. All language, including mathematics, is Iigurative, that is, made oI tropes, constituted by bumps that make us swerve Irom hterd-mindedness.
I emphasize Iiguration to make explicit and inescapable the tropic quality oI all material-semiotic processes, es-
pecially in technoscience. For example, think oI a small set oI objects into whkhJjVesand .wor|ds are builtchip, gene, seed, Ietus, database, bomb,
race, brain, ecosystem. This mantralike list is made up oI`imploded atoms or dense nodes that explode into entire worlds oI practicevThe chip, seed, or gene is si-
multaneously literal and Iigurative. We inhabit and are inhabited by such Iigures that map universes oI knowledge, practice
and power. To read such maps with mixed and diIIerentia| literacies and without the totality, appropriations,
apocalyptic disasters, comedic resolutions, and salvation histories oI secularized Christian realism is the task oI the
mutated modest witness.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
24
Link: Beyond the Earth`s 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 diIIerent tack, emphasizing degrees oI distance within locality, and examining
intersections oI place, power and time implicit in the location and operation oI a vast technical network. For iI we incorporate
colonial history into our considerations oI science and technology, do we not always, continually, need to ask what it
might mean Ior something to be somewhere relative to somewhere else? My Iocus 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 reIlects a practical shadow oI empire. 10 I mean by this two things.
The Iirst is that space represents a kind oI stabilization oI elsewhere`, and its removal Irom the globe. From the
very inception oI inIluential modern dreams oI space exploration, the masculine adventure oI earthly
colonialism was a constant reIerent, and the temporal pairing oI rocket launches and the greatest anti-colonial movements only accentuated the
parallel. 11 Indeed, the realization oI outer space its initial domestication iI you will represents the eIIective provincialization oI
terrestrial empire Irom above. Once a Iew white men moved beyond the atmosphere they became newly, artiIicially human by virtue oI the nonhuman
space around them, cast as universal representatives by virtue oI their transcendent, hazardous location. Once extended beyond the planet, modernity acquired the
possibility oI another geographic Irame, intermingled with a new temporal order. Whatever the past may have been, the Iuture 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 oI connection, dislocation
and the possibility oI an ever-longer network. Just as an imperial outpost signiIied not only itselI but also the expansion oI 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 oI launch vehicles and a swarming oI satellites, and a representational one. For looking
up Irom the ground implies a motion away Irom 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 oI the more obvious traces oI empire in dreams oI space travel.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
25
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 Irom University oI CaliIornia, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean, ProIessor oI 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 a twist on the "truth is stranger than Iiction" maxim, this paper examines a married couple Ilew together on a U.S. space shuttle
mission, generating a Ilurry oI 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 oI legitimacy Ior NASA in an age oI uncertain and ever-diminishing resources. We argue that
the emergent controversy over "sex in space" is shaped by intersecting and mutually reinIorcing discourses
about gender, sex, and reproduction in the contemporary United States. Our argument rests on three core Iindings. First, gender
diIIerences are constructed at multiple "spaces" within this domain; males bodies are equated with masculinity
and are accepted as the norm, while Iemale bodies are equated with Iemininity and are conIigured as
problematic. Women astronauts are deIined simultaneously as potential sexual partners Ior male astronauts and
as potential reproducers in the interest oI colonization. Second, sexual practices are Iramed exclusively within
the heterosexual paradigm, which leaves Iew "spaces" Ior other sexualities. Third, sexuality is explicitly and
invariably linked to reproduction, reIlecting and reinIorcing heterosexist assumptions about sexual behavior. Yet,
reproduction in a space environment is potentially damaging to missions because human bodies are physiologically transIormed by microgravity and radiation. Thus, as
Iar as NASA is concerned, astronauts should neither copulate nor reproduce; within the heterosexual paradigm, preventing sex in space becomes a strategy Ior
preventing reproduction in space. In short, contemporary accounts oI sex and reproduction in space, like Star Trek and its progeny, inscribe human bodies and Iutures,
and in so doing tell us a great deal about who "we" are at present. A key theoretical concept inIorming our analysis is inscription. What exactly do we mean by
"inscribing bodies, inscribing the Iuture"? Within cultural studies, Ior example, inscription is deIined as the act oI "writing" culture onto
bodies and/ or subjectivities through a variety oI 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 Iiction have
been important cultural "spaces" where new possibilities and Ireedoms are imagined. Space is constructed in these accounts as a site at
which liberatory practices may (or may not) occur. OIten, Iictional humans depart a troubled Earth to begin
again on another planet, although not without a Iair amount oI hardship and hardwork in their new, intergalactic
American Dream. It is precisely this vision oI possibility and Ireedom that draws people to science
Iiction(LeIanu1989;Kuhn1990;Barr 1993)and also to the seemingly inIinite possibilities oIIered by the space program. Yet, we argue
that inscribing the Iuture has a negative and pernicious side, as well. Contemporary discourses and practices negate many types oI
Iuture Ireedoms, both on Earth and in space. These inscriptions shape our lives proIoundly, while they
simultaneously shape what could, might, and should occur in space in an uncertain Iuture. To cite one example,
heterosexist Iramings preclude other sexualities by highlighting sex in space as a social and scientiIic problem
Ior NASA, which must screen out homosexuality and other "deviant" practices in order to proceed with its
agenda oI exploration. Thus, we suggest that within these cultural "spaces," some inscriptions are disallowed
while others are relentlessly pursued. Inscription, then, is a multiIaceted practice imbued with both pleasures
and dangers. II people are not earthbound, as aviation history and the space program have illustrated with oIten stellar successes, then neither is sociology. Adding
a sociological spin to inscription, we Iocus on the social relations within which diIIerent types oI inscriptions occur. We suggest that "space" is both an
actual spatial site Ior certain practices and a symbolic and material screen onto which earthbound activities are
projected and reIracted. Yet, there is considerable traIIic between Earth and space, not only in terms oI shuttle and satellite missions but also symbolically
via Ilights oI the imagination. Much oI the space program actually takes place on Earth, Ior example in the scientiIic, economic, and institutional planning required Ior
each mission. Yet, as on Earth, humans in space interact with each other in myriad ways, solve a range oI problems, cope with technical diIIiculties and deal with orders
Irom Mission Control. All oI this collective activity takes place within the institutional context oI NASA and the U.S. space program as well as the broader social,
political, and economic context oI international space travel. In short, a number oI dimensions oI space travel are open to sociological investigation. Sociology, in our
view, should not end at the Van Allen Belt, that astrophysical "boundary" oI intense ionizing radiation surrounding Earth.2
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
26
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.

Much US outer space discourse presents a vision oI the human colonization oI 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` (CrawIord 2005: 260). Regulating such discourse, however, is the normative assumption that space
is a masculine` environment, a territory best suited to the perIormance oI colonial conquest, and an arena Ior
warIare and the display oI 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 oI woman`, and the physical and
psychological constraints that woman`s body` brings to spacefight and exploration. NASA, Ior example, in
identiIying gender related` diIIerences aIIecting the eIfcacy and eIIects oI spacefight and travel, Iocus
exclusively on the physiological diIIerences between men and women (bone density, blood fow, hormonal and metabolic
diIIerences, etc.). As Casper and Moore argue, NASA`s heterosexist Iramings oI these issues highlight sex in space as a social
and scientifc 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 oI space travel` (ibid.: 316). By
identiIying only woman` with sex`, and the ostensibly sexualized Ieatures` oI women`s bodies` (Butler 1990: 26), a
certain, heterosexist, order and identity is eIIectively instituted in US outer space discourse. Fundamentally, the
hierarchies oI power, identity and cultural and sexual assumption that inIuse outer space politics are no diIIerent
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 belieI that the human colonization oI outer space is natural, essential to,
and even inevitable Ior, humanity, are Iounded on a conceptualization oI universal` human society dependent
on the kind oI 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 eIIect a highly singular and culturally specifc construction oI identity, one deeply embedded in the liberal
belieI that humanity needs a sense oI Ireedom` and choice` (Seguin 2005: 981); that it was our` grandparents who
thought exploring AIrica was an adventure (Mendell 2005: 10), and not AIricans themselves; that the scientifc
revolution` sprang Irom the unusual pragmatic and classless entrepreneurship oI US society` that promoted
commercialization and innovative marketing oI 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 Irontier oI human endeavour), there is actually very
little about US outer space discourse that suggests humanity has transcended the gendered politics oI planet
Earth. To understand the reproduction oI heterosexualized gender identities as a Iactor in US policy-making,
demands, as Dean suggests, not only a shiIt oI emphasis toward the construction oI particular kinds oI elite
masculinities`, but also consideration oI the historical milieu that produced such men` (Dean 2001: 4). George W. Bush has,
Irequently throughout his speeches, harked back to bygone eras oI masculine Iortitude, resilience and vigour by, Ior example, invoking the crusader zeal oI the Christian
Knights (2001) or the prevailing resolve` oI those Americans who did not waver in Ireedom`s cause` at Pearl Harbor in 1941 (Bush 2005a). In his second term
inauguration speech, Bush invokes the Founding Fathers` declaration oI a new order oI the ages` and the bravery oI the soldiers who died in wave upon wave Ior a
union based on liberty` in his call to conquer resentment and tyranny` by spreading liberty` and Ireedom` across the world. He fnishes, in a turn oI phrase reminiscent
oI Kennedy`s inaugural address in 1961, 5 to state that America: proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereoI. Renewed in our strength
tested, but not weary we are ready Ior the greatest achievements in the history oI Ireedom` (2005b). Similarly, in a 2004 speech to announce a new Space Exploration
Program, President Bush calls Ior the US to continue its quest` into outer space in the spirit oI discovery` that inIused the journeys oI the American Irontiersmen` (the
daring`, disciplined`, ingenious`, risktaking` pioneers that Bush believes astronauts to be) who led their way into the western wilderness` oI eighteenth-century
North America:

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
27
Link: Colonization
Colonization discourse ignores the problematics of space pregnancy.

Space pregnancy is also presumed to be risky, and solutions to the "problem" oI Iemale Iertility 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 Iemale contraception in space in order to prevent pregnancy. The latter practice is seen by one
scientist as a way oI "decoupling" sex and reproduction, enabling Iemale astronauts to be "sexual beings" while
avoiding the consequences-both physiological and sociopolitical-oI reproduction.28 However, this inIormant's
"decoupling" discourse makes sense only within a heterosexist Iramework in which Iertile Iemales have sex
with Iertile 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 inIormant remarked
that "childbirth is a particularly traumatic experience, there is usually some blood loss. Now, let's suppose that there are complications, don't Iorget you have six to eight
people in an environment no bigger than a bathroom and you have a liIe support system that has been designed to take care oI these people." Pregnant women may have
diIIerent needs than other crew members in terms oI nutrition, oxygen, water, and physical space, all oI which may be in short supply on long-term missions. One
inIormant believes that space pregnancies may also threaten crew social dynamics because other crew members may resent the pregnant astronaut. Male
astronauts may be "particularly resentIul" as they are, in the words oI an inIormant, "especially bad at coping
with kids." In addition, animal studies have indicated that while ovulation, copulation, and Iertilization may occur in space, there are potentially serious
implications Ior resulting oIIspring (Santy, Jennings, and Craigie 1989). According to one inIormant, a reproductive scientist, embryos and Ietuses may be impaired
during space Ilight. The physical movement necessary Ior Ietal development on Earth may be impossible in a weightless environment. II Ietuses experience the same
physiological deconditioning that adults do, this could severely impact Ietal growth and development. This raises a possibility that Ietuses which develop in a space
environment may be unable physiologically to return to Earth once they are born. Would IiscaL material, and moral responsibility Ior "space babies" then Iall on the
astronauts who birth them, or on the country, corporation, or movie star who sponsored the mission? ScientiIic accounts oI sexual reproduction
thus stress the problematic nature oI Iemale bodies and raise a number oI intriguing questions about the
construction oI sex diIIerences in outer space.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
28
Link: Colonization
Attempts to deny our reliance on the Earth are a rejection of the feminine, resulting in environmental
destruction.

Plumwood 93 (Val, Australian ecoIeminist, Australian Research Council Fellow at the Australian National University, Ph.D Australian National University,
Feminism and the Mastery oI Nature, Feminism Ior Today, p. 70 -71)

The polarizing eIIect oI radical exclusion Iacilitates the conclusion that there are two quite diIIerent sorts oI substances or orders oI being in the world; Ior example,
mind and body, humans and nature. There is a total break or discontinuity between humans and nature, such that humans are completely diIIerent Irom everything else
in nature. Radical exclusion in the human/nature case takes various Iorms. A
major diIIerence in kind is assumed to exist between humans and nature, and in a situation oI both similarities and dissimilarities or discontinuities between humans and
non-humans, it is discontinuity which is characteristically stressed in western thought. The characterization oI the genuinely, properly, characteristically, or authentically
human, or oI human virtue, in polarized terms that exclude the natural` is what John Rodman has called the DiIIerential Imperative` (Rodman 1980; Gouldner
1965:122). Here what is virtuous in the human is taken to be what maximizes human diIIerentia, and hence what minimizes links to nature and the animal. The
ideals which are held up as truly worthy oI a human liIe exclude those aspects associated with the body, sexuality,
reproduction, aIIectivity, emotionality, the senses and dependence on the natural world, Ior these are shared with
the natural and animal; instead they stress reason, which is thought to separate humans Irom the sphere oI nature. Discontinuity is obtained via
an account oI human identity and virtue which eliminates overlap with the animal within`, or polarises this as not truly part oI the selI or
as belonging to a lower, baser animal` part oI selI. The human species is thus deIined out oI 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 oI human identity in which humans
are essentially apart Irom or outside oI nature, having no true home in it or allegiance to it. They stand apart Irom it as masters or external controllers oI nature.
Attempts to Irame an alternative to this alienated identity tend to speak vaguely oI humans as part oI nature`, but rarely clariIy what is involved and oIten seem to be
just reminding us oI the platitude that our Iate as humans is interconnected with that oI the biosphere, that we are subject to natural laws. But human/nature dualism is
the reason why we have to be reminded oI this apparently obvious truth. The key to existential homelessness and to our denial oI our dependence on
nature is the dualistic treatment oI the human/ nature relationship, the view oI the essentially or authentically human part oI the selI,
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 oI dependence only
occasionally takes the Iorm oI denying that humans are essentially embodied or have links to (have evolved Irom) nature. But the Iailure to conceive
ourselves as essentially or positively in nature leads easily into a Iailure to commit ourselves to the care oI the planet and
to encourage sustainable social institutions and values which can acknowledge deeply and Iully our dependence on and ties to the earth. Modern world-views
continue to treat links to nature as either negative or inessential constituents oI the human. What is involved also in the
rationalist account oI human virtue is the rejection oI those parts oI the human character identiIied as Ieminine and with
the lower order oI subsistence. This model identiIies these areas also as less than Iully human, and stresses ideals such as rationality,
Ireedom and transcendence oI nature which mark the situation oI an elite masculine identity. This hyperseparated conception oI the
human expresses the master perspective, and his desire to exclude women, slaves and animals and keep his distance Irom 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.

GriIIin 06 (Penny, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at the University oI New South Wales, Australia, Ph.D U. oI Bristol, The Spaces Between
Us: The Gendered Politics oI 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 Ior
the production oI gender identity` (2004: 30). But male dominance within what we deIine as 'the international is not the only reason Ior thinking
about a gendered global arena`, we also need to examine the impact oI these masculinist assumptions` (ibid.: 31). Space, constructed through a
heteronormative, heterosexual, regulatory Iramework, as a particular Irontier to be conquered and colonised,
involves particular constructions oI gender identity. The result is the creation and perpetuation in anglo-
american discourse oI outer space as an emptiness and void; the conquest oI heterosexual man over nature.
Discursive hierarchies oI technologically superior, conquesting perIormance are imbued with their everyday
power through an implicitly gendered Iramework Ior understanding both the Earthly and extraterrestrial
environments, and it is through gender that US political discourses oI outer space have been able to (re)produce
outer space as a masculinized, heterosexualized realm.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
29
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 oI "Virtual Corporeality: A Feminist View, Exterminating Fetuses: Abortion,
Disarmament, and the Sexo-Semiotics oI Extraterrestrialism. Vol. 14, No. 2, Nuclear Criticism, pp. 55)

The absolutist logic oI the Pro-LiIers Ior Survival line, and the dichotomies structuring the abortion debate, are
symptomatic oI the very mode oI thought which has placed extinction within our reach: that peculiarly
masculinist mode which has stubbornly devalued the visible orderings and multiply-embedded character oI
terrestrial liIe in Iavor oI the decontextualized abstractions oI Jupiter Space. The binarist logic oI masculinist
thought is stumped by contextual relations like that oI the Ietus to the woman's body, and on the subject oI
reproduction, it still employs an Aristotelian model which accords all oI the transIormative, generative power to
males and reduces Iemales to mere nurturant vessels Ior male seeds. 2001 is clearly working on this model: all
oI the embryological imagery is associated with men and their tools, and Mother Earth keeps getting leIt out oI
the picture. Pro-choice activistJanetGallaghercomplains about the level oI abstractionwhich arises in discussions with pro-liIers,and observes: There'sa way in
which the Ietus is discussed as though it were not within a living woman. As iI that woman didn't exist. .. .9 Dr. J. C. Wilke Irom the National Rightto LiIeCommittee
has claimed that pro-choice Iorces "doviolence to marriageby helping remove the rightoI a husbandto protectthe child he has Iathered in his wiIe's womb."10This
statement expresses the kernel oI the masculinistIertility complex, which disappears the woman/wiIe/mother into the protecting superwomb oI patriarchalculture and
accords male semen all the Iertile power. This same Dr. Wilke in 1973 copyrighted a luridanti-abortionIlyer containing graphic depictions oI dead Ietuses and
sensational descriptions oI unborn liIe. The back page oI this Ilyer is interesting on several counts. The Iar 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 Iirst person's social problem," brings Iorward an aspect oI the abortion
question which tends to be glossed under the legalist rhetoricoI "choice,"namely, that social and economic conditions are so unIriendlyto children and mothers that
many women Ieel they have no choice but to terminate their pregnancies. The Ilyer's middle panel, oI babies dead in the garbage and the title "Humangarbage,"can be
read as symptomatic oI anxiety over the wastage oI liIe which would resultIrom a nuclear war. The New Right'srhetoricoI "deIense"and "protection"oI Ietal liIe is
similarlyresonent with militaristicscenarios. ButoI particular interest here is the origin story which appears on the leIt panel. Its text is as Iollows: Did you "come Irom"a
human baby? No! Youonce were a baby. Did you "come Irom"a human Ietus? No! Youonce were a Ietus. Did you "come Irom"a Iertilizedovum? No! You once were a
Iertilizedovum. A Iertilizedovum? Yes!You were then everything you are today. A line is then drawn across the column, and underneath it the Iollowing words appear in
heavy type: Nothing has been added to the Iertilized ovum who you once were except nutrition. The Ietus here is all mouth, the mother all Iood, and the pregnancy
entirely spermatic. The line between these lastsections is particularlyinteresting,given what we already know oI Dr. Wilke's attitude to Iathering. The text here "drawsthe
line" at a point where biological knowledge constrains it Irom assertingsomething it really believes. IIwe put this line under a microscope, it would probably read as
Iollows: Did you "come Irom"your Iather'ssperm? No!YouoncewereyourIather'ssperm. Where does the pro-liIeIetus exist, iI not in livingwoman's body?The Irontcover
oI this Ilyer gives us one answer: the dead Ietus is in the man's hands. One pro-liIe lawyer has been quoted as saying "theIetus might well be described as an astronautin
an interuterinespace ship.""1He is correct:the Ietus is a decontextualized abstractionoI JupiterSpace, which here means patriarchalconsciousness. It is an overblown
symbol oI the parasiticmale ego, and more generally, oI the corporate Superbabies which Ieed oII 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 Ietal
person seem less about liIe and more about preventing its termination: the New Right is not so much "pro-liIe"
as "anti-abortion." Like the Star Child, the pro-liIe Ietus arises as the negation oI liIe's negation, through which
the male ego resurrects itselI as a spermatic creation. And like the Star Child, this other inhabitant oI Jupiter
Space may also stand Ior extinction. One pro-choice activist has claimed that the notion oI Ietal personhood is a
relatively new one, which is "taking a Iorm that has its own energy, almost like a religious cult." We look again
to the Iilm 2001 Ior clues to the source oI this energy. The astral Ietus is visually equated with the planet, and in
the last Irame, substituted Ior it: it becomes a world oI its own. At one level, then, the Ietus is working as a
symbol Ior the Earth. It is a cosmic symbol. It is not entirely inappropriate that the planet be represented by a
signiIier oI unborn liIe, Ior it presently contains all oI the possibilities Ior Iuture liIe Iorms. From this
perspective, disarmament might be seen as an act to prevent a cosmic abortion.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
30
LINK: COOPERATION

We should approach the idealistic appeal to cooperation skeptically. Abstract appeals to
cooperation obscure the gendered origins of conflict.

PETERSON, proIessor oI political science at the University oI Arizona, and RUNYAN, associate proIessor oI
political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993(V Spike and Anne, lobal ender Issues, p 14)

Just as realism makes conIlict more visible and idealism makes cooperation more visible, this text makes gender
more visible. In the process, it exposes distortions and limitations oI conventional accounts. Existing Irameworks do
not adequately explain the nature, sources, and levels oI conIlict and cooperation in world politics. In Iact, one
begins to see that traditional IR accounts can misread situations oI conIlict and cooperation by Iailing to analyze
the diIIerence that gender makes.
The affirmative`s claims of international cooperation are nothing but cultural stereotypes meant
to placate international intrigue, relying on the subordination of women for internal stability.
PENLEY, proIessor oI Iilm and media studies at UC Santa Barbara, 1997 (Constance
S%REK. Popular Science and Sex in merica, 50)

II the Challenger disaster has been compulsively repeated, so has the mismanagement oI the meanings oI
women in space. To understand the treatment oI McAuliIIe was no anomaly or exception, it is illustrative to consider the case oI
Roberta Bondar, the Iirst Canadian woman in space, whose Discovery mission was launched on January 22, 1992. Bondar just wanted to be
seen as qualiIied and competent doctor-scientist-astronaut, but everyone wanted to represent something Ior them. NASA, in yet another eIIort to
imbue itselI with Star-Trek-like multiculturalism released a picture oI Bondar dressed up in a Royal Canadian
Mounties uniIorm posing with Iellow Discovery astronaut Norman Thagard, a graduate oI Florida State
University, decked out as the university`s (controversial) mascot, Seminole ChieI Osceola. Bondar said she didn`t mind,
especially given the choice oI dressing up perhaps as a beaver or as a Mountie. And though the Canadian Space Agency strongly objected
to the photograph`s dissemination to the media (probably because oI 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 Bush`s desire to present an image oI a US-Canadian unity
in the aItermath oI 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 'Iriend Brian Mulroney.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
31
LINK: Data transparency
The claim of a fully transparent system reifies hierarchical divisions between objectivity and subjectivity.
Franklin, proIessor in the department oI sociology at Lancaster University,1995 (Sarah, 'science as culture, cultures oI science, nnual Review of
Anthropology, 24, 166)

Although a pro- and antiscience division is oIten drawn between critical science studies, such as the study oI science as culture by anthropologists, and so-called real
science undertaken by proIessional scientists, this is one oI many divisions, or borders, deIining science that are currently breaking down (92, 93, 106), Science studies
has its own groupings that divide along the Iaultlines oI "realism" vs "relativism," the view oI science as knowledge or practice, the validity oI constructivist or
objectivist approaches to science, and the question oI where science is located (124, 150), Many oI the same contentious issues seen to be at stake between critical
science studies and mainstream scientiIic practice are in Iact reproduced within science studiesan isomorphism that is oIten least surprising Irom an anthropological
vantage point, which would see both intellectual traditions as derivative oI a shared cultural context. In other words, certain cultural values are equally invisible within
both science studies and within science itselI. The claim, Ior example, that empiricism can be unmarked, that is, can provide an
evidentiary basis that "speaks Ior itselI," is aIter all a point oI view, and one that may be held by science studies
scholars as well as by scientists themselves. Moreover, it is a point oI view with a history that establishes a cultural
tradition: the tradition oI "value-neutrality" or transparency. To distinguish between pure and applied
knowledge, between hard and soIt sciences invokes not only this value system, but the hierarchical nature oI it,
thus exempliIying the kind oI cultural Iact 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 oI London, 2004 (Nirmal, Space Invaders. Race, ender and Bodies out of Place, 82-3)
In spite oI the bourgeois representation oI political debate as being all about disembodied reason and outside bodily
and aIIective particularity, theorists oI embodiment, particularly Ieminists, have argued that the body and aIIectivity are
actually integral to political speech and debate. Joan Landes reminds us that style and decorum are not incidental
traits but constitutive Ieatures oI the way in which embodied, speaking subjects establish claims oI the universal
in politics` (1998: 144). The speech, voices, styles and decorum oI the bodies that utter parliamentary speech are heavily masculinised. And, in Iact, the
bodily gestures, movements and enactments reveal strong traces oI gentriIied heroic masculinity. Despite the
claims oI bourgeois rationality, aggression continues to play a huge role in the perIormance oI public debate. One
could see the Chamber as a theatre where displays oI aggression are, as one MP put it, cloaked in Iine sounding words` Ior a spectatorial public perIormance (see Huet
1982). The two swords` length and a Ioot apart architectural structure oI the Chamber is itselI combative (interestingly, there is still a riIle-range in the House).
Furthermore, it is a theatricalised public sphere scripted Ior male perIormances. Tough, ruthless, aggressive
behaviour is admired. Those who are able to humiliate their opponents through highly articulate perIormances
which re-enact the violence and theatrical Iorce Iound 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 (SteIan, ProIessor oI North American Culture and Literature, University oI Siegen, Germany, "Astronautic Subjects: Postmodern Identity and the
Embodiment oI Space in American Science Fiction", Gender Forum, Issue 16, 2006, http://www.genderIorum.org/index.php?id311)
11 This rhetoric is not only charged with images oI progress, technology, and emancipation, it is also highly
gendered. In his introduction to Halacy's Cyborg - The Evolution oI the Superman, Clynes makes the Iollowing observation: "A new word was created
in 1960 to describe a new concept Ior man's venture into space: Become a superman; live in space as at home - iI possible,
better than home! Do not take into space earth's hindrances and encumbrances. Be a Iree spirit in space, weightless and not weighted down by the
limitations oI terrestrial ancestry." (7) The deployment oI Nietzschean imagery in Clyne's statement (and, above all, in Halacy's book) is symptomatic oI a
phallogocentric approach. Masculinity here Iunctions not only as an indicator oI technology and progress, but also as an
agent oI democracy itselI. Given the background oI the Cold War, the astronautic superman in 1960s cultural iconography
had to be male and masculine, Iighting Ior the tenets oI Western civilization. His voyage into distant spheres is
marked as evidence oI his energy and will-power. Donna Haraway contends that such images echo the old myth oI man as
tool-maker, according to which "man makes everything, including himselI out oI the world that can only be resource
and potency to his project and active agency" ("Promises" 297).
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
32
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 oI Art Degree in International Development Studies at the University oI South AIrica (UNISA), 'EcoIeminism: towards
integrating the concerns oI women, poor people, and nature into development.)

From the above it Iollows that development devastates wholesome and sustainable liIestyles oI women and traditional people in the South. It
creates scarcity oI natural resources and excludes an increasing number oI adult and children Irom their entitlement to Iood. This leads to
malnutrition, sickness, poverty, misery and death. Conclusively development has become a threat to the survival oI
the great maj ority in the South. Rather that being a strategy Ior poverty alleviation, bringing about a good liIe, development is creating
complex crises oI inequality and poverty, violence and war, environmental destruction and abuse oI human
rights. Those worst hit by development's destruction are women, children, traditional people, poor people and nature. II this is the outcome oI development, then it
becomes urgent to analyze its underlying values in order to understand what has gone wrong and to suggest some Iundamental changes. The problem is consequently
that mainstream development has Iailed its purpose. It set out to create a good liIe Ior people, but instead its activities have become detrimental to human and natural
well-being and a risk Ior continuation oI existence. This is where ecoIeminism comes in. Since the crises caused by economic development
are suIIered mainly by women, poor people and nature, alleviation oI the crises must include reality as it is seen Irom the
point oI view oI this group. That is exactly what ecoIeminism does. By its ecological and Ieminist Iocus the ecoIeminist perspective
becomes a countermeasure to the dominant development approach. The purpose oI this study is thereIore to explore development as
perceived Irom an ecoIeminist perspective. The Iirst task is to discover how ecoIeminism views development. From the outcome oI this critique, we must try to
understand why development activities have such detrimental eIIects on women, poor people and nature. The second task is to explore other ways oI initiating social
change, which can include the concerns oI 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 oI this critique is
inIormative and oI a high quality. However, only a Iew oI them are based on an ecoIeminist perspective. An ecoIeminist view is unique. Due to its holistic perception, it
can combine and integrate all oI the above critical issues in development. This approach comes Irom the ecoIeminist conviction that there exists an interconnection
between the domination oI women, poor people, traditional people, and the domination oI nature. Or said diIIerently, ecoIeminism Iinds that whenever women
and poor people are dominated by development, then as per deIinition nature is also dominated and vice versa. Thus, exploitation
oI women, poor people and 4 nature are linked. This link is signiIicant, since exploring it reveals that development is reductionist because it is
Iounded on a Western, patriarchal, dualised structure. This structure continuously, consistently, and unjustiIiably dominates what it deIines 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 oI "others" also contains any elements considered Ieminine like emotion, care, intuition and cooperation; plus all qualitative issues like ethics,
aesthetics, and spirituality. Literature that critique development Ior being a reductionist and dualised perspective is limited. Many new ecoIeminist ideas and thoughts
are being developed. However, to present an overview oI these and to show their relevance in development has been overlooked due to the earlier negative Iocus. There
is consequently a deIiciency in the development literature when it comes to explore, gather and describe the diverse ecoIeminist contribution to the development
dialogue. It is this deIiciency I try, in a limited way, to correct by this research. With the aim to proliIerate the understanding oI ecoIeminism, and by that also showing
its importance, this study describes what ecoIeminism is; it explores what ecoIeminism considers being the root causes oI development's Iailure; and it tries to discover
how ecoIeminists perceive a possible non-dominant world, where the realities oI women, poor people and nature are included.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
33
Link: Development
Domination means that we can never solve for the problems that the Aff claims to solve.


Domination by the Masters has distorted human knowledge oI the world, which now is threatening our survival.
The Iuture thereIore depends on our ability to create a truly democratic and ecological culture beyond dualism. The book
speciIically Iocuses on the relationship between women and nature, and between ecological Ieminism and other Ieminist theories. However, it also shows how a
Ieminist critique oI the dominant rationality can be extended to integrate theories oI gender, race and class
oppression with that oI the domination oI nature. Exploring the contribution Ieminist 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 oI the environmental crises and the culture oI denial, which blocks response to it. I was
grateIul Ior Val Plumwood's important input about how dualism Iunctions. It is used in chapter 4. However, other parts oI her brilliant work are incorporated in chapter
6 and 7 as well. Noel Sturgeon is an assistant proIessor oI Women's Studies at Washington State University. She is also a long time activist. Her 1997 book "EcoIeminist
natures; race, gender, Ieminist theory and political action" demonstrates in convincing details how theory is politics and how politics is theory. The book is a critique oI
an ecoIeminism, which is in danger oI being stereotyped as an essentialist dogma, Irozen at one historical moment. Instead, she advocates an evolving theory-in-
practice as an important element in ecoIeminism. Since she is both a scholar and an activist, she is able in her critique to oIIer Iresh insights that will be immediately
useIul. Sturgeon has by Donna Haraway (book cover) been called a Iierce and loving critic and a keen-eyed participant in the movements she describes. She is attentive
to complex relations oI power and the many Iorms oI political action in which ecoIeminism must be situated. Her book has thereIore important implications Ior social
movement theory, Ior anti-racist Ieminist theory, and Ior environmental studies. The book is inspiring and makes a real contribution to Ieminist scholarship as engaged
political practice. Sturgeon's work made essential contributions to this study due to her clarity in seeing ecoIeminism as "a moment" in the development discourse. lowe
chapter 6 part III, and a new understanding oI essentialism to Sturgeon's excellent book. Van dana Shiva is a physicist, philosopher and Ieminist. She works as a director
oI the Research Foundation Ior Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, in Dehradun, India. Shiva is an internationally re-owned ecoIeminist. 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"
Irom 1989 was highly inIluential in shaping the debate as well as inspiring 27 alternative development thinking. Her later works has only reinIorced this. Shiva Iocuses
on the socio-economic links between the domination oI women and nature. Her works Iundamentally questions the Western model oI development as the only possible
model. Instead, she Iinds that development is an extension oI colonialism. She perceives the Western mode oI development as violence and
terrorism in theory and in practice, thereIore it should more correctly be called maldevelopment. In her opinion, mal-development rests on Ialse, male-
bias assumptions; it is bereIt oI the Ieminine ecological principles; it neglects nature's work in selI-renewal and women's work
in producing sustenance. The critique oI development's values has lead Shiva to redeIine terms like development, progress, sustainability, productivity, poverty and
wealth. She has outlined the validity oI marginal people's know ledges in the search Ior 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 oI close observation oI natural processes. An important
contribution is Shiva's alternative value oI poverty. She diIIerentiates between real material poverty and culturally perceived poverty. She questions the assumptions that
rural Southern people who live sustainably Irom 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 eIIects on local cultures and liIestyles. Shiva has used the Chipko movement as a basis Ior her analysis. In her more
recent works, Shiva is Iocusing on the dominant powers oI biotechnology. Shiva is probably the most well known ecoIeminist in the development discourse. Studying
her works completely changed my perception regarding my own cultural background and the development discourse it promotes. Her description oI the Indian
cosmology helped me to make the combination between ecoIeminism and the yin and yang terminology. I Iind her a genius and I am grateIul Ior sharing her insight.
(Seabrook 1993: 10; Braidotti et al1994: 90, 9395, 109-110; Warren 2000: 25-26).
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
34
Link Economy

Their discourse of economics puts a price on all material goods-results in war and environmental
destruction that causes extinction
Nhanenge 7 Jytte Masters U South AIrica, paper submitted in part IulIilment oI the requirements Ior the degree oI master oI arts in the subject Development

There is today an increasing critique oI 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 oI development aid Ior more than halI 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 oI global economic activities has intensiIied due to the escalating
deterioration oI the natural environment. Modernization, industrialisation and its economic activities have been
directly linked to increased scarcity oI natural resources and generation oI pollution, which increases global temperatures
and degrades soils, lands, water, Iorests and air. The latter threat is oI great signiIicance, because without a healthy environment
human beings and animals will not be able to survive. Most people believed that modernization oI the world would improve material well-
being Ior all. However, Iaced with its negative side eIIects and the real threat oI extinction, one must conclude that
somewhere along the way "progress" went astray. Instead oI 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 oI people live in misery.
These poor people are marginalized by the global economic system. They are Iorced to survive Irom 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 Ior themselves and
demand a Iair share oI the world's resources. The majority oI these people are women, children, traditional peoples, tribal peoples, people oI colour and materially
poor people (called women and Others). They are, together with nature, dominated by the global system oI economic
development imposed by the North. It is this scenario, which is the subject oI the dissertation. The overall aim is consequently to discuss the unjustiIied
domination oI women, Others and nature and to show how the domination oI women and Others is interconnected with the
domination oI nature. A good place to start a discussion about domination oI women, Others and nature is to disclose how they disproportionately must carry
the negative eIIects Irom global economic development. The below discussion is thereIore meant to give an idea oI the "Ilip-side" oI modernisation. It gives a gloomy
picture oI what "progress" and its Iocus on economic growth has meant Ior women, poor people and the natural environment. The various complex and inter-connected,
negative impacts have been ordered into Iour crises. The categorization is inspired by Paul Ekins and his 1992 book "A new world order; grassroots movements Ior
global change". In it, Ekins argues that humanity is Iaced with Iour interlocked crises oI unprecedented magnitude. These
crises have the potential to destroy whole ecosystems and to extinct the human race. The Iirst crisis is the spread
oI nuclear and other weapons oI mass destruction, together with the high level oI military spending. The second crisis is the
increasing number oI people aIIlicted with hunger and poverty. The third crisis is the environmental degradation. Pollution,
destruction oI ecosystems and extinction oI species are increasing at such a rate that the biosphere is under
threat. The Iourth crisis is repression and denial oI Iundamental human rights by governments, which prevents people Irom developing
their potential. It is highly likely that one may add more crises to these Iour, or categorize them diIIerently, however, Ekins's division is suitable Ior 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 oI the Put Down oI 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 surIaces, Iorm a complex system which can be seen as a single
organism and which has the capacity to keep our planet a Iit place Ior liIe. ... I have Irequently used the word Gaia as a shorthand Ior the hypothesis itselI, namely that
the biosphere is a selI regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment. Occasionally it has been
diIIicult, without excessive circumlocution, to avoid talking oI Gaia as iI she were known to be sentient. ... The notion oI Gaia, oI 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 Ilourished but instead would have remained deep in the mulch oI
scientiIic papers. 2 Gaia, then, is the collective intelligence oI all the planets kingdoms: mineral, vegetable, animal, and human. That intelligence, thereIore,
regulates conditions Ior all liIe. But human consciousness does not seem to be aware oI its contributory role in this great
scheme oI things. Still concerned with taming nature and dominating the planet, this same patriarchal
attitude seeks to make oI Mother Earth a submissive Iemale prone to a dominant male consciousness. Yet such
an attitude has created an imbalance Ielt throughout all Earth. And a reaction has commenced, most apparent in
what appears at Iirst to be merely a change in the weather Irom hospitable to inhospitable Ior man.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
35
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 Man`s seed across the
cosmos
Bryant `95 William, American Studies at the University oI Iowa, 'The Re-Vision oI 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 Irom diIIerent directions, the stories told by both the environmentalists and the progressives were
essentially Hegelian narratives aimed at a common point in the Iuture, when "man," "humanity," "the race,"
"the species," is liberated Irom the threat oI extinction. The discourse oI survival drove these narratives; it was
the telos which justiIied the telling oI the stories and authorized both the tellers and their practical prescriptions.
To Iunction properly within the narratives, however, the discourse oI survival required a uniIied humankind typed into an abstract,
seemingly classless, raceless, genderless totality. Such a move was Iacilitated by a view oI Earth Irom a perspective so
distant that a real human presence could only be projected onto it by an act oI imagination, and then only in a
diIIuse, generic Iorm. From such a view, all people shared a common origin, existed under common conditions, and were Iated to a common Iuturewhich
reduced on the Ilat disk in space into a kind oI eternally present state oI "being on Earth." According to Donna Haraway, this generic, global "man" was
grounded in the science and politics oI post-World War II Western culture. 37 Following the rise and dire consequences oI Iascism,
racial and national diIIerences ceased to be acceptable typologies Ior an understanding oI "man." Peace and security indeed, survivalaIter Hiroshima, in the Cold
War era, in the Iace oI decolonization, depended on the discovery oI human commonalties, on the construction oI "the united Iamily oI man," a concept issuing directly
Irom the United Nations. The U.N.'s 1948 Universal Declaration oI Human Rights, and theUnitedNations Educational, ScientiIic, and Cultural Organization's 1950 and
1951 statements on race, Haraway writes, "attempted to build into the Iounding documents oI a post-World War II international order" a "narrative oI scientiIic
humanism" that would uniIy humanity ' s sense oI itselI. In response, the scientiIic community, particularly the Iields oI physical anthropology and biology, endeavored
to construct Irom newly discovered Iossils oI early man an original human "Iamily," whose essence lay in cooperation rather than competitiona story that seems to
parallel the "display" narrative oI the U.S. manned space program. "Bjiological studies lend support to the ethic oI universal brotherhood," concluded the 1950
UNESCO statement, "Ior man is born with drives toward cooperation, and unless these drives are satisIied, man and nations alike will Iall." Created by science
as a "natural-technical object oI knowledge," universal man was thus "biologically certiIied Ior equality and
rights to Iull citizenship." This post-World War II universal man, says Haraway, was "launched into the Iuture and unearthed
Irom the past." From the progressive perspective, the astronauts in their bold mission beyond the conIines oI Earth were
universal man; Ior the environmentalist, the picture oI Earth Irom outer space was a selI-portrait oI him. In some ways the
construction oI universal man succeeded in redressing racists (though not sexist, as Haraway points out) conceptions oI "man."
By the 1960s, the concept was a mainstay oI liberal ideology, justiIying in a new way the use oI a universal "we" to describe the generic state oI human aIIairs. But as
JeanFranois Lyotard argues, use oI the universal "we" can be a kind oI cultural imperialism, denying the speciIicity oI history, colonizing diIIerence, and masking
responsibility. 38 With the American Ilag 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 oI neocolonialism. Anxieties about separation Irom nature,
owing to a perception oI 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 Irom nature.. .he is being
thrown out oI the garden by decolonization and perhaps oII 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, scientiIic man, who seemed able to stave oII his ultimate expulsion Irom the garden only by re-colonizing the planet as a
whole, by turning it into a mirror image oI himselI. The discourse oI survival was not about survival Ior its own sake. Rather, it
directed both the environmentalist and progressive narratives toward some resolution oI events that would leave
universal man in a happier, more secure state. The hurdle set beIore universal man Irom both perspectives was the looming decadence oI his
natural environment. The teleology oI the progressives was obvious: universal man could escape decadence via the
"great opening-out oI the mind and spirit" aIIorded by space exploration; he could ensure the perpetuation oI his
species by depositing his seed upon unknown worlds. But the environmentalist story, too, was guided by a metanarrative oI progress. The
revisioned Earth implied the avoidance oI complete, selI-inIlicted decadence, a move toward maturity, and then perhaps toward salvation. The mind and spirit oI
universal man opened out upon the planet itselI by way oI his reconstituted relationship with it.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
36
Link: Frontier
The Desire to expand into space is only to domesticate` it
To the Americans, the idea oI the universe as 'the high Irontier' or 'the new Irontier' has a strongly national-
romantically coloured meaning. The Irontier concept has deep roots in American history. ReIerring to the expansion towards the west in the nineteenth
century, 'the Irontier' represents the myth oI the borders to the 'Wild West', which challenged pioneers with promises oI Iertile land,
gold and a new liIe. At the same time, 'the Irontier' also signiIies the way into a tough, dangerous and unknown world.
This outlook has inIluenced the sense oI national identiIy so strongly that the myth oI the Irontier as being indispensable was even canonized in American
historiography in the Iirst halI oI the twentieth century. As the Irontier disappeared into the waves oI the PaciIic Ocean. The American historian Frederick J. Turner set
up a national monument to it, with his 'Irontier' thesis.1 His argument, which became immensely popular, speciIied the Irontier to the west as the matrix oI American
democracy and national character. The disappearance oI the Irontier, Turner warned, could seriously damage the development and identity oI the nation. Seen Irom this
perspective, the USA has been lacking a Irontier that could regenerate the national spirit Ior many decades now. As
iI in a healing response to this, the master narrative oI space Ilight came Iorward with alluring oIIers oI a new
mythical Irontier. Under the title The High Irontier: Human Colonies in Space (O'Neill 1978), a well-known proIessor oI physics, Gerard O'Neill, impressed by
the national successes in space oI the 1960s, contributed yet another enthusiastic chapter to the history oI the US Irontier myth. Even better, O'Neill's new Irontier
wholly overcomes : the problems raised by Turner. In contrast to the old Irontier, which was eventually devoured by the ocean,
the new one borders onto a 'wilderness' oI 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 oI the Vikings Ior a national-romantic icon to represent
the legendary voyage into the wild unknown, the Irontier myth sounds very alien. By contrast, to our American interviewees, this myth is an
unquestionable part oI their national identity. 'What has permeated the US since it was Iounded is going to the unknown,' JoAnn points out. She
considers the quest Ior the unknown, Ior new knowledge and adventure, to be part oI her national heritage. In others, this heritage has become so much second nature
that they even consider it to be an essential characteristic oI 'universal man's' biology. Dr B's version oI the Irontier myth goes as Iollows: 'Man has always
moved outwards ... II there was an ocean, we sailed across it. II 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 oI the beast.' In several discourses, a Turner-like argument pops up not only in a Iorm aiming to highlight the Irontier as a positive challenge,
but also in a negative version: what will happen to humanity iI we ignore this challenge? One oI several to voice this aspect, Irene strongly underlines the likelihood oI
intellectual degeneration should we Iail to constantly conIront new horizons. As iI echoing Turner, Shannon states that, since there is no more room Ior expansion on
Earth, we must venture into outer space to regain the pioneering spirit oI Iormer times. The cosmos is now 'the natural course oI advance'. A
major theme in the Irontier myth concerns the expansion oI the territory that we, in a physical, social and
scientiIic sense, can deIine as being domesticated - that is, the territory that we are able to utilize Ior our own
purposes. An expansion into the universe will, according to some o the interviewees, solve our demographic problems; others reIer to vision; oI mining the Moon
and the asteroids as a means oI overcoming (ht shortage oI natural resources on Earth. As part oI this line oI utilitariain expansionist arguments, the revolution in
communication technologies which depend on orbital satellites, is also emphasized. All oI these leitmotiIs appear in the legitimization oI space Ilight Co utilitarian
goals. But the desire Ior domestication represents only one side oI the Irontier myth, and should by no means
eliminate the existence oI the Irontier itselI In the cosmic-scale version oI the Irontier myth, the universe should
simultaneously be domesticated and remain a challenging gateway into the unknown.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
37
Link: Frontier
Astronauts are seen as white, male adventurers
Prr strange, otherwWplaces Iar Irom home, which test the ability oI the protagonist to overcome great dangers and meet incredible challenges. Together, the two genres
give a clue to the analysis oI the conqueror-protagonist oI the space Iable. As described by Vladimir Propp (1975), whose Iairy-tale theory strongly inIluenced
structuralism and semiotics (Greimas 1983), the questing hero is the protagonist oI one type oI Iairy-tale. He is the kind oI hero whose project generates the course oI
events oI the story. In the Iairy-tale magic helpers endow him with three important modalities or action-generators will, knowledge and know-how so that he can
accomplish the project successIully. When the Iairy-tale scheme is transIerred to the adventure story, the questing hero is made the standard protagonist and at the same
time inscribed in a modern cult oI supermen, who by individual per-sonality, and not because oI magic helpers, are empowered by invincible will, knowledge and
know-how. It is obvious that the protagonist oI the adventure story shares these Ieatures with the hero oI the space Iable. Whether posing as soldier-hero
who plants the Stars and Stripes in the lunar soil or as Soviet 'conqueror' who has leIt the 'cradle' oI Mother
Russia Iar behind, he incarnates the questing adventure hero. In his analysis oI 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 Ior nationalistic and imperialist purposes. He traces the genre back to Robinson Crusoe and discusses various
types, Ior example the Irontiersman stories (well known in both American and Russian literature). He deIines adventure stories as modern Iairy-tales. They are, he
writes, `Iolktales oI white nationalism and empire' (Green 1990: 4), allied to a speciIic kind oI modern masculinity that Ilows Irom the 'high-spirited' experience oI
exerting power 'beyond the law, or on the very Irontier oI civilization' (Green 1991: 3). The adventure story represents a 'liturgy oI
masculinism' (Green 1990: 6), sti intersecting with a 'liturgy Ior the cult oI potency and potestas th management oI Iorce, the exertion oI power, material and
moral' (Lciseleial Green's description Iits well as a characterization oI the space Iab". It le 5). sustains the suggestion that the adventure story
and the Iairy-tale are both part oI the underlying script that created the image oI the astro and cosmonaut
supermen. Like Green's adventure heroes, the astro- or cosmo, nauts perIorm as mythic national romantic heroes, acting beyond the Irontiers oI civilization in the
wilderness oI hostile space, allegedly (in oI the American and Russian space Iable is strikingly masculine. The Ilags to mark their presence in the new territories.'
Furthermore, the hero peace Ior all mankind', although always carrying with them their natigorneaalt 'Iirst steps'
oI the human journey into the cosmos (the Iirst human in space, the Iirst 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 oI the right
stuII' (WolIe 1988).
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
38
Link: Gender Invisibility
The gender neutrality of the 1AC reifies masculine spaces, reproducing war and aggression.

political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993(V Spike and Anne, lobal ender Issues, p 34-5)

In IR the concept oI "political actor" -the legitimate wielder oI society's power-is derived Irom classical political theory. Common to constructions oI
"political man" -Irom Plato and Aristotle to Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau-is the privileging oI man's capacity
Ior reason. This unique ability distinguishes man Irom other animals and explains his pursuit oI Ireedom-Irom nature as well as Irom tyranny. Feminists
argue that the models oI human nature underpinning constructions oI "political man" are not in Iact gender
neutral but are models oI "male nature, " generated by exclusively male experience. They are not universal
claims about humankind but masculinist claims about gendered divisions oI labor and identity that eIIectively
and sometimes explicitly exclude women Irom deIinitions oI "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 Irom political power by states' limiting
citizenship to those who perIorm military duty and/or are property owners. Under these conditions, most women are structurally excluded
Irom Iormal politics, even though individual women, in exceptional circumstances, have wielded considerable political power. In this century, women have
largely won the battle Ior the vote, though deIinitions oI citizenship continue to limit women's access to public power, and their political power is circumscribed by a
variety oI indirect means (discussed elsewhere in this text). Most obvious are the continued eIIects oI the dichotomy oI public-private that separates men's productive
and "political" activities Irom women's reproductive and "personal" activities. These constructions-oI power, "political man, " citizenship,
public private, and so on-reproduce, oIten unconsciously, masculinist and androcentric assumptions. Sovereign
man and sovereign states are deIined not by connection or relationships but by autonomy in decision-making
and Ireedom Irom the power oI others. Security is nnderstood not in terms oI celebrating and sustaining liIe but
as the capacity to be indiIIerent to "others" and, iI necessary, to harm them. Hobbes's androcentrism is revealed simply when we
ask how helpless inIants ever become adults iI human nature is universally competitive and hostile. From the perspective oI 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 oI liIe'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: political-
apolitical, reason-emotion, public-private, leaders-Iollowers, active-passive, Ireedom-necessity. As with other
dichotomies, difference and opposition are privileged and context and ambiguity are ignored. The web oI
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 liIe-threatening conIlicts are not "real" but
that they are only a part oI a more complicated story. Focusing on them misrepresents our reality even as it (to some extent
unnecessarily) reproduces power over, aggressive behavior, and liIe-threatening conIlicts.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
39
Link: Gendered Language
Male-gendered generics exclude women even if not intentionally -- free-association studies prove
Chew 07 (Pat K. Chew, ProIessor oI Law at the University oI Pittsburgh, and Lauren K. Kelley-Chew, candidate Ior B.S., StanIord University. "Subtly sexist
language", Columbia Journal oI Gender & Law, Vol. 16, pg 643 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cIm?abstractid1285570)
A common explanation Ior using male-gendered generics, such as his, he, and words with the suIIix --man, is that the words are intended to and understood to be
inclusive oI both men and women; that is, they are not intentionally sexist or exclusionary. n17 A classic deIense was given by William Strunk and E.B. White in an
early edition oI their widely used and admired book, The Elements oI Style: "The use oI he as pronoun Ior nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical
convention rooted in the beginnings oI the English language. He has lost all suggestion oI 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 oI he as a generic Ior individuals oI both genders,
they were mistaken about the lack oI 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 oI *649| "maleness." n20 These researchers Iound
in a variety oI settings that, in comparison to the use oI more gender-inclusive terms such as he or she or humankind, the use oI 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 oI women in our cognitive
associations. Furthermore, as we will subsequently discuss, using male-gendered generics has identiIiable eIIects. 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 oI male images, even though the readings expressly reIerred to people oI either gender.
n23 In another experiment, participants were induced to complete sentence Iragments using masculine or unbiased generics, aIter which they were asked to visualize the
sentence and to give a Iirst name to the person they visualized. n24 Results indicated that using masculine generics generated more male-biased imagery in the mind oI
the user. In yet another study, *650| participants who were asked to create photo collages Ior textbook chapters selected more photos oI males when chapter titles
included man in the title (Ior example, economic man) than when the titles did not contain man in the title (Ior example, economic behavior). n25 Finally, McConnell
and Fazio Iound 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 oI city council or city councilperson). n26 These studies and other empirical research conIirm that male-gendered generics
are not actually gender-neutral, prompting their labeling as pseudo-generics or Ialse generics. In this way, male-
gendered 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
Even more to the point, evidence also exists that the use oI male-gendered words inIluences the way we think oI others.
Psychologists Allen McConnell and Russell Fazio designed an experiment to consider whether gender-marked language aIIects our perceptions oI 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 diIIerent versions among Chairman oI the
Board oI Directors (man-suIIix condition), Chair oI the Board oI Directors (no-suIIix condition) or Chairperson oI the Board oI Directors (person-suIIix condition). The
vignettes also varied the executive's gender identiIication. In one vignette, there was no gender identiIication and, in subsequent vignettes, the executive was identiIied
as a woman or as a man. AIter reading the *652| vignettes, participants answered a series oI questions about the executive's personality. n36 The researchers
Iound clear evidence that title suIIixes inIluence the assessment oI the executive's personality traits. Use oI 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 Iemale terms (caring,
emotional, warm, compassionate, cheerIul). In contrast, use oI the Chairperson title resulted in the executive being
described with more stereotypically Iemale qualities and less consistently with stereotypically masculine attributes. n37 This pattern was
consistent across all three vignettes even though the executive's gender identiIication varied. McConnell and Fazio provide a range oI explanations Ior these results. One
is that individuals might associate someone who uses the title Chairperson with a particular personality proIile (politically leIt-oI-center, independent, or Ieminine) even
though there is no speciIic evidence supporting that association. Another explanation is that seeing the title Chairman repeatedly primes the
reader to make the association oI Chairman with man (as described in the research above), and then to link it to
stereotypically male traits. This priming process overrides the Iact that the executive's gender is not identiIied (as
in one vignette) or is Iemale (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 aIIect our perceptions oI people and that those
perceptions are consistent with gender stereotypes.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
40
The sexism of a speaker is manifested through their gendered language -- studies prove
For example, Janet Swim and her colleagues have explored whether modern sexist belieIs predict individuals' detection and use oI sexist language. n43 In one
research project, participants completed a packet oI *654| questionnaires in which various research instrument were embedded. n44
In addition to completing an instrument measuring modern sexist belieIs such as those listed above, participants indicated
their personal deIinitions oI what constituted sexist language, n45 and they demonstrated their ability to detect
sexist language including male-gendered generics. The research results showed signiIicant connections between individuals' attitudes and their ability to detect
the use oI sexist language. Those who endorsed modern sexist belieIs were less likely to detect sexist language and to deIine
as sexist the types oI language that have been deIined as sexist in the research literature. n46 In comparison, those who disagreed with modern sexist belieIs were more
likely to deIine sexist words as sexist and detect their use. n47 In a subsequent study, the same researchers Iound that those who endorsed modern sexist belieIs 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 belieIs about gender issues aIIects whether one believes male-gendered
language and other sexist language is indeed sexist, and whether one uses male-gendered language or more
gender-neutral word alternatives.

Male-gendered generics exclude women, assign masculine characteristics, and reveal personal sexism,
even if unintentionally -- studies prove
The discussion above on existing empirical research oIIers substantial evidence that using male-gendered generics is a
Iorm oI 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 suIIix -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 Iemale one. Second, gendered language
reinIorces 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 speciIied.
Abandoning the use oI Chairman, thereIore, would presumably preclude those gendered associations Ior both women and men executives. Finally, individuals may use
male-gendered generics Ior a variety oI reasons, including totally innocuous ones. However, there is evidence that individuals who have belieIs that
researchers think condone the unequal *656| treatment oI women and men are particularly likely to use male-gendered
generics and not Iind it problematic.

Subtle sexism leads to blatant sexism -- even seemingly small discursive elements have damaging
psychological impacts
Given what social scientists have Iound about the meaning and eIIects oI male-gendered generics and other subtly sexist language, the legal community's ongoing use
oI this language eIIectively reinIorces our acceptance oI its debilitating messages about women. Women are *676| disadvantaged when male-
gendered generics such as chairman, businessman, congressman, and he are used to reIer to both women and men. The
communicator and the receiver automatically imagine men and stereotypically male characteristics, making it more
diIIicult to see women in those roles. Although these messages are oIten communicated unconsciously, they can result in
very real and damaging eIIects. Employers and clients may be less likely to see women as successIul
proIessionals assuming leadership roles. Faculty and classmates may be less likely to see women as worthy law students and Iuture 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, Iaculty, or judges. n110 In these
and other ways, subtly sexist language can have signiIicant harmIul eIIects. The legal community's commitment to women entering law schools and succeeding in the
proIession, thereIore, requires us to take aIIirmative steps toward an alternative nonsexist norm.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
41
Gendered language psychologically impacts women
Everyday sexism has psychological ramiIications Ior women. In one study, college students kept track Ior two
weeks oI everyday sexism, including traditional gender role stereotyping, demeaning and derogatory comments and behaviors, and sexual objectiIication.
n27 The women's reporting oI more sexist incidents was associated with their increased anger, more depression,
and lower selI-esteem. n28 Other research demonstrates the subtle deleterious eIIects oI sexist language on the selI-concepts and attitudes oI both men and
women. n29

Link: Hegemony
Corporations & Hegemony are based on hero perceptions-also only way to solve environment
through localizations

Global corporatization is one oI the dangers oI the "global view" aIIorded by remote sensing, which brings us to the IiIth assumption. At Iirst glance, the
assumption that a global perspective is necessary appears indisputable. AIter all, iI problems like climate
change, deIorestation, desertiIication, and ozone depletion are global in scope, then we must take a global view
in order to solve them. And iI these environmental problems are simply the "negative externalities "oI a global
economy, then a global view seems inescapable. To some extent, all oI 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, aIIluent 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 Irom space renders human beings invisible, both as agents and as victims oI environmental
destruction. It also erases diIIerence, lending itselI to a totalizing vision. The "global view" cannot adequately depict environmental
problems be-cause the impacts oI these problems vary with class, gender, age, and race. The very abstractness oI the global
view may thwart eIIorts to heal natural systems. Charles Rubin echoes this sentiment, suggesting that the global view removes environmental problems Irom the realm
oI immediacy where meaning-Iul action is possible and most likely to be eIIective. Rubin goes so Iar as to reject the term "the environment"
because, by essentially reIerring to "everything out there," it simultaneously serves to distance people Irom the
local places where they live even as it erects an artiIicial totalizing structure.53Rubin's claim about the concept oI
"environment"can be equally applied to "the global view": Both seem to include just about everything except the particularism oI place. Ronnie Lipschutz extends this
line oI reasoning, suggesting that iI place is a critical con-stitutive element oI 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 Ior women:
The oI women on the Irontlines should us our notion experience help change oI what environmental destruction looks like: it is
not big, Ilashy,oI global or iI it maniIests Environmental is proportions, global, locally. Degradation pretty
mundane-it occurs drop by drop, tree by tree. This Iact is discomIit- to scientiIicand environmental whose
prestige depends on solving "big" problems in heroicways.55

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
42
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 oI Political Science and International Studies, University oI Birmingham, ender
and international relations. issues, debates and future directions, p. 36)

In the Iirst part oI this chapter, realism serves as the point oI departure in understanding the place oI gender in the theorization oI the state in IR. To a great extent, the
invisibility or marginalization oI gender is the study oI IR is a consequence oI the methodological individualism in
realism. Ann Tickner argues that an ontology based on unitary states operating in the asocial, anarchical world has
provided Iew entry points Ior Ieminist theories, since these were grounded in an epistemology that took social relations as its central category oI
analysis`. Realism has been a particular target oI Ieminist critique because it has been an inIluential indeed Ior a long time
dominant approach within IR and has provided a common-sense` view oI the world Ior practitioners as well as
theorists in IR. As Ann Tickner argued in her critique oI realist discourse, the most dangerous threat to both a
man and a state is to be like a woman because women are weak, IearIul, indecisive, and dependent stereotypes
that still surIace when assessing women`s suitability Ior the military and conduct oI Ioreign policy today. Feminist work
has contributed to a reconceptualization oI the state as a dynamic entity that is made and remade through
discourses and practices that embed and reproduce both gendered understandings oI the world and particular kinds oI gender relations in
the world oI international politics. Accordingly, the second part oI the chapter moves beyond critique to set out the various ways that gender is at work
in the practice oI state-making`, speciIically in the construction oI identities and in the boundaries oI political community. The third section oI this chapter Iocuses on
the gendered conceptions oI citizenship.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
43
Link: NASA
NASA`s 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 Irom University oI CaliIornia, San Fransisco, and Lisa Jean, ProIessor oI Sociology and Gender Studies,

Feminist studies oI science and technology include theoretical and substantive work on the construction oI
gendered diIIerence(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 oI other sites. In all oI these examples, diIIerences become reiIied
through scientiIic representations and practices and are subsequently linked to gender(ed) inequities. We suggest that
gender diIIerences are also constructed assiduously across multiple sites in the space domain. This occurs through a
process oI 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 oI 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 Ilight,
in our reading, becomes the realization oI penetration and colonization Iantasies about the Iuture. 10 This spirit oI
masculinity permeates almost all aspects oI the space program including long-term political goals, engineering designs,
assumptions about crew behavior, and liIe-sciences research protocols. The masculine "nature" oI space Ilight creates an
institutional and ideological Iramework within which women not only are excluded but also are conIigured as highly
problematic by virtue oI their gender, bodies, sexualities, and reproductive capacities. Female bodies thus become the
target oI a range oI practices within NASA aimed at reconIiguring women to Iit into the space program. Below, we point to some speciIic
ways in which women's bodies are inscribed through discourses oI sexual diIIerence. We begin with a short story about tampons on the space shuttle. During a presentation, an inIormant relayed the Iollowing story:
InIormant: One time I asked Shirley Parker,11 she is the director oI the medical program at NASA headquarters|, and one day I asked her, do those women use Tampax or do they use pads? About Iour weeks later, I Iinally
got this stuIIy letter back saying I want you to know these women use tampons. I said thank you very much Shirley, it took Iour weeks to tell me that. Later during an interview, we returned to the topic oI tampons. Our
transcript reads: MC: And tampons, that was so Iunny! InIormant: Yeah, but you know, think about the storage. And you can't just jettison, a little thing Ilying around up there can be dangerous. You know they track space
junk, it pits, it can destroy the spaceship. MC: Imagine some alien race Iinding this tampon Iloating in space some day, it will be like, what is this? InIormant: Can you imagine? This liIe Iorm, 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 liIe Iorm! InIormant: But I think the major issue she is reacting to, again, she is very protective oI 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 oI being Iemale.
And that yes, women are diIIerent and they do have cycles and it's been my impression that the women on the astronaut corps have tried to minimize the diIIerences our emphasis|. As the tampon story illustrates, bodies are
key sites at which gender diIIerences are constructed in this domain. Women are seen as being diIIerent Irom men not only physiologically but also in terms oI 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 oI constructed gendered diIIerences, menstruation contains potentially dangerous consequences Ior women's health in a space environment. While we can and should be
concerned about physiological constraints oI space travel on women's bodies, it is critical to be suspicious oI how these
problems are interpreted and handled by NASA. Gender diIIerences emerge in other sites, as well. For example,
pregnancy is seen as aIIecting Iemale astronauts exclusively, despite the Iact that sperm is still a necessary component oI
Iertilization. This assumption leads to scientiIic research in which only Iemale contraception is at issue. One scientist's
research, Ior example, is geared toward preventing space pregnancies and controlling Iemale hormones through
contraceptive technologies. This type oI research leads to another site Ior construction oI sex diIIerences-hormones.
According to one Iemale| inIormant, women "are not stable entities," reIlecting an egregious assumption that men are
somehow more stable. Another important question regarding sex diIIerences 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 Iemale bodies have been evaluated and, unsurprisingly, Iound to
be diIIerent. Thus, the prospect oI long term multigendered missions has made salient a host oI issues related to bodies in space-including sex, reproduction, and pregnancy-all oI which are constructed
"scientiIically" against the male norm as "Iemale" problems. Constructions oI social and cultural diIIerences between men and women are also common in this domain. According to one inIormant, "women and men have
diIIerent brains" and, thereIore, "think diIIerently." Ironically reIlecting cultural Ieminist 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 perIormance levels are claimed to be better, iI men and women are balanced in numbers. This raises the question oI what types oI
work are expected oI diIIerent crew members. More speciIically, are women astronauts presumed to be better at emotion work (Hochschild 1983) or managing interpersonal relations than men? Further, iI balance is better,
why are there usually only one or two women among Iive 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 diIIer Irom the male standard. Female
bodies are deIined as introducing contamination, or at least uncertainty, into an otherwise "stable" environment; their
bodies must be conIigured to Iit 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 diIIerently. According to one scientist, they preIer to
be identiIied as "just another piece oI hardware" to avoid being gendered.12 Yet on the other hand, they are judged
negatively by other NASA staII when they do not behave or act like women in essentialized ways. One consultant
described the conIlicting position in which Iemale astronauts are placed by remarking, '1 Ieel sorry Ior women who can't
enjoy the Iact that they're Iemale." Another stated that "some women are uncomIortable with their own sexuality .... They deny that they are diIIerent Irom
men." Even iI Iemale astronauts themselves strive to avoid constructions oI diIIerence, discourses and practices
within the space program continually inscribe bodies as gendered and Iemale bodies as problematic.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
44
Link: NASA
NASA can only cope with the notion of sexuality through compulsory heteronormativity.
Casper & Moore 95 (Monica J., Ph.D. in Sociology Irom University oI CaliIornia, San Fransisco, and Lisa Jean, ProIessor oI Sociology and Gender Studies,

There is a wide array oI physical mental, and spiritual practices which Iall under the rubric oI human sexuality,
including (but not limited to) masturbation, heterosexual intercourse, viewing or writing erotica, oral and anal
sex, and sadomasochistic activities. Given this range oI practices, pondering sexual inscriptions in space might
suggest titillating opportunities Ior Iuture expressions oI desire. For example, many a science Iiction writer has Iilled his or her
multigalactic creations with erotic (re)visions oI sexual possibilities (Russ 1975; Piercy 1991; Datlow 1992). However, here on Earth, NASA's
negligible institutional attention to issues oI human sexuality Iails to consider the range oI sexual possibilities.
Quite the contrary. Because NASA constructs human sexuality as inextricably connected to reproduction, sexuality in
space is Iramed and reiIied to mean only heterosexual penis-vagina intercourse. As explored below, historically,
NASA has resisted discussing the potential reconIigured 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 Iocus on how the agency has constructed sex in space and some possible implications oI these limited constructions.14 Ironically, exploring
the terrain oI lesbian and gay studies has been tremendously useIul in developing our interpretive Iramework. Struggling to resist canonization, lesbian and gay studies
can be deIined as "Iocusing on the cultural production, dissemination, and vicissitudes oI sexual meanings. Lesbian and gay studies attempts to decipher sexual
meanings inscribed in many diIIerent Iorms oI cultural expression while also attempting to decipher cultural meanings inscribed in discourse and practices oI sex"
(Abelove, Barale, and Halperin 1993). We draw on these theoretical tools to analyze sexual inscriptions in space. In September 1992, the Iirst married
couple went on a NASA mission amid a Ilurry oI media attention. The couple, married in secret, disclosed their
newlywed status to NASA only aIter their selection and training Ior the mission. According to inIormants,
NASA subsequently decided it would be too costly to reorganize the Ilight crew. Yet the Iact that NASA even
considered reorganizing the mission indicates its nervous anticipation oI 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 aIter NASA admitted to sending the Iirst married astronauts into space together that
newspapers had the revelation: there is a possibility oI sexual activity in space! Heterosexist assumptions undergirding this
coverage are evident. Many other extended and cramped space explorations preceded the 1992 Ilight, but these were
predominately "manned." The media and NASA have chosen to Irame sex in space as conceivable only when
conception is a possibility. Not only does this ignore the prospect oI lesbian or gay activity in space, but it also
does not address unmarried sexual activity, as mixed-gender crews have been going to space Ior several years
now. Heterosexual sex was described in these initial news articles through pop psychological discourse; one psychiatrist remarked "sex is a normal part oI human
behavior. It happens in oIIices. It happens in the Antarctic. It happens where you have males and Iemales together." Does this inscription oI the Iuture help create a
"space" where only certain types oI 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 oI
a latent agenda. Instead oI operating under a "don't ask, don't tell" military modeL NASA oIIicials asked a Ilight
crew surgeon, also a psychiatrist, iI 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 oI 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.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
45
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.

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 oI a broader social domain in which there are enduring belieIs
concerning sexuality and also produces particular belieI systems about sexuality. In addition, NASA as an
institution exerts a great deal oI control over what activities can be considered and pursued in the space
environment, particularly in the "closed" space oI a shuttle. What is witnessed in NASA's management oI media attention is an eIIort
to maintain ideological control over deIinitions oI human sexuality; these deIinitions will precede us into the
Iuture. In short, privacy discourses used to divert continuing discussions oI sexual desires and practices in space
maintain a belieI in the private, secret, and oII-limits nature oI 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 oI negotiated "group sex," astronauts may reconstruct notions oI romantic and/or sexual desire as not necessarily requiring spontaneity. These interstellar
expressions oI desire, including those which might lead to pregnancy, would likely require signiIicant bodily manipulations and reconIigurations. For example,
'lovemaking in zero gravity is likely to bring a great many reactions, with couples catapulting oII the walls and Iloors, and careening into the airlocks oI their tiny
cubicle during the heat oI passion" (Walter 1992:145). As we explore below, in conIronting the adverse conditions oI 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 iI they were inevitable: 'II you can
do it in the back seat oI 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 Iact be highly problematic in space, not only socially as we have
discussed but also physiologically. A number oI scientists (Smith 1990; Fowler 1991; David 1992) have argued
that there are oIten very serious problems aIIecting human bodies in space, and that almost all oI the human
body's Iunctions and processes may be aIIected. More speciIically, space motion sickness, muscle atrophy, bone loss, and an array oI other problems have all been recorded
during space Ilights (Fowler 1991). OI course, since much oI this data is based on Ilights in which mostly men served as crew members, its relevance to Iemale bodies is questionable. As one might expect, such major
physiological changes have potentially serious consequences Ior the short- and long-term health oI crew members. Yet, questions are raised not only about the damaging eIIects oI travel and/or habitation in space but also
about potential problems when astronauts reenter Earth's atmosphere and "normal" levels oI gravity. Most scientists seem to agree that the major causes oI physiological problems are microgravity and radiation (Monga and
Gorwill 1990), Irom which the space shuttle and space suits can only minimally protect astronauts.22 However, because there have not until recently been extensive long-term Ilights (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 scientiIic evidence about the long-term impacts oI space travel and habitation. In answer to the question
oI whether astronauts can survive several months in weightlessness without physical deterioration that would endanger a mission or their health, the response Irom a growing choir oI space liIe scientists is a collective "we
don't know." Interestingly, it is liIe 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 oI psychological problems, including loneliness, boredom, homesickness, and so on, especially when astronauts "suddenly realize they're a long way Irom 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 Irom prolonged conIinement and isolation.
They suggest that impaired cognition, motivation, and perIormance may result in lowered morale, mission Iailure, and even death. They also cite data Irom both U.S. and Russian missions which detail "psychological"
problems, including a Skylab mission in which astronauts reIused to work Ior a day because they were annoyed with NASA, diaries oI Soviet cosmonauts which revealed Ieelings oI boredom and depression during a 34-week
mission, and reports Irom Soviet and Czech cosmonauts oI interpersonal tension among crewmates related to lack oI privacy and sociopolitical diIIerences. These accounts raise compelling questions about the limits oI the
"complementary sexes" model proposed by NASA as leading to more harmonious, productive work. Psychological disturbances raise the specter oI sexual
violence, racial violence, and other serious interpersonal conIlicts resulting Irom stress induced by long
missions. It is somewhat disturbing to us that sexual behavior in space is assumed to be "total consenting adult
Iree-choice sex." Given contemporary gendered power dynamics, this seems naively idealistic. Yet, an
interesting research question is presented by the possible eIIects oI weightlessness on expressions oI sexual and
other types oI violence. For example, how would physical/bodily deterioration aIIect an individual's capability to overpower, Iorce, and/or injure another
astronaut? What does Iorce look like in a O-gravity context? Despite these concerns, issues oI sexual violence are rarely raised with respect to long-term traveL and
when we mentioned this possibility to inIormants they seemed vaguely puzzled. Because oI these physiological and psychological eIIects, humans are seen as "a
Irustrating piece oI hardware Ior the engineers to deal with." Humans are "messy" and cause endless misery Ior NASA engineers
who oIten "have their hands Iull keeping human beings alive." Yet, the impact oI space travel on bodies
suggests that humans are anything but another piece oI hardware.24 Human bodies represent biological constraints on space travel just
as space travel reconIigures bodies. Not only must NASA keep this particular piece oI hardware alive, but human bodies must also be controlled in order to enable
eIIective space travel. ThereIore, the agency must investigate the eIIects oI Ilight on human bodies in order to continue sending people to space, a task it seems to
undertake only as a necessary evil. As one inIormant remarked, "there's extraordinary science to be done, but not in the liIe sciences. The only purpose oI liIe-sciences
research is presumably to gauge the eIIect oI long-term missions on human beings."

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
46
Link: NASA
The treatment of sex in space by NASA and the media reinforces heteronormativity by assuming only
heterosexual, procreative sex occurs
In September 1992, the Iirst married couple went on a NASA mission amid a Ilurry oI media attention. The couple, married
in secret, disclosed their newlywed status to NASA only aIter their selection and training Ior the mission. According to inIormants, NASA subsequently
decided it would be too costly to reorganize the Ilight crew. Yet the Iact that NASA even considered
reorganizing the mission indicates its nervous anticipation oI 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 aIter NASA admitted to sending the Iirst married astronauts into space together that newspapers had the
revelation: there is a possibility oI sexual activity in space! Heterosexist assumptions undergirding this coverage
are evident. Many other extended and cramped space explorations preceded the 1992 Ilight, but these were predominantly "manned." The media and
NASA have chosen to Irame sex in space as conceivable only when conception is a possibility. Not only does
this ignore the prospect oI lesbian or gay activity in space, but it also does not address unmarried sexual activity,
as mixed-gender crews have been going to space Ior several years now. Heterosexual sex was described in these initial news articles
through pop psychological discourse; one psychiatrist remarked "sex is a normal part oI human behavior. It happens in oIIices. It happens in the Antarctic. It happens
when you have males and Iemales together." Does this inscription oI the Iuture help create a "space" where only certain types oI
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 oI a latent agenda. Instead oI operating under a "don't ask, don't tell" military
model, NASA oIIicials asked a Ilight crew surgeon, also a psychiatrist, iI 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 oI 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
As this inIormant hinted, NASA must position and keep itselI in the public eye. Hilgartner and Bosk (1988) described the dynamic and
competitive processes which bring certain policy issues into the Iinite "carrying capacity"'7 oI the nation's attention span. NASA, like other Iederal agencies,
struggles Ior its share oI the limited resources allocated to scientiIic and social problems, about which priority
decisions must be made. Can or should NASA try to use the media Iocus on sex in space to its advantage? Although it is clear that NASA does not want to
taint the image oI proIessional 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 oI the space program is an unintended
consequence oI the way NASA has handled the sex controversy. Yet, NASA may be seen as partially responsible Ior the media Irenzy
by making certain aspects oI missions so mysterious while Ioregrounding other issues. In other words, NASA may be an ambivalent participant in seducing the media
by not explicitly revealing sexual inIormation. By simultaneously releasing nonsexual data and withholding
sexual inIormation, NASA stripteases the media into wanting more. Yet, the way the media addresses sexuality and space travel oIten
Irustrates or "trivializes" NASA as an organization. For instance, one NASA inIormant Ieels the media taint the "scholarly approach" oI scientiIic research on sexuality
in space because the media is "obnoxious and only interested in the prurient aspects" oI NASA's studies.'8 These reactions are related to privacy discourses deployed by
NASA and other actors.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
47
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
In short, NASA has chosen to deIine reproduction and sexuality as synonymous and interchangeable. A simpliIied
relationship would look like this: sexuality men Iucking women reproduction. There are two contradictory readings here. First, NASA's
long-term political goals include colonization oI space as discussed earlier, which requires propagating the human species in a space environment. Given current
reproductive conditions, Iemale bodies are a necessary "space" Ior the creation and maintenance oI Ietuses. In such a reading, heterosexual sex becomes a necessary
means through which reproduction is accomplished, especially given the limited use oI assisted reproductive technologies in space. In this Iraming, NASA's reluctance
to talk about sex seems somewhat puzzling. II 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 Iundamental problem with NASA's colonization goals. At this particular historical moment,
reproduction in space is highly uncertain and NASA Iears its physiological and social consequences. But iI reproduction in space becomes a viable
practice, then women will become commodities, valued Ior their role in potential colonization. Historically,
colonizing activities on Earth have generally required women's participation in masculine voyages oI discovery
and conquer. It is possible that in Iuture colonization eIIorts, heterosexual intercourse would be encouraged
while other expressions oI desire might be actively discouraged. Thus, NASA's activities may create a "brave new world" shaped by the
sexual and reproductive traIIic in women (Rubin 1975).

The use of sex in space explicitly discriminates against women and says men are the norm.

Sex` is only explicitly spoken oI in US space discourse to signal the category oI woman`, and the physical and
psychological constraints that woman`s body` brings to spaceIlight and exploration. NASA, Ior example, in
identiIying gender-related` diIIerences aIIecting the eIIicacy and eIIects oI spaceIlight and travel, Iocus
exclusively on the physiological diIIerences between men and women (bone density, blood Ilow, hormonal and metabolic
diIIerences, etc.). As Casper and Moore argue, NASA`s heterosexist Iramings oI these issues highlight sex in space as a social
and scientiIic 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 oI space travel` (ibid.: 316). By identiIying
only woman` with sex`, and the ostensibly sexualised Ieatures` oI women`s bodies` (Butler, 1990: 26), a certain, heterosexist, order and identity is eIIectively
instituted in US outer space discourse.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
48
Link: NASA
The affirmative merely a reworking of NASA`s 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.
Science and Sex in merica, 12 -16)
NASA's polysemous meanings can still be mobilized to rejuvenate the near-moribund idea oI an ideal Iuture toward which
dedicated people could work. But it takes a lot oI doing. To keep those meanings mobilized NASA seems to have adopted the
Iilm industry's summer blockbuster approach. During the summer oI 1994, the twenty-IiIth anniversary oI the Apollo 11 moon landing, Iormer astronaut Buzz Aldrin was
everywhere, talking about the mission (but Alan Shepard beat him to the Home Shopping Network). Although the IIrst man on the moon, the modest and selI-eIIacing Neil Armstrong, resisted serving as NASA's poster boy
Ior manned spaceIlight, 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 Ior what may never be again. The Iollowing summer it was director Ron Howard's turn to evoke those heady times, and he did so spectacularly with the blockbuster Iilm 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 oI three stranded astronauts, not to mention the Iuture oI the entire
Apollo program. By heroicizing the astronauts and the Mission Control team that saved them, the Iilm inadvertently
suggests what NASA critics have said all along: the space agency is good at crisis management but lacks a
strategic vision, the kind oI conceptualizing that goes into long-term planning and eIIective communication oI its mission to the public. But at least Apollo 13
believes in NASA as a crucial site oI utopian ideas and yearnings. The utopic image oI NASA shown in Apollo 13 was a Iar cry Irom that
seen in apricorn One, a 1978 Iilm that depicts an agency so underIunded yet bloated, so chaotic and incompetent that it
has to Iake a Mars landing in a movie studio, knowing it does not have the resources and technology to pull oII the real
thing but desperately needing the spectacle oI a successIul mission to regain popular support and Iederal Iunding. Ron
Howard's Iilm, by contrast, recreates an era when NASA appeared Iaultless and heroic, even though its useIulness as one
oI the main ideological weapons in the Cold War was rapidly ebbing. Whether NASA could still translate utopian idealism
into scientiIic accomplishment was the question at the center oI much oI the media coverage oI Apollo 13. Critics were sharply divided
over the role the Iilm would play in "garnering public support Ior Iuture space science and exploration, particularly at a time when congressional budget cuts were deIunding research, education, and environmental programs,
Some Ielt that the Iilm's reminder oI NASA's glory days and the poignant concludingwords~when Tom Hanks, America's most popular actor ruminates, "I wonder iI we'll ever go back there and I wonder who they will be?" ~
would renew public interest and support Ior the space program. This is clearly what the White House had in mind when it invited Hanks to a Capitol Hill reception just days beIore a House debate over Iunding Ior the space
station. In his real-liIe role Hanks insisted that he was not lobbying Ior NASA but nevertheless made a pitch Ior 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 oIIIcial winked and called Hanks "our secret weapon." And indeed the ploy seems to have worked since the House subsequently deIeated two straight
attempts to kill the space station~the last one by the widest victory margin in years. 3 More skeptical critics oI the Iilm, however, saw Apollo 13 as simple
nostalgia-mongering, pitched to a public that loves the retro chic value oI the seventies, but has no real interest in
Iurthering scientiIIc 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 oI the American space shuttle ALlanlu and the Russian space station Mil'. People these days, the critics concluded,
preIer their reality digitized and imagineered. The cynical reception oI Apollo 13 demonstrated that despite the public's enthusiasm Ior the space heroics oI Tom Hanks,
NASA's ability to serve as a utopian referent has considerably weakened. In Iact, it is astonishing that NASA can
generate any positive spin at all, since one lingering eIIect oI 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 oI NASA's
past record is more disastrous: the 1967 Apollo Iire that killed three astronauts on the launchpad, the disappearance oI the Mard Obdelwr, the Iaulty Hubble
lens, Galileo's stuck antenna and broken tape recorder, aud oI course the Challenger explosion. The credibility oI NASA has also been damaged by
its own bombast and broken promises, the Iraudulent billing and shoddy work oI its corporate contractors, the dramatic
aging oI its work Iorce, its laughably out-oI-date technology, and an awkward and ineIIicient bureaucracy. Thus NASA's
summer blockbuster Ior 1996 was a sort oI "hail-Mary pass: the startling announcement that NASA scientists had Iound
the Iirst real prooI oI liIe on Mars. President Clinton called the discovery "one oI the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered." And oI course, NASA ChieI Daniel
Goldin immediately exploited the event to campaign Ior 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 oI merely suggestive Iindings might result in the biggest scientiIIc embarrassment since the initial (and erroneous) reports oI cold Iusion seven years beIore. (Meanwhile, Independence Day, the
blockbuster IIlm oI summer 1996, simply mocked the hapless space agency's anachronistic right-stuII image: the hero Iighter pilot who saves the world Irom alien invasion dreams oI being an astronaut but, as one oI his
buddies reminds him, NASA would never accept an astronaut whose Iiancee is a stripper.) Why, then, does NASA remain a repository for utopian
meanings? Obviously public attitudes toward NASA are not based solely on scientiIic achievement or political spin control. We process our knowledge oI NASA
in a variety oI more or less unconscious ways, ranging Irom simple displacement to outright denial. A lot oI this individual and collective
reIashioning oI NASA's meanings tends to be wish-IulIilling, to produce the NASA we want, not the one we
have. And here the stuIIy space agency is aided (again, more or less unconsciously) by an increasing symbolic merging with its hugely popular IIctional twin, Star
Trek. Together they Iorm a powerIul cultural icon, a Iorce 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 Ior a diIIerent and better condition;
it is, then, a common language Ior utopia. How did this improbable symbolic merging occur? What kind oI new story
about the world oI space (and this world) does the NASAITREK narrative tell? What controls this mutated semi-Iictional
space saga? II it omits or distorts certain important ideas, can it be rewritten? And, iI so, by whom?

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
49
Link: NASA/ISS/Apocalypse

The affirmative`s attempt to mobilize space as the location of global harmony is merely a utopian
vision.

Why would a button-down agency like NASA want to take on the trappings oI a popular phenomenon like
StarTrek? (Or, Ior that matter, vice versa?) To ask this question is to ask whether NASA should itselI aim to be popular culture, Literary theorist
Fredric Jameson points out that American science Iiction generally shows an aIIinity Ior dystopian rather than utopian Iutures, oIten Ieaturing Iantasies oI cyclical
regression or totalitarian empires. Our love aIIair with apocalypse and Armageddon, he says, results Irom a degeneration oI
the utopian imagination. II Star Trek stands out as a rare utopian scenario oI our scientiIic and technological
Iuture, it makes perIect sense that NASA would want to align itselI with that hugely popular story oI things to
come. For another thing, the Iate oI the space station most likely depends on its supporters' ability to ensure that Iuture
through successIully weaving the need Ior such a Iacility into the NASA/TREK scenario (along with, oI course,
a great deal oI bald Iaced porkbarrelling by legislators Irom Southern CaliIornia and the Houston area, where
the components will be built). Even some oI the harshest critics oI the space station believe its construction
should be supported insoIar as it would contribute to a new era oI international cooperation, especially with the
Iormer Evil Empire. Ironically, the original Star Trek series implied such cooperation had already been achieved by
including (controversially in 1966) a Russian Irom a peaceIul 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 traIIicking in the popular, then, depends on the job it seems to be doing oI writing its own script. A look at one oI
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 oI NASA's Iailure to be popular we can begin to understand the kind oI work - historical, empirical, political, cultural~ that would be necessary Ior any
possible rewrite in the Iuture.
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. Iounded the US-based Nuclear Policy Research Institute Missel 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 Ior this new liIe. Almost always, the boy remains an emotional child and oIten runs away Irom his responsibilities by leaving
his wiIe and baby. As I observed many couples it seemed to me that oIten these men never mature. They continue to Ilirt with
death, playing with dangerous toys-motorbikes, race cars, weapons, and war. The hideous weapons oI mass genocide may
be symptoms oI several male emotions, reIlecting inadequate sexuality, a need continually to prove virility, and a
primitive Iascination killing. I recently watched a Iilmed launching oI an MX missile rose slowly Irom the ground, surrounded by smoke and Ilames,
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 soIt line. A McDonell Douglas advertisement Ior a new weapons' system proudly pronounced that it can "shoot down whatever's up, and blow up whatever`s
down." Sexual inadequacy in a powerIul leader is illustrated by Iollowing 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 Ior 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 aIter halI an hour oI this salute. He's Ilabby, but I am hard

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
50
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

Politics itselI has to be redeIined in view oI the wide range oI political activities in which women are highly involved. No longer can politics
be deIined 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 diIIerential
access to resources-both material and symbolic-and how such power relations and structures are created,
sustained, and reconIigured. According to this broader deIinition, politics operates at all levels, ranging Irom the Iamily and community to
the state and the international sphere. All people act politically in their everyday lives. When Ieminists claim that the
"personal is political," they mean that all oI us are embedded in various kinds oI power relationships and
structures that aIIect our choices and aspirations on a daily basis and that, most important, are not natural
(apolitical) but are subject to change, Recognition oI gender inequality as a global phenomenon with global
implications challenges traditional deIinitions oI IR. Sarah Brown argued that "the proper object and purpose oI the study oI international
relations is the identiIication and explanation oI social stratiIication and oI inequality as structured at the level oI global relations:J13 Compared to a standard deIinition,
Brown's draws greater attention to political, economic, and social Iorces below and above the level oI the state, thereby revealing the greater complexity
oI international politics, which cannot be reduced to the actions oI state leaders and their international
organizations. It also highlights inequality as a signiIicant source oI conIlict in international relations in addition to, but also in
tension with, notions about the inevitable clash oI states with diIIering ideologies and interests. Finally, it speaks to global patterns oI inequality
operating across states, creating divisions among people along not just national lines but also gender, race, class,
and culture lines. The corollary oI this is that people are Iinding 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.


Masculinism pervades politics. Wendy Brown wrote: "More than any other kind oI human activity, politics has historically borne an
explicitly masculine identity. It has been more exclusively limited to men than any other realm oI endeavor and
has been more intensely, selI-consciously masculine than most other social practices."14 oI its inability to be accurately
understood when separated Irom these relationships.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
51
Link: Peacekeeping
The masculine politics embodied in US policy is shown through the assertion of power
MacDonald 07 (Fraser, Lecturer oI Geography at the University oI Edinburgh, Anti-stropolitik 1 1 0outer space and the orbit oI geography
www.landfood.unimelb.edu.aurmge47a5ypapersanti4ute7s5ace.pdf)

In post-Cold-War unipolar times the strategic rationale Ior the United States to maintain the prohibition against
weaponizing space is diminishing (Lambakis, 2003), even iI the rest oI the world wishes it otherwise. In 2000, a UN General
Assembly resolution on the Prevention oI an Arms Race in Outer Space` was adopted by a majority oI 1630
with 3 abstentions: the United States, Israel and the Federated States oI Micronesia (United Nations, 2000). Less than two
months later, a US Government committee chaired by Donald RumsIeld5 issued a report warning that the relative
dependence oI the US on space makes its space systems potentially attractive targets`; the United States thus
Iaced the danger, it argued, oI a Space Pearl Harbor` (RumsIeld, 2001: viii). s must ensure continuing superiority` (RumsIeld, 2001: viii).
was qualiIied by obligatory gestures towards the peaceIul use oI outer space` but the report leIt little dAs space warIare was, according to the report, a virtual
certainty`, the United Stateoubt about the direction oI American space policy. Any diIIicult questions about the Iurther militarization (and
even weaponization) oI space could be easily avoided under the guise oI developing dual-use`
(military/civilian) technology and emphasizing the role oI military applications in peacekeeping` operations.
Through such rhetoric, NATO`s satellite-guided bombing oI a Serbian TV station on 23 April 1999 could have been
readily accommodated under the OST injunction to use outer space Ior peaceIul purposes` (Cervino et al.,
2003). Since that time new theatres oI operation have been opened up in AIghanistan and Iraq, Ior Iurther trials
oI space-enabled warIare that aimed to provide aerial omniscience Ior the precision delivery oI shock and
awe`. What Benjamin Lambeth has called the accomplishment` oI air and space power has since been called into question by the all too apparent limitations oI
satellite intelligence in the tasks oI identiIying Iraqi Weapons oI Mass Destruction or in stemming the growing number oI Allied dead and wounded Irom modestly
armed urban insurgents (Lambeth, 1999; Graham, 2004; Gregory, 2004: 205).For all its limitations, even this imagery has been shielded Irom independent scrutiny by
the military monopolization oI commercial satellite outputs (Livingstone and Robinson, 2003). Yet, Iar Irom undermining Allied conIidence in satellite imagery or in a
cosmic` view oI war (Kaplan, 2006), it is precisely these abstract photocartographies oI violence detached Irom their visceral and bloodied accomplishments` that
have licensed, say, the destruction oI Fallujah (Gregory, 2004: 162;Graham, 2005b). There remains, oI course, a great deal more that can be said about the politics oI
these aerial perspectives than can be discussed here (see, Ior instance, Gregory,2004; Kaplan, 2006).
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
52
Link: Satellites
Space surveillance technology leads to the militarization of daily life and enhances existing
masculine dominance

The geopolitical eIIects oI reconnaissance Irom space platIorms are by no means conIined to particular episodes
oI military conIlict. 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 oIIers the potential Ior real-time surveillance. The emerging Iield oI
surveillance studies, strongly inIormed by critical geographical thought, has opened to scrutiny the politics and spaces oI electronic
observation (see, Ior instance, the new journal surveillance and Society). The writings oI Foucault, particularly those on panopticism, are an obvious inIluence on
this new work (Foucault, 1977; Wood, 2003), but they have seldom been applied to the realm oI outer space. As Foucault pointed out, the power oI
Jeremy Bentham`s panopticon prison design is enacted through the prisonersubjects internalizing the
disciplinary gaze: the presence oI the gaoler was immaterial, as the burden oI watching was leIt to the watched. Similarly,
the power oI panoptic orbital surveillance lies in its normalizing geopolitical eIIects. II the geopolitics oI surveillance is particularly evident
at the level oI the state, it applies also to the organization oI the daily activities oI its citizens (Molz, 2006). GPS
technology is perhaps the most evident incursion oI space-enabled military surveillance systems into everyday
liIe, becoming an indispensable means oI monitoring the location oI people and things. For instance, the manuIacturer Pro
Tech, riding the wave oI public concern about paedophilia in Britain, has developed systems currently being trialled by the UK
Home OIIice to track the movements oI registered sex oIIenders (see also Monmonier, 2002: 134). Somewhat predictably,
given the apparent crisis in the spatialities oI childhood (Jones et al., 2003), children are to be the next subjects oI
satellite surveillance. In December 2005, the company mTrack launched i-Kids, a mobile phone/GPS unit that allows parents to track their
oIIspring 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 dog`s
collar, should walkies ever get out oI hand. It will surprise no one that the same technology gets used Ior less savoury purposes: a Los Angeles stalker was jailed Ior 16
months Ior attaching a GPS device to his ex-girlIriend`s Downloaded Irom 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 oI this technology. Anyone who leaves their mobile phone unattended Ior Iive
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 oI a newspaper story, the Guardian journalist Ben Goldacre stalked` his girlIriend by registering her phone on one oI many
websites Ior the commercial tracking oI employees and stock (Goldacre, 2006). The exercise revealed how easily everyday technologies like the mobile phone can be reconIigured Ior very diIIerent purposes. Even this modest
labour in tracking a mobile phone will become a thing oI the past. Phones will be more speciIically conIigured as a tracking device: Nokia is due to release a GPS phone in 2007, while the Finnish company BeneIon has
already launched its Twig Discovery, a phone that has a Iinder` capability that locates and tracks other contacts in your address book. Should the user come within range oI another contact, the phone will send a message
asking whether you are willing to reveal your location to this contact. II both parties are agreeable, the phones will guide their users to each other. In this way, the gadgetry oI space-enabled
espionage is being woven into interpersonal as well as interstate and citizenstate relations. II the movements oI
a car can be tracked by a jealous boyIriend, they can also be tracked by the state Ior the purposes oI taxation: this is surely the
Iuture oI road tolls in the UK. A British insurance company is already using satellite technology to cut the premiums Ior young drivers iI they stay oII the roads between
11pm and 6am, when most accidents occur. InIormation about the time, duration and route oI every single journey made by the driver is recorded and sent back to the
company (Bachelor, 2006). The success oI Geotechnologies will lie in these ordinary reconIigurations oI liIe such as tracking
parcels, locating stolen cars, transport guidance or assisting the navigation oI the visually impaired. Some might
argue, however, that their impact will be more subtle still. For instance, Nigel ThriIt locates the power oI new
Iorms oI positioning in precognitive sociality and prereIlexive practice`, that is to say in various kinds oI culturally
inculcated corporeal automatisms` (ThriIt, 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 diIIicult (ThriIt,
2004b: 188). Perhaps we are not at that stage yet. But one can easily envisage GPS technologies enhancing existing inequalities in
the very near Iuture, such as the device that will warn the cautious urban walker that they are entering a bad
neighbourhood`. In keeping with the logic oI the panopticon, this is less Big Brother` than an army oI little
brothers: the social liIe oI he new space age is already beginning to look quite diIIerent. And it is to this
incipient militarization oI everyday liIe that the emerging literature on military geographies` (Woodward, 2004; 2005) must surely
turn its attention. Mention must also be made oI geoIencing` technologies. This is not merely a matter oI tracking dogs, children or Iriends, but an even more active expression oI geographic power. Take, Ior example, the case
oI networked cows.6 Zack Butler, an academic computer scientist at the Rochester Institute oI Technology, has pioneered a Iorm oI satellite herding technology which would allow a Iarmer to move livestock by means oI
virtual Iences` controlled by a laptop computer: basically we downloaded the Iences 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 Irom proceeding in a given direction whenever it arrives at the virtual Ience. It is oI passing interest to learn that Butler also compares this new era oI satellite-guided Iarming
to playing a computer game`. This may be a relatively minor example, but it gives some indication oI the potentially wide array oI applications that await geoIencing technologies.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
53
Link: Satellites
The AFF leads to total control and domination of society

The miniaturization oI the earth made possible by satellite photography appeals to the managerial impulse; the
"blue-and-white Christmas ornament" can be "managed" Iar more easily that a world oI 5.5 billion people and
thou-sands oI cultures. The distinctive combination oI will-to-power and the sense oI the earth's Iragility that
typiIies the remote sensing project is expressed in the words oI astronaut "Buzz"Aldrin: "The earth was eventually so small I could blot it out oI the
universe by holding up my thumb."60 From space, the ultimate domination oI the earth, or at least the illusion oIit, becomes
possible. While it is the earth that is objectiIied by the planetary gaze, ultimately "managing planet earth" will
mean controlling human behavior, not the earth itselI. 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 oI remote sensing perpetuate the
knowledge/power nexus with respect not only to human domination oI nature, but also to social control. Thus, the
six assumptions implicit in the project oI global environmental monitoring by satellite turn out to be plagued with internal
inconsistencies, pa-rochial biases, and moral diIIiculties. Neither the science nor the technology oI Earth remote sensing is neutral. The vast
quantities oI data generated by satellites are unlikely to lead to either scientiIic certainty or rational policy. Indeed, EOS
technology, at least as presently constituted, seems to reinIorce the drive to industrialization and the interrogatory approach to nature that lie at the heart oI modernity.
The global view that it purports to provide may become a totalizing perspective that omits human agency and
substitutes the vantage point oI a tech-nical elite Ior the collective experiences oI the diversity oI 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 oI plan-etary management that pervades discussions oI EOS suggests that the disciplin-ary
power inherent in the managerial impulse is at the heart oI the remote sens-ing project.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
54
Link: Science
Science caused a shift in thinking that considered a feminine nature as under man's power
Cuomo 98 (Chris J., Associate ProIessor oI Philosophy, University oI Cincinnati, eminism and Ecological ommunities. n Ethic of lourishing, pg 27)
In The Death oI Nature, Carolyn Merchant illustrates how, historically, conceptualizations oI nature in science and religion have
dramatically shaped the Iorm and Iorce oI human impact on natural entities and communities. Merchant and
others identiIy Baconian thought as the culmination oI a gradual, multiIaceted shiIt Irom thinking oI nature as imbued
with spiritual Iorce to thinking oI it as inert matter. This shiIt interwove with and enabled the development oI Iorms oI
science unhindered by a previous tendency to respect, however IanciIully, many aspects oI nonhuman organic liIe. The turn`
away Irom seeing nature as enchanted, mysterious, and Iecund, enabled the development oI scientiIic systems
that regarded natural entities and phenomena as under the jurisdiction oI man. As a result, technology, science, and ther material
practices and institutions instrumentalized nonhuman entities. That is, they deIined and interacted with the natural world primarily as an instrument Ior human
manipulation, consumption, and speculation, as a sphere oI being in which nothing possesses the special qualities that would make it worthy oI moral respect. They
thereby strengthened stalwart conceptual divisions between human and nonhuman reality, and the devaluation oI nature. But, oI course, Baconian science
did not occur in a social vacuum. Placing the work oI this Iather oI modern science` in its political and economic context, Merchant also traces the
ways in which his descriptions and metaphors were inIluenced by violence against women, speciIically the
inquisition oI women accused oI witchcraIt throughout Europe during the early seventeenth century. "For you have but to Iollow
and as it were hound nature in her wanderings, and you will be able when you like to lead and drive her
aIterward to the same place again. Neither am I oI opinion in this history oI marvels that superstitious narratives oI sorceries, witchcraIts, charms,
dreams, divinations, and the like, where there is an assurance and clear evidence oI the Iact, should be altogether excluded . . . howsoever the use and practice oI such
arts is to be condemned, yet Irom the speculation and consideration oI them . . . A useIul light may be gained, not only Ior a true judgment oI the oIIenses oI persons
charged with such practices, but likewise Ior the Iurther disclosing oI the secrets oI nature. Neither ought a man to make scruple oI entering
and penetrating into these holes and corners, when the inquisition oI truth is his whole object as your majesty
has shown in your example." (1980: 168) By investigating the ways in which negative constructions oI Iemininity and hence
women`s subordinate roles, identities, and material circumstances were interwoven with the devaluation oI
nature, historical work sets the stage Ior ecoIeminist philosophical inquiry. It also lends support to Ieminists` long-standing tendencies to draw attention to
connections among male-dominated science, technology, the destruction oI the natural world, and the
oppression oI women and members oI other Ieminized, 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 Ior hidden causal connections
and conceptual linkages runs the risk oI oversimpliIying an impossibly complex story.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
55
Link: Science
Science is socially constructed from an androcentric standpoint-faith in it causes masculine elites to
dominate others through arbitrary ideas of truth
Campbell 9 Nancy D. Campbell, associate proIessor in the Department oI Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 'Reconstructing
Science and Technology Studies Views Irom Feminist Standpoint Theory, Frontier: a Journal oI Womyn`s Studies, Volume 30, Number 1, 2009 Muse|

'Science and technology are socially constructed is the central tenet oI the anthropological, historical, and sociological imaginaries Irom
which STS Ilows. II 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 oI bodies, the sciences
that claim to make sense oI 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 meaningIul, and shaped by speciIic social Iorces and cultural imperatives. Now
encompassing a vast literature documenting the social construction oI everything Irom obviously gendered
technologies such as contraceptives and new reproductive technologies to those less obviously but clearly uneven in their gendered
eIIects such as bicycles, laboratories, or microwave ovens, the Iield has gone well beyond its initial insight into social construction.3 Some scholars in this Iield rely
on the metaphor oI '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 Iocus attention on social inequality, Ieminists tend to emphasize that social construction is real in its material eIIects:
'In developing a theory oI the gendered character oI technology, we are inevitably in danger oI either adopting
an essentialist position that sees technology as inherently patriarchal, or losing sight oI the structure oI gender
relations through an emphasis on the historical variability oI the categories oI womyn` and technology.`5 Within
STS, science and medicine comprise a 'domain in which a host oI political problems can get worked outthe nature oI social justice, the limits and possibilities oI
citizenship, and the meanings oI equality and diIIerence at the biological as well as social levels.6 Academic constructions oI bodily diIIerence
and group diIIerence, as well as those that activists put into play, are debated with nearly the same intensity in
STS as by Ieminists. Science and technology, Iar Irom being politically neutral, are shown to be part oI the
conceptual practices oI 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 Ior rapprochement between the academic and activist wings oI the Iield in a reconstructivist maniIesto appearing in the Ilagship journal Social Studies
oI Science under the title 'Science Studies and Activism: Possibilities and Problems Ior Reconstructivist Agendas.8 Urging scholars to take up positions oI thoughtIul partisanship based on a normativeeven activist
stance on the inclusion oI relevant communities in the making oI technoscience, the authors acknowledged that everyone involved in or implicated by technoscientiIic enterprises Iaces certain perennial problems. These
include uncertainty, disagreement, and ongoing social conIlict, all oI which inevitably permeate the social construction oI technology. Instead oI turning to a strategy oI Ialse neutrality, the reconstructivists believe that the
inherent partisanship oI technological decision making and scientiIic 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 technoscientiIic elites,9 reconstructivist Edward J. Woodhouse laid out conceptual guidelines Ior a multipartisan science that share a deep resonance with what Ieminist standpoint theorists have
been arguing Iorbut reconstructivists lack the language developed in Ieminist epistemology. Based in a political science tradition that emphasizes inequality because it negatively aIIects the 'intelligence oI democracy,10
reconstructivists adopted the modest goal oI simply expanding the discursive space Ior 'creative constructionists within their own Iield. They did not rule out strategic alliances but simply sought to expand the discursive
space Ior their project within interdisciplinary STS. They did not peer deeply into the constitution oI 'have-nots or 'elites, although when pressed they might well reply that the maldistribution oI the costs and beneIits oI
technoscience occurs along various axes oI diIIerence including, but not limited to, race, class, and gender in much the same way that Ieminists might. However, multiple categories oI diIIerence remain un-or underspoken in
reconstructivist thought. Thus, despite the basic convergence between Ieminist and reconstructivist thought, Ieminists are likely to have diIIiculty hearing the reconstructivists because oI their tendency to speak in general
rather than speciIic terms. The reconstructivist tendency to speak in terms oI generality rather than speciIicity arises Irom the attempt to make a case that applies to everyone anywhere. This universalizing tendency can be
glimpsed in the list oI the tenets oI reconstructivism shown in Figure 1, which reIlects a major current oI reconstructivist thought on incentivizing the production oI more relevant social science and more usable knowledge.11
End Page 3| The immediate Ieminist impulse is to ask two questions: Relevant Ior whom? Usable by whom? To these questions reconstructivists reply on topical grounds, acknowledging the epistemological inadequacy oI
their answers: Despite the postmodernist and related eIIorts to attend to excluded or marginalized social groups, there still is a long way to go beIore one could say that
there is anything like an even-handed treatment within STS oI End Page 4| genders, ethnicities, countries, and other
categories on which marginalization occurs. Upper-middle-class proIessional womyn oI the sort who might be disadvantaged by gendering oI
recruitment and advancement in science and engineering probably are getting about their Iair share oI study these days, but poorer womyn . . . surely are not. And the
deeper insights oI Ieminist theory rarely get applied concretely to science and technology policy outside the
reproductive and medical Iields.12 End Page 5| While we may disagree with the sentiment that any womyn get their Iair share oI study or decry the
nonspeciIic language oI 'poorer womyn, the impulse to direct inquiry toward those excluded or marginalized aligns with Ieminist 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 deIines this problem in the Iollowing terms: Because political and economic elites possess the resources to water and
weed the garden oI knowledge, the knowledge tends to grow (to be 'selected) in directions that are consistent
with the goals oI political and economic elites. When social movement leaders and industry reIormers who wish
to change our societies look to 'Science Ior answers to their research questions, they oIten Iind an empty
spacea special issue oI a journal that was never edited, a conIerence that never took place, an epidemiological
study that was never Iundedwhereas their better Iunded adversaries have an arsenal oI knowledge to draw on.
. . . T|he science that should get done does not get done because there are structures in place that keep it Irom
getting done.13 Similarly, Ieminists have called Ior new ways oI knowing and new institutional practices amenable to the project oI 'undone science. By
subjecting the reconstructivist project to Iriendly Ieminist scrutiny, I seek to Iurther its reach and amend its charter to the extent possible.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
56
Link: Space
Space as a location of discourse on sexuality inscribes compulsory heterosexuality.

We have argued that gender, sexuality, and reproduction are imbricating and mutually constitutive discourses within
the U.S. space program. Within the masculine Iramework oI space Ilight, gender diIIerences are constructed and
deployed across multiple sites. Female bodies are essentialized in opposition to a male norm, leading to notions
oI masculinity and Iemininity as "natural" categories. These diIIerences are construed as Iundamental and
constrain the ways sexuality and reproduction are understood and explored. Sexuality is discursively located in
complementary male and Iemale bodies, reIlecting and reinIorcing the heterosexual paradigm. Reproduction is
then articulated as a natural and inevitable outcome oI sexual activity deIined in terms oI male-Iemale
intercourse. On their surIace, these constructions are consistent with NASA's long-term goals oI colonizing space. Yet, because reproduction is physiologically
problematic and because sexuality means many diIIerent things despite NASA's narrow ideological Iraming, sex and reproduction are contested and will likely remain
so in the Iuture. We have also suggested that these discourses are situated within a broader set oI practices in which human
bodies and Iutures are inscribed. These include scientiIic research, mission planning, public relations activities,
crew management, and other key sites. Inscription is a powerIul tool Ior analyzing the dynamic, porous
relationship between Earth and space, including the activities and meanings which mediate the symbolic and
vehicular traIIic. Space is alive with possibilities, yet it is also an embattled domain and no Iuture is certain. What
we have attempted to show in this paper is that conservative theories and praxis on Earth propel us towards some Iutures while eclipsing the possibility oI others.
Space activities are extensions of terrestrial power relations

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 oI outer
space is a logical extension oI earlier geographies oI imperial exploration (Ior instance, Smith and God lewska, 1994;Driver, 2001).
Space exploration has used exactly the same discourses, the same rationales, and even the same institutional
Irameworks(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, Ior instance, argues that Ior the United States outer space
was always a metaphorical extension oI the American West` (Benjamin, 2003: 46). Looking at the imbricated
narratives oI colonialism and the Arianne space programme in French Guiana,the anthropologist Peter RedIi eld makes the case
that outer space reIlects a practical shadow oI empire` (RedIi eld, 2002: 795; see also RedIi eld, 2000). The historian oI science Richard
Sorrenson, writing about the ship as geography`s scientiIic instrument in the age oI high empire, draws on the work oI David
DeVorkin to argue that the V-2 missile was its natural successor (Sorrenson, 1996: 228; see also DeVorkin, 1992). A version oI the V-2 the two-
stage Bumper WAC Corporal` became the Iirst earthly object to penetrate outer space, reaching an altitude oI 244 miles on 24 February 1949 (Army Ballistic Missile
Agency, 1961). Moreover, out oI this postwar allied V-2 programme came the means by which Britain attempted to
reassert its geopolitical might in the context oI its own ailing empire. In 1954, when America sold Britain its Iirst
nuclear missile a reIined version oI the WAC Corporal its possession was seen as a shortcut back to the international stage
at a time when Britain`s colonial power was waning Iast (Clark, 1994; MacDonald, 2006a). Even iI the political geography literature has scarcely engaged with outer
space, the advent oI rocketry was basically Cold War (imperial) geopolitics under another name. Space
exploration then, Irom its earliest origins to the present day, has been about Iamiliar terrestrial and ideological
struggles here on Earth.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
57
Link: Space

The AFFs deployment of space is masculine and enforces hierarchies of power.
Outer space represents in every possible sense the discursive collisions oI culturally conIigured ideas concerning what is essentially` and deIinitively human. As
Goh states, outer space is an arena oI growing economic and technological importance. It is also a developing
theatre oI military deIence and warIare` (2004: 259). The line distinguishing the various components oI 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 belieI that outer space can be conquered, that those at the cutting edge oI 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 Ior colonial conquest, and an arena Ior warIare and the
display oI 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 oI power, identity and cultural and sexual assumption
that inIuse outer space politics are no diIIerent 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.


Humans, argues CrawIord, bring speed, agility, versatility and intelligence to exploration in a way that robots cannot`, justiIying to many the employment oI astronauts
as Iield scientists` on other planets (CrawIord, 2005: 252). The consistent discursive articulation oI outer space as a Irontier, a threshold` Ior human intervention
requiring the utmost in human perIormance, depends on a regulatory Iramework wherein humanity` is able to consistently and without obstacle (material,
psychological or otherwise) seize the challenge oI exploiting and controlling its natural environment and resources. Rarely conceived oI purely in
technological, aphysical terms, space is a politics (in US discourse) entirely constituted in reIerence to the
physical attributes oI the (neoliberally) human. Within the heteronormative, heterosexual, regulatory
Irameworks oI space discourse, the ideal, space-able, individual is constructed and reproduced within an
unspoken but unequivocal heteronormative Iramework oI reproductive sexuality, as a model that others should
approximate: a person, evolved oI 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 Iramework has only solidiIied the
sense oI male bodies existing as the norm against which Iemale bodies are evaluated, and male physiology the
standard by which Iemale bodies are judged.

Space politics are gendered to legitimize militarization and privatization of space.
This paper has argued that sex`, gender` and sexual practice` are discursively constituted to render the apparently
ungendered` discourse(s) oI 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 Ior both increased the militarisation oI space, while serving neoliberal, anglo- american
ideals oI marketization, privatization, deregulation and Ilexibilization. This public/private binary creates a
troubled relationship between sex, gender and the politics oI (re)production in outer space. Sex` invariably
appears (iI indeed it does appear) in outer space politics as a category pertaining only to the lives and bodies oI women,
as Iixed, binary, and biologically and physically constant.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
58
Link: Space competition
Space races and leadership is the epitome of masculinity.


This regulatory masculinism has undoubtedly resulted in the overwhelming dominance oI male astronauts in space. Although the Iirst American Iemale went into space
in 1983, in 2001 oI an active astronaut corps oI 158, only 35 were women (NASA Press Release, 2001), and oI the 2004 class oI astronauts, only two oI eleven were
Iemale (http://spaceIlight.nasa.gov). But the predominance oI male astronauts also stems Irom the gendered nature oI space
discourse itselI. The Space Age` that began with the Cold War Space Race` has been coded (heterosexually)
masculine, dependent on a Ioundational ideology oI masculine prowess realised through gendered assumptions
oI physical and technical expertise, strength, endurance and intelligence. The portrayal oI the earliest astronauts
as popular heroes in the US media, and beyond, sedimented an image oI masculine achievement that, although
highly contingent on the militarised aggressivity oI Cold War discourse at that time, has proved enduring.
Armstrong`s Iamous announcement that the Apollo 11 moon landing was one small step Ior a man, one giant
leap Ior mankind` thus in this instance speaks more speciIically than universally, a continuation oI the Western
history`s overarching belieI in men`s natural` ability, indeed prerogative, to conquer Ior the good oI everyone.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
59
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 Irom University oI CaliIornia, San Francisco, and Lisa Jean, ProIessor oI 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)

This article would be incomplete without some discussion oI the broader political Iramework oI space travel within which discourses oI gender, sex, and reproduction
are situated. The prior Republican and the current Democratic administrations have, across two decades, reaIIirmed a Presidential "Prime" Directive on national space
policy by reissuing the Iollowing statement: "a Iundamental objective guiding space activities has been, and continues to be,
space leadership." This is a problematic goal, however, given a number oI setbacks in the space program in recent years, including the explosion oI the
Challenger, the disappearance oI the Mars Observer, and controversy over the malIunctioning Hubble space telescope launched in 1990. Presently, it is unclear what
eIIects the Ioiled Mars probe will have on the 1996 scheduled (but unIunded) two-year Mars mission. Yet, a humorous depiction oI the missing
Mars Observer on the back oI a milk carton, usually reserved Ior exploited and/or missing children, ironically
demonstrates the displacement and replacement oI certain social issues by others. Such representations are
situated within the crisis oI shrinking Iederal allocations to the space program (Anderson1994; Kay 1994). Also unclear at the
present time is how controversy over the Hubble telescope will aIIect NASA in the long run. During the three-and-a-halI years the $1.6 billion telescope was
transmitting blurry images to Earth, NASA was on the receiving end oI intense criticism as well. AIter the 1993 Endeavour mission in which astronauts successIully
repaired the telescope, NASA apparently enjoyed a resurgence oI public conIidence and legitimacy. According to Senator Barbara Mikulski, Chair oI the NASA budget
subcommittee, this new-Iound support might help the agency's reputation in Congress and win approval Ior the $30 billion international space station (WilIord 1994).
Implementation oI Space Station Freedom, with a projected completion date oI the year 2000, has the potential to phenomenally impact the liIe sciences, Iuture space
habitation, and NASA's reputation. Yet, space travel and/or colonization are more complicated than a "simple"
organizational or Iederal decision regarding exploration and institutional expansion. Just as the Iabulous seven astronauts/pilots
Irom The Right StuII quipped "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" (WolIe 1979), NASA must continue to obtain and secure Iunding Ior these
very expensive missions, as the Mars Probe and Hubble telescope snaIus illustrate.6 Fundraising oIten means
developing collaborative enterprises with space programs in other countries. Due to long-range planning and
Iinancial commitments which are necessary precursors to any NASA mission, the organization oIten Iinds itselI
in a position oI Iollow-through on space missions Irom which it cannot easily extricate itselI. The European Space
Agency (ESA) and the agencies oI the Federal Republic oI Germany (DARA), Canada (CSA), Japan (NASDA), and the Iormer Soviet Union are all major investors in
the planning oI Space Station Freedom. These international alliances in the post-Fordist economy have already consolidated
the decision Ior Iuture space exploration and colonization. Indeed, international commitments are so deeply
entrenched that one inIormant remarked, somewhat aptly given our topic, "even iI we wanted to we couldn't
pull out." It is ironic that space, deIined in the 1950s and 1960s as a site oI Cold War military conIlict, has
become a site oI postmodern international political and economic cooperation.7 While space has oIten been conceptualized as
that which will make our world bigger, space now has the potential to also make the world smaller by reconIiguring capitalism and nationalism. Potential colonization
leads to new markets to be explored and developed in a post-Fordist, transglobal economy. The Iact-based Iiction depicted in the PBS video Living and Working in
Space postulates some potential Iuture marketing schemes, including the ''Baby Bubble," a uteruslike technology attached to ''Mom'' and designed to tow a Iloating baby
or small child; genetically engineered Iood like the ''Mousepotato'' that "will suit up and come directly to you;" hydroponic Iood grown without soil; hologram Iaxes;
and "Astrotels" billed as economic places to stay. Just think oI the possibilities Ior intergalactic commodity Ietishism!8 These political and economic issues are closely
linked to constructions oI sex and reproduction in space as social and scientiIic 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 oI 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 oI those working in the space program. In one inIormant's words, '1I 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 oI the "unborn" within Iuture reproductive scenarios involving space travel and habitation: "The earthly stew, within its existing conIines, is showing signs oI
unhealthy Iermentation and rising pressure. The pressure might be relieved, beIore it becomes explosive, by broadened perspectives that direct it outward to the
openness oI space." There is a Iascinating subtext operating in Grobstein's account related to intersections oI gender, race, sex, science, bodies, reproduction, and
colonization.9 As JenniIer Terry (personal correspondence) has suggested, metaphors oI rising pressure suggest a hydraulic model oI sexual desire. But whose pressure
is rising-that oI the libidinous individual or that oI the anxious society? And, is this pressure mainly related to biological reproduction or to sexual pleasure?
Ironically, physiological problems oI space travel may constrain any plans to commence human colonization oI
space. For the immediate Iuture, reproduction may well be conIined to Earth, suggesting an ironic image oI the
Van AlIen Belt as a postmodern birth control technology. Such desires and Iears about reproduction lead to
deIinitions oI sexuality in which only relations between Iertile males and Iemales are considered salient. Next, we
explore discourses oI gender, sex, and reproduction as they operate to inscribe certain Iutures while precluding others.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
60
Link: Space Exploration and Development
The desire to control and develop space both rely on hetero-masculinist tropes of war-fighting and
aggressive competition.
The gendered assumptions that underlie this rhetoric are tacit but striking, and depend on two distinct, heteronormative,
tropes oI masculinization and Ieminization. First, the US`s ability to control space capabilities` depends upon
assumptions oI dominance and inherent superiority that revolve around the (gendered) signifer oI the US`s role as
classic` or active warfghter`: assumptions including the need Ior speed and watchIulness (real time space
surveillance`), agility and technical superiority (timely and responsive spaceliIt`), enhanced protection` (oI military and
commercial systems`), robustness and eIfcient repelling capabilities (robust negation systems`), precision Iorce` and
enhanced 'sensor-to-shooter ` capabilities. Just as Presidents Kennedy and Johnson summoned the spectre oI an active, robust, potent American with the Pilgrim and pioneer spirit oI
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 oI great goals`, the risk takers` and visionaries` oI
whom America is so proud` (Bush 2004). Second, in establishing its (heterosexually masculine) credentials, the US`s techno-strategic
discourse reconfgures all other space-able nations as subordinate, constructing a binary, heterosexual relationship oI
masculine hegemony/Ieminine subordination. Tellingly, US Space Command cites the Iorging oI global partnerships` as
essential to protecting US national interests and investments, where such partnerships are at the behest oI the US, with
those that partner the US warfghter` little more than passive conduits Ior US opportunity` and commerce` (Joint Vision
2020`). This warfghting` discourse is not, oI course, the only construction oI outer space to possess discursive currency
in the US. Space exploration`, as CrawIord argues, is inherently exciting, and as such is an obvious vehicle Ior inspiring
the public in general, and young people in particular` (2005: 258). Viewed predominantly as a natural extension to the so-
called evolution oI military and commercial arts` in the Western hemisphere, human, technological expansion into outer
space is justifed in terms oI scientifc, commercial and military global entrepreneurship. Conquering the fnal Irontier oI outer space is
increasingly seen as crucial to a state`s pre-eminence in the global economy (cI. Joint Vision 2020`). International alliances in the post-Fordist
economy have already consolidated the decision Ior Iuture space exploration and colonization` (Casper and Moore
1995: 315). In a particularly dramatic turn oI phrase, Seguin argues that m|ankind sic| now stands at the threshold oI long-duration space habitation and
interplanetary travel` (2005: 980). Similarly, Manzey describes human missions to Mars less as contingent Iuture events, but as the inevitable consequences oI
technological progress (Manzey 2004: 781790). Space, once defned as a power-laden site oI Cold War military confict, has also
become a site oI international political and economic cooperation. OIten conceptualized in expansionist terms, as that
which will make our world bigger, with space discovery` expanding human knowledge, space is also conceived oI as that
which will make the world smaller, in neo-liberal globalization terms, by reconfguring capitalism and nationalism` (Casper
and Moore 1995: 315). The US` warfghting` discourse is also at odds with much so-called space law`, in particular the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which defnes space as the province oI all mankind` and asks that states act
with due regard to the corresponding interests oI States Parties to the Treaty` (Brearly 2005: 1617). Within the US itselI, congressionally-led eIIorts to discuss and minimize the threats posed by human-made debris caught in
Low Earth Orbit (LEO), oI which there is somewhere in the region oI 2,300 metric tons (ibid.: 9), appear ill-matched with clear eIIorts by US government to increase the weaponization oI space. The US cooperates, to a
limited extent, in perpetuating a sustainable space environment Ior its satellite-based systems, to which space debris undoubtedly poses a threat, because this is oI direct individual beneft to US commercial interests. The US
reIuses, however, to ratiIy the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), prohibiting all use oI nuclear explosions in space, since this constitutes a restriction oI its ability to develop and test new` weapons. US critics oI the
CTBT contend that ratiIying the treaty would undercut confdence in the US deterrent`, and thus increase the incentive Ior rogue states to obtain nuclear weapons` (Medalia 2006: 13). All this is not to
argue that dominant scientifc` and commercial` justifcations Ior space exploration, which are perhaps less overtly
related to the militarization oI space (Ior example, concerning advances in medicine, molecular and cellular biology,
geology, weather Iorecasting, robotics, electronics and so on), do not in their basic assumptions also embody a gendered
sense oI man`s` natural right to colonize so-called unknown territory (see, e.g. Morabito 2005). The quest Ior knowledge`
remains deeply embedded in Western accounts oI the need Ior space colonization (as Bush`s 2004 speech makes clear),
rationalized Irom humanity`s so-called natural` desire to explore and conquer (cI. Bush 2004; CrawIord 2005; Mendell 2005). CrawIord, in proposing a case
Ior the scientifc and social` importance oI human space exploration, suggests that, there are reasons Ior believing that as a species Homo sapiens is genetically predisposed towards exploration and the colonisation oI an open
Irontier. Access to such a Irontier, at least vicariously, may be in some sense psychologically necessary Ior the long-term wellbeing oI human societies. (CrawIord 2005: 260) Similarly, NASA`s website claims that Irom the
time oI our birth, humans have Ielt a primordial urge to explore`, to blaze new trails, map new lands, and answer proIound questions about ourselves and our universe` (www.nasa.gov). Much commercial
gain already depends on the exploitation oI outer space, but there is undoubtedly more to be made oI space`s resources`:
asteroidal` mining, Ior example; the extraction oI lunar soil oxygen`; the mining oI very rare Helium-3` Irom lunar soil
as Iuel Ior nuclear Iusion reactors; or space, and particularly the Moon, as a tourist venue`, oIIering all kinds oI new
sporting opportunities` (Morabito 2005: 57). But the lines distinguishing the various components oI the outer space whole`
are vague, and are particularly obscured by the tacit but pervasive heteronormativity that makes oI space (to borrow the
language oI the then USSPACECOM) a medium` to be exploited; the passive receptacle oI US terrestrial Iorce`. As Goh
states, outer space is an arena oI growing economic and technological importance. It is also a developing theatre oI military deIence and warIare` (2004: 259). US
outer space discourse is driven by the belieI that outer space exists to be conquered (and that it rarely fghts back), that
those at the cutting edge oI 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).

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
61
Link: Spaceflight
The gendered iconography oI spaceIlight is still apparent today
department oI gender studies oI Linkoeping University, Cosmodolphins: Feminist cultural studies oI technology, animals, and the sacred, p. 90)
Our questions on space Ilight and gender thus generate response patterns in which cultural and gender diIIerences interIere. But these very diIIerent answers conIirm,
each in its own way, that the iconography bonding the extraordinary will, knowledge and know-how with 'men oI the right stuII is still
brooding over space Ilight. That space Ilight represents a cultural enclave where the heroic master narrative oI
the masculine superhero has been able to survive unchallenged Iar longer than in many other places is conIirmed by
the interviews we conducted at the Space Camp Ior youngsters that is located near the Kennedy Space Center. Almost one-third
oI the children aged ten to thirteen at the camp are girls. According to the staII, there is little diIIerence/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 oIten surprised when they are
conIronted 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 Ilight have diIIiculties
with role models. One oI the teachers, Debbie, says that this collision between the traditional iconography and the girls' search Ior role models has the eIIect oI
making some oI them very gender-conscious. She illustrates this with an anecdote: T used to give a lecture about this space suit Irom 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
department oI gender studies oI Linkoeping University, Cosmodolphins: Feminist cultural studies oI technology, animals, and the sacred, p. 114-115)
As the space body exposed its Ilesh and intestines to the devices oI innumerable medical tests, examinations,
adjustments, probes and the like as it was inserted into the electronic and mechanical systems oI the space
capsule, it began to seem like a machine in its own right. The way in which the astronautic body was
Iragmented and transIormed into numbers and statistics exempliIies this conIiguration oI body and machine. It
also came to tickle the popular imagination as this totally decomposed body accompanied the presentation oI its owner-occupier, the space hero himselI, to the public."
Thus the rate oI the space man's heart beIore, during and aIter the Ilight, his pulse, weight, lung capacity, blood pressure, respiration oral temperature, blood count, the
colour and gravity oI his urine, and so on and on ... all oI this was careIully registered and, especially hi the USA, made a question oI national interest. Strikingly, this
act oI decomposing the body became a counterpart to the reduction oI a machine into small, separate parts or, as Romanyshyn has cleverly pointed out, i~ the
dissection oI 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 Iit Ior cosmic adventures is mechanically translating, by means oI so many numbers and Iigures, is not the language oI other machines or oI
decomposed corpses: what it electronically signiIies is rather the disjointed grammar oI organic speech. What it translates and interprets into the depersonalized lin;*o
oI science is nothing iI not the vague murmuring oI organisms in change: the whispering oI blood particles, the susurration oI cells, oI muscles and organs at work. It is
the speech oI a body that, transIormed into a posl-(hu)man cyborg, can only be rendered intelligibly and Iunctionally alive through technology. Inspected and explored
Ior diseases and organic mal-Iunctions, the astronaut becomes so dissolved in bodily Iragments and in multiple voices that the boundaries oI that strategic and heroic
assemblage called selI appear to be thoroughly transgressed (Haraway 1991: 212). Consequently, the image oI the autonomous and
transcendent astronaut, a cybergod in waiting, easily merges with counter-images oI earthly shadow Iigures that
conjure up the spectres oI degradation, Iragility and dependence; images such as the mock doubles oI Hispanic Jose, Seagull Teresh-
kova, and also the chimps, monkeys and mongrel bitches oI earlier Ilights - that is, the non-straight, the eIIeminate male, the hysterical woman and the domesticated
animal. These symbolic carriers oI 'weak' nature(s) perIormed actively in the phantasmagorical show that, in the
Iirst decade oI space Ilight, brought into locus the representations, not only oI a divinely strong and selI-reliant
steel man, but also oI a vulnerable and mortal cyborg body, completely unable to Iunction on its own. In this
perIormance, 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 oI the space heroes with their elevated images
as stainless steel men and the pictures oI their manipulated bodies which were not only possessed and (sexually)
abused by technology, science and the penetrating scientiIic gaze, but were even laid open Ior public entry. The
objectiIying, dissecting and knowing vision oI Mailer himselI provides evidence oI this transgression: They
were virile men, but they were prodded, probed, tapped into, poked, Ilexed, tested, subjected to a pharmacology oI stimulants,
depressants, diuretics, laxatives, retentives, tranquilizers, motion sickness pills, antibiotics, vitamins and Iood which was designed to control the character oI their
Iaeces. They were virile, but they were done to, they were done to like no healthy man alive. (Mailer 1971: 48)

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
62
Link: Space Privacy
Space discourse perpetuates sex as a contamination to a professional's image
Even iI an ingenious crew could Iigure out ways to "do it," there is some doubt that NASA would discuss publicly any data gleaned Irom such activity. .The second type
oI 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 oI sex and their alleged threat to privacy that pollutes the pure, uncontaminated image oI the space
proIessional. This threat to proIessionalism is illustrated in the comments oI a NASA consultant: "You know,
these are highly committed, proIessional, academic nerdy scientists like myselI, who value their privacy as citizens ... and they don't want
to be made into spectacles." This
inIormant believes it is NASA's duty to protect the sexual privacy oI the crew Irom the media. In this Iraming, 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
Finally, privacy discourse is ostensibly used to protect the identities oI particular crew members in research protocols. Since there is only a handIul oI Iemale astronauts,
maintaining conIidentiality in scientiIic studies is extremely diIIicult, iI not impossible. As one consultant speculated, what would happen iI research
showed that a Iemale astronaut had extremely high levels oI testosterone and the media picked up on this
"deviation" Irom "accepted" norms oI womanhood? This deployment conIlates the gender, sexuality, and physiology oI "normal" Iemale
bodies. Thus, NASA, Iearing the possibility oI sex/gender transgression, insists that research Iindings could be
traced back to the individual subject. While allegedly protecting the identities oI crew members, this privacy
discourse also serves to shield the agency itselI Irom any negative publicity a "masculine" Iemale crew member
might arouse.

Link: Surveillance
Military expansion in space is the dark side of scientific endeavors
In this discussion so Iar, I have been drawing attention to geography`s recent Iailure to engage outer space as a sphere oI inquiry
and it is important to clariIy that this indictment applies more to human than to physical geography. There are, oI
course, many biophysical currents oI geography that directly draw on satellite technologies Ior remote sensing. The ability to view the Earth Irom
space, particularly through the Landsat programme, was a singular step Iorward in understanding all manner oI Earth surIace
processes and biogeographical patterns (see Mack, 1990). The Iact that this new tranche oI data came largely Irom military platIorms (oIten under
the guise oI dual use`) was rarely considered an obstacle to science. But, as the range oI geographical applications oI satellite imagery have increased to include such
diverse activities as urban planning and ice cap measurements, so too has a certain reIlexivity about the provenance oI the images. It is not enough, some are realizing,
to say I just observe and explain desertiIication 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 Iirst place (Cervino et al., 2003:236). One thinks here oI the case oI
Peru, whose US grant Iunding Ior agricultural use oI Landsat data increased dramatically in the 1980s when the
same images were Iound to be useIul in locating insurgent activities oI Maoist Shining Path` guerrillas
(Schwartz,1996). More recently, NASA`s civilian Sea-Wide Field Studies (Sea-WiFS) programme was used to identiIy Taliban Iorces during the war in AIghanistan
(Caracciolo, 2004). The practice oI geography, in these cases as with so many others, is bound up with military logics
(Smith, 1992); the development oI Geographical InIormation Systems (GIS) being a much-cited recent example (Pickles, 1995; 2004; Cloud, 2001; 2002; see
Beck,2003, Ior a case study oI GIS in the service oI the war on terror`).

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
63
Link: Survivalism

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

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

It seemed at Iirst that a contradiction existed between the ruling conservatives' interest in military escalation and
their espoused desire to protect Ietal liIe, but both positions turn out to be articulations oI the collapsed Iuture.
The "always already" in the cult oI Ietal personhood is identical to the "bound to be" in the ideology oI
progress; each is part oI the ideological apparatus oI exterminism, which collapses the Iuture onto the present
and prepares Ior the ultimate science-Iiction spectacular, where the Iuture evaporates into a Iireball or Ireezes to
double-death in a nuclear winter. The apparent contradiction oI the prochoice anti-nuclear position similarly
disappears when we recognize each as a struggle to pry open the Iutureless spaces oI Iuturism and open up the
pluripotent space oI the Iuture conditional. A nuclear war, like a pregnancy, can be averted. II we let our actions
be guided by the desire to let new liIe into the world, and bear a parental responsibility Ior all oI our creations,
children might again have the comIort oI growing up on stories oI a world without end, and the Iuture may well
manage to skirt its way gingerly around the decaying remains oI experiments in celestial physics which were
Iortuitously aborted beIore going apocalyptically awry.

Link: Objectivity
The AFF`s assumption of facts makes discussion 1-sided
Campbell 9 (Nancy D., ProIessor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Ph.D University oI CaliIornia-Santa Cruz, 2009. Frontiers: A Journal oI Women Studies.
Reconstructing Science and Technology Studies. Views Irom Feminist Standpoint Theory. Volume 30, Number 1)

Striking resonances and parallels between post-positivist, Ieminist, and reconstructivist agendas include the Iollowing. 'Facts are constructed and are
thus not determinative oI the Iorms that social interactions and negotiations take. Negotiating the conceptual
practices oI power or ruling relations inevitably involves conIlicting and partial perspectives. Coping with
disagreement is a necessary part oI social and political liIe (including those parts oI it that shape decisions about what kinds oI
technoscientiIic innovation to pursue). Science is not about closure but about interpretive Ilexibility in the Iace oI the ongoing production oI uncertainty. Thus coping
with uncertainty will inevitably challenge those Ior whom science raises more questions than it answers. Reconstructivists argue that 'reconstructivism starts Irom the
premise that better` design oI sociotechnical liIe ought to be built directly into scholarly inquiry. Notions oI better and worse inevitably involve
a partisan component. . . . 22 Similarly, Haraway`s work on 'situated knowledges acknowledges the inevitably partial and partisan processes by which
knowledge claims are produced and negotiated.23 Weaving together the strands oI similarity between Ieminist and
reconstructivist science and technology studies reveals a tapestry against which the knowledge production
projects oI each stand out more clearly.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
64
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, proIessor in the History oI Consciousness Program at the University oI CaliIornia, Santa Cruz, Ph.D Yale, 'The Promises oI 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/Iaculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-the-promises-oI-monsters-a-regenerative-politics-Ior-inappropriated-others/|

Who speaks Ior the jaguar? Who speaks Ior the Ietus? Both questions rely on a political semiotics oI representation.35 Permanently
speechless, Iorever requiring the services oI a ventriloquist, never Iorcing a recall vote, in each case the object or ground
oI representation is the realization oI the representative's Iondest dream. As Marx said in a somewhat diIIerent context, "They
cannot represent themselves; they must be represented."36 But Ior a political semiology oI representation, nature
and the unborn Ietus are even better, epistemologically, than subjugated human adults. The eIIectiveness oI such
representation depends on distancing operations. The represented must be disengaged Irom surrounding and constituting discursive and non-
discursive nexuses and relocated in the authorial domain oI the representative. Indeed, the eIIect oI this magical operation is to disempower
precisely those-in our case, the pregnant woman and the peoples oI the Iorest-who are "close" to the now-represented "natural" object. Both the jaguar and the
Ietus are carved out oI one collective entity and relocated in another, where they are reconstituted as objects oI a particular kind-as the ground oI a
representational practice that Iorever authorizes the ventriloquist. Tutelage will be eternal. The represented is reduced to
the permanent status oI the recipient oI 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 powerIul discursive realms, the "maternal environment" (Hubbard, 1990).
Pregnant women and local people are the least able to "speak Ior" objects like jaguars or Ietuses because they get discursively reconstituted as beings with opposing
"interests." Neither woman nor Ietus, jaguar nor Kayapo Indian is an actor in the drama oI representation. One set
oI entities becomes the represented, the other becomes the environment, oIten threatening, oI the represented
object. The only actor leIt is the spokesperson, the one who represents. The Iorest is no longer the integument in a co-constituted
social nature; the woman is in no way a partner in an intricate and intimate dialectic oI social relationality
crucial to her own personhood, as well as to the possible personhood oI her social-but unlike- internal co-actor.37 In the liberal logic oI representation,
the Ietus and the jaguar must be protected precisely Irom those closest to them, Irom their "surround." The power oI liIe and death must be delegated to the
epistemologically most disinterested ventriloquist, and it is crucial to remember that all oI this is about the power oI liIe and death. Who, within the myth oI
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 perIect representative oI nature, that is, oI the permanently and
constitutively speechless objective world. Whether he be a male or a Iemale, his passionless distance is his greatest virtue; this
discursively constituted, structurally gendered distance legitimates his proIessional privilege, which in these
cases, again, is the power to testiIy about the right to liIe and death. AIter 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 justiIies the representational practices oI the Orientalist, even as precisely "Nature" and the
"Orient" are the products oI the constitutive practice oI scientists and orientalists. These are the inversions that have been the object oI so much attention in science
studies. Bruno Latour sketches the double structure oI representation through which scientists establish the objective status oI their knowledge. First, operations shape
and enroll new objects or allies through visual displays or other means called inscription devices. Second, scientists speak as iI they were the
mouthpiece Ior the speechless objects that they have just shaped and enrolled as allies in an agonistic Iield
called science. Latour deIines the actant as that which is represented; the objective world appears to be the
actant solely by virtue oI the operations oI representation (Latour, 1987, pp. 70-74, 90). The authorship rests with the
representor, even as he claims independent object status Ior the represented. In this doubled structure, the simultaneously semiotic
and political ambiguity oI representation is glaring. First, a chain oI substitutions, operating through inscription devices, relocates power and action in "objects"
divorced Irom polluting contextualizations and named by Iormal abstractions ("the Ietus,'). Then, the reader oI inscriptions speaks Ior his docile constituencies, the
objects. This is not a very lively world, and it does not Iinally oIIer much to jaguars, in whose interests the whole
apparatus supposedly operates. In this essay I have been arguing Ior another way oI seeing actors and actants- and
consequently another way oI 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 Iield oI action; I have Iramed the issue in terms oI
articulation rather than representation. Human beings use names to point to themselves and other actors and easily mistake the names Ior the things.
These same humans also think the traces oI inscription devices are like names-pointers to things, such that the inscriptions and the things can be enrolled in dramas oI
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
65
Link: Objectivity

substitution and inversion. But the things, in my view, do not pre-exist as ever-elusive, but Iully pre-packaged, reIerents Ior
the names. Other actors are more like tricksters than that. Boundaries take provisional, neverIinished shape in articulatory
practices. The potential Ior the unexpected Irom unstripped human and unhuman actants enrolled in
articulations-i.e., the potential Ior generation- remains both to trouble and to empower technoscience. Western
philosophers sometimes take account oI the inadequacy oI 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 oI a
passive resource, namely, the silent object, the stripped actant. Perhaps we can, however, "articulate" with humans and unhumans in
a social relationship, which Ior us is always language-mediated (among other semiotic, i.e., "meaningIul," mediations). But, Ior our
unlike partners, well, the action is "diIIerent," perhaps "negative" Irom our linguistic point oI view, but crucial to the generativity oI the collective. It is the empty
space, the undecidability, the wiliness oI other actors, the "negativity," that give me conIidence in the reality and
thereIore ultimate unrepresentability oI social nature and that make me suspect doctrines oI 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, Irom people's points oI view, through "situated knowledges" (Haraway, 1988; 1991). These
knowledges are Iriendly to science, but do not provide any grounds Ior history-escaping inversions and amnesia
about how articulations get made, about their political semiotics, iI you will. I think the world is precisely what gets lost in
doctrines oI representation and scientiIic objectivity. It is because I care about jaguars, among other actors, including the overlapping but non-
identical groups called Iorest peoples and ecologists, that I reject Joe Kane's question. Some science studies scholars have been terriIied to criticize their constructivist
Iormulations because the only alternative seems to be some retrograde kind oI "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 oI representational practices. Where we
need to move is not "back" to nature, but elsewhere, through and within an artiIactual 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-liIe"
ways that aren't about the Ietus or the jaguar as nature Ietishes and the expert as their ventriloquist.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
66
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 Ieminists, many ecologists are critical oI modern society, given its dependence on an excessive appropriation oI nature's resources. They suggest that the
values oI modern society are based on an incomplete model oI humanity that emphasizes instrumental
rationality, production, and consumption at the expense oI humaneness, creativity, and compassion. "Economic
man" is a compulsive producer and consumer, with little thought Ior ecological constraints. Modernization,
which has legitimized these destructive behaviors, has led to a loss oI control over science and technology that
is causing severe environmental stress today.56 Modernization, a product oI the European Enlightenment, is
now being reproduced in the Third World, where development projects oIten Iurther strain limited environmental resources and reproduce
inequality. Irene Dankelman and Joan Davidson claim that science's manipulations oI nature, maniIested 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 suIIer Irom
contamination Irom Iertilizers and pesticides, making them less available Ior drinking. Modernization oI
agriculture in the Third World has encouraged monoculture and cash cropping, which makes women's tasks oI
Ieeding Iamilies more diIIicult. The authors point out that the ecological damage caused by modernization oIten
Ialls most heavily on women in their role as Iamily providers.57 Ecologists are critical oI environmental management in general. They
claim that management techniques grow out oI the reductionist methodology oI modern science that cannot cope
with complex issues whose interdependencies are barely understood. Such methodologies, evident in the use oI
computer models, perpetuate the dominating, instrumental view oI nature that attempts to render it more
serviceable Ior human needs and that leaves hierarchies-- Ieminists would include gender hierarchies-- intact. A
mechanistic view oI nature leads to the assumption that it can be tinkered with and improved Ior human
purposes, an assumption that is increasingly being questioned as negative consequences oI projects such as
high-yield agriculture are becoming more evident. Ecologists believe that only when knowledge is demystiIied
and democratized, and not regarded as solely the possession oI "experts," can an ecologically sound mode oI
existence be implemented.

Technology is a mechanism of domination.
Wajcman 4 (Judy. Head oI Sociology at the London School oI Economics and Political Science, Iormerly a ProIessor oI Sociology at ANU, Visiting ProIessor
at the Lehman Brothers Centre Ior Women in Business and the OxIord Internet Institute, Also a ProIessor in the Gender Institute at London School oI Economics and
Political Science. 'TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 21-22)
Embedded in the radical Ieminist approach is a conception oI technoscience as intrinsically patriarchal. For example, Maria Mies argued that it
makes absolutely no diIIerence whether it is women or men who apply and control this technology; this
technology is in itselI an instrument oI domination, 'a new. stage in the patriarchal war against women'.
Technology is not neutral but is always based on 'exploitation oI and domination over nature, exploitation and
subjection oI women, exploitation and oppression oI other peoples'.
10
Mies argued that this is the very logic oI the natural sciences and
its model is the machine. For her the method oI technical progress is the violent destruction oI natural links between living
organisms, the dissection and analysis oI these organisms down to their smallest elements, in order to
reassemble them, according to the plans oI the male engineers, as machines. Reproductive and genetic technologies are about
conquering the 'last Irontier' oI men's domination over nature. In a similar vein, eco-Ieminists analysed military technology and the ecological
eIIects oI other modern technologies as products oI a violent patriarchal culture. Technology, like science, is
seen as an instrument oI male domination oI women and nature. AIter the ScientiIic 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 oI progress. The mechanical Iramework, with its associated values oI abstract reason, order and control,
sanctioned the management oI both nature and society. The eco-Ieminist critique identiIied the harnessing oI
technology as Iostering domination and, as Rachel Carson highlighted, as potentially destructive to the health oI
communities.
11
Above all, the critique pointed to technology as the instrument Ior reorganizing the modes oI
interaction with the natural environment. In the process, nature would be called into the service oI mankind, with
men established as producers, women recast as the 'hewers oI wood
1
and 'Ietchers oI water', men bequeathed the beneIits oI nature's bounty and women's
labours marginalized and made more onerous.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
67
Link: Techno-Reproduction
Techno-Reproductive and masculinist discourses provide an illusion of non-responsibility 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.

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

By taking seriously the perverse Iertility metaphors which pervade masculinist discourse, and which are
embodied in the global anti-art oI the state oI Pure War, we empower ourselves with some embarrassingly vivid
descriptions Ior the obscene practices and deadly monuments which presently pass themselves oII as the
rational, the practical, and the glamorously extraterrestrial .We might call on the cannibals oI Jupiter Space to
Ieed themselves on their own tools, and demand that the Supermothers take better care oI their ghastly
creations. We might warn the Pac-Men, those radiant incorporating heads who have our Iutures all scoped and
scooped out Ior us, that iI 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 oI recycling in the uroboric economy. While we
might reclaim the Iuture conditional tense and technological Iertility metaphors Irom science Iiction, we Iind
little saving power in its extraterrestrialism. True, the distant view oI the world may help us appreciate its
Iinitude, and the continued Iailure to Iind liIe in space may eventually help us revalue our own world's
uniqueness. But meanwhile, simulations oI extraterrestrialism Ialsely promise escape Irom the exterminist
eIIects oI corporate practice. The transport and communications devices which allow the cannibalization and re-
presentation oI the world at a distance; those skyscraping wombs-with-a-view which isolate the heads Irom the
untidy bodies oI the lands and peoples below; the many social strategies which separate the bland corporate
clones Irom the poor, the young, the colored, the pregnant; the reIined jargons like nukespeak which gloss over
the gruesome bodily realities oI megadeath and cancer; the special eIIects which separate, or gloss over the
slippages between, the shiny goods and the slimy bads oI industry: all oI these are examples 12Schellp, . 175.oI
extraterrestrialism encoded into distancing devices which provide the illusion oI escape Irom the moral
implications and physical eIIects oI the techno-reproductive choices we make.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
68
Link: Tech/Science/Economy

No solvency and only a risk of a turn to econ-western scientific calculations obscure the root cause of
their impacts and make them inevitable

The Iour crises are diIIicult to resolve individually because they are interlinked and they thereIore reinIorce each other. Wars usually give the eIIect oI
poverty, environmental damage and repression. Poverty oIten results in environmental damage and can lead to revolts and
repression. Destruction oI nature causes poverty, social upheaval and repression. Abuses oI human's rights are entangled in all
oI the other crises. In addition and paradoxically, mainstream development activities, meant to ameliorate poverty in the South, oIten also lead to
environmental damage, human's rights abuses, increased poverty and violence. Thus, the Iour crises Iunction in a web-like
Iashion and are diIIicult to ameliorate individually. Should positive changes be made it is necessary to look beyond a treatment oI each crisis towards a more
Iundamental process oI overall healing. Hence, the crises may more correctly be seen as a symptom oI a more Iundamental
systemic "dis-ease". (Ekins 1992: 13). Hazel Henderson (Capra 1989: 248) agrees with Ekins. The major problems oI our time cannot be understood in
isolation. Whether a crisis maniIests itselI 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 thereIore only a diIIerent aspect oI the same crisis: a crisis oI perception. It derives Irom the Iact 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 Iragmented methodology, which has proven to be inadequate in
dealing with a systemically interconnected world. Thus, many scientiIically educated people cannot understand and hence resolve systemic crises. Most leaders also
Iail to see that the problems are inter-linked. They thereIore cannot recognize that their preIerred reductionist
economic solutions have disastrous consequences elsewhere in the social and natural system. The main aim Ior politicians, economists and
development experts is to maximize economic growth, but they cannot perceive that this negatively aIIects women,
Others, nature and Iuture generations. (Capra 1982: 6; Capra 1997: 3-4). 2.6.1. Modernity; a reductionist perception oI reality Richard B. Norgaard
has arrived at a similar conclusion in his book "Development betrayed; the end oI progress and a coevolutionary revisioning oI the Iuture". He argues that the reasons
behind the environmental crises relates to the Western philosophy oI liIe. A good liIe 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 scientiIic technology and that
liIe could be administered eIIectively by rational social organisation. The combination would lead to peace on
Earth where all would be part oI the new, collective, modern culture. However, modernity betrayed development. Instead oI unity, it led to
material madness, inequalities, depletion oI natural resources, degradation oI the environment, increase in number
oI wars and reIugees and a bureaucratic deadlock where governments cannot Iind rational solutions to the crises. (Norgaard
1994: 1-2). The problem is that modernism is based on some Ialse belieIs about scientiIic 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 Iorever since the means, our natural
resources, are Iinite. We do not have an eternal source oI energy, with which economists seem to calculate. Thus in the name oI 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 Iundamentally, the crises relate to the philosophical premises underlying the
Western metaphysical and epistemological world-view. Norgaard (1994: 62) calls them Ior atomism, mechanism, universalism, objectivism
and monism. In brieI, they translate reality as Iollows: Systems (Ior example social or natural ones) consist oI unchanging parts, the sum oI which equals the whole.
The relationship between the parts is Iixed and possible changes are reversible. Although systems may be diverse and complex,
they all are based on a limited number oI underlying universal laws, which are unchanging and eternal. These laws can be understood by observing the systems Irom 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 beneIit human beings. (Norgaard 1994: 6266).
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
69
Link: Utopianism

Utopian thinking and practice leads to short-sided action and has negative consequences
It is tempting to think that more recent Ieminist theorizing, with its greater sophistication and more careIul attention to matters oI race, class, sexuality, and other
markers oI diIIerence among women, has outgrown utopianism. Such a conclusion, however, is itselI utopian, since only in utopia is the present or Iuture necessarily an
improvement over the past. Higher Ground argues that sensitivity to diIIerence and other advances in Ieminist thinking have not, in Iact, eliminated utopianism Irom
Ieminist thought, nor have they obliterated its problematic inIluence. Today's utopianism, as we shall see, has its own characteristics
and produces its own negative consequences. For example, recent ideas about diIIerences among women
sometimes both reiIy and idealize particular groups, demonize others, and privilege certain standpoints Ior
knowledge. Although the locus oI privilege has changed, those are traditional utopian ideas in modern dress. While they are not equivalent, utopian
practice can, oI course, produce utopianism, and vice versa. That is, Iascination with utopian practices can easily lead
to utopian thinking. I have made this transition myselI, so I know its appeal as well as its pitIalls. Years ago, I became convinced that Ieminism could best be advanced by the widescale construction oI
kitchen less houses, connected in clusters to communal dining Iacilities. Such a model was one proposal oI the domestic Ieminists oI the 1920S, with whom Charlotte Perkins Gilman, also the author oI numerous utopian
Iictional 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 working-
woman's clothes and shoes I had no time to change. I committed the metonymic Iallacy oI thinking that all women's "liberation" depended on the kind oI change in domestic liIe that might appeal to certain proIessional
women with small children. My love oI utopia had become utopianism. Like Friedan, I could not recognize the limits oI my views.
I might have been right about a particular solution Ior myselI or a particular group oI women, at least during a certain
phase oI liIe, just as Friedan was right to identiIy careers as one way Ior educated women to pursue selI-IulIillment and contribute to society. But like Freidan I was
wrong to think that my ideas were Iundamental to Ieminism Ior all women-or even to my own liIe-Ior all time.
Indeed, a kitchenless house did not appeal to me Ior very long and would now not suit me at all. Such myopia translates into another utopian
Iallacy, the "present Iocus," which is the weak underside oI the utopian genius Ior social critique. Social criticism is oIten
perversely tied to the situation it analyzes. Even when social criticism is accurate it may not be comprehensive. Friedan's analysis oI the "Ieminine mystique" was insightIul, but it missed lots oI women who were already
working and overlooked the signiIicance oI many other Iactors besides the boredom oI 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 oI birth control and child care, cultural prohibitions against "unIeminine" behavior, and other aspects oI 1963 society, many oI which
were as invisible to contemporary eyes as the "problem with no name." Likewise, my obsession with domestic architecture prevented me Irom seeing additional important Iactors 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 oI which they are a part.

Utopianism has empirically failed and further reinforced gender inequality
Many utopian communities recognized that gender equity was a major social problem and dedicated themselves to
some version oI Iemale emancipation, although rarely to suIIrage, since their goal was typically social isolation rather than political participation.
Charles Fourier, Ior example, whose ideas about organizing work around human passions led to the Iounding oI twenty-two independent, mostly unsuccessIul phalanxes
in Europe, Latin America, and the United States, wrote in 1841 that "'the extension oI women's rights is the common Ioundation oI all social progress.'''4 Other utopian
social designs promoted women's education, dignity, and Iull partnership in the operation oI a community. Clothing reIorm and sensitivity to the prevailing sexism oI
nineteenth-century liIe gave hope to women who joined such utopian communities (Kesten 1993, 94) But despite their rhetoric and good
intentions, Iew experimental communities successIully enacted gender equity. Indeed, the ironic utopian present
Iocus Irequently Iurther enshrined the conventional sexual division oI labor and promoted time-honored sexual
stereotypes in such communities, just as it limited utopists' ability to enact racial justice. Thus, most gender reIorms in utopian communities were more
symbolic than genuine (Kesten 1993, 98-100). Few women held leadership positions in mixed-sex societies, and very Iew communities were established by women in
their own behalI. An example oI utopia's mixed success with eIIecting gender justice is New Harmony, which was
Iounded 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 oI women's subordination. But Owen's vision was restricted by the blinders oI his era. Regarding women as morally superior to
men, like most oI 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 unIit to govern society equally with men (Kolmerten 1990, 71-76). The Iact that Owen's son, Robert Dale Owen, became an eIIective advocate Ior women's rights in the Indiana Legislature, working
Ior married women's property rights and liberalized divorce laws, illustrates a ripple eIIect Irom at least a Iew utopian attempts at signiIicant social reIorm. That his eIIorts succeeded only aIter New Harmony Iolded, however,
suggests that the small experiments were, at best, catalysts Ior gradual social change (Holloway 1951, II4). Gender reIorms in some communities, such as Oneida, actually
increased women's subordination to men because Iemale empowerment was equated solely with liberal sexual
practices that men typically controlled. Indeed, the Iailure oI sexual emancipation eIIorts 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 Iorce between the sexes than any other Iorm oI 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 oI the nineteenth century (Kesten 1993, 112).

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
70
Link: Utopianism
Despite the apparent benefits of Utopianism, its negative effects are especially harmful to women.
II there is such a utopian impulse, it reIlects utopianism's most positive side-its power to Iight despair and unhappiness, however
deIined, while promoting positive values, however deIined. Unshackled Irom original sin by the eighteenth century, utopianism has provided a
plausible theory oI 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, uniIied, and peaceIul. 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 liIe and human
perIectibility. It imagines that better societies or social organizations, even iI they are antiorganizations, will produce better people,
and that individuals will be happy iI society is good and arranged to promote happiness (Kanter 1972, 3334; Walsh 1962, 71). For many oI us, such aspects oI
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 (NordhoII 1875| 1966,270). By the same token, the utopian impulse led many utopian thinkers, especially aIter
1800, to decry divisive sectarianism and denounce the oppression oI women. Many attacked the evils oI alcohol consumption, drug and tobacco use, and irresponsible
sex. Indeed, through such critiques, utopians have oIten been ahead oI their time. Despite such attractions, however, there are other, more
troubling aspects oI the utopian impulse-oI utopianism as a worldview and an approach to social change-that
cannot be ignored. One especially troubling aspect oI utopianism is its "present Iocus," which, as we have seen, is the
underside oI its talent Ior social critique. While resisting the present, utopianism oIten remains, Iirmly and paradoxically,
attached to it. The Iailed promises oI many utopian communities to women provide a stunning illustration. Thus,
while communities touted sexual equality, they oIten perpetuated the conventions oI their own era in their
treatment oI 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
Utopianism can also provoke disaster because it depends on models and plans that rarely encompass the
complexities oI human needs and behavior. When utopian models categorize, divide, and oppose ideas and
people to Iit 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 conIlicts within their
views or romanticize their goals, they can miss the problems most in need oI solution. For example, the
postmodernist "heterotopia" relies upon a vision oI balance among diverse ethnic and racial groups that
underestimates the hatred, misunderstanding, and deadly competition Ior scarce resources underlying diversity
in American liIe.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
71
Link: Utopianism
Utopianism controlling nature rejects all opposition rather than recognizing problems
Despite utopianism's inability to Ioresee all consequences, utopian thought may endeavor to predict the Iuture
by drawing prescriptive social maps that transIorm the game oI liIe-with its twists, turns, surprises, and
unknowns-into a kind oI ritual, whose outcomes can be anticipated and controlled. Ironically, such maps, coupled with the
typical utopian "discourse oI perIection," actually become apolitical, in that they reject conIlict, as in race relations, and ignore the
processes by which it might be resolved. The utopian desire to control outcomes typically excludes strategies oI
peaceIul 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 Iictional
utopian communities is banishment oI people who will not or cannot conIorm to the group. The Shakers, Ior example, thought
members who criticized by way oI liIe had low motives, and they expected such critics to ve iI they could not "gradually work in with us" (NordhoII 1875| 66, 159).
The Icarians punished transgressions oI the "principles, s an,d regulations oI the Community" by "public censure, by depation oI civil rights, or by the exclusion oI the
transgressors" (Hinds 73, 73) In general, utopianism assumes that disagreement reIlects error oI the dissident rather than
Ilaws in the utopian vision.

Utopianism categorizes people, is shortsighted, and appeals only to self- interest.
Among the qualities oI utopian thought that limit the scope oI Ieminist theory is its tendency to concretize ideas,
to transIorm ambiguity and contingency into absolutes (Tillich 1966, 306-7). Because oI that tendency, utopianism typically
creates separate categories Ior ideas, people, and objects that disregard their connections. ThereIore, Ianaticism
and Iundamentalism are close relatives oI utopianism, as they exaggerate utopianism's need Ior exclusivity. Because one either belongs or
does not belong in utopia, people become overdetermined by the criteria established Ior membership in or exclusion
Irom the utopian vision. (Heterotopia would also suIIer Irom this Iate: could a modernist or a romantic survive in heterotopia?) To the Shakers, there were
two kinds oI people in the world: celibates and generatives. To Jim Jones~ everyone was either a Iriend or a Ioe oI the Peoples Temple. There were no hybrids, no
critical Iriends or Iriendly critics. Having assigned labels, utopian thinkers may never again consider their contingency or
arbitrariness. Utopian thinkers may not account Ior the role oI metaphor in label construction or in the terminology oI their belieI systems. They may
mistake the Iigurative, symbolic quality oI language Ior the literal. In addition, the Iounding ideas oI utopian
thought tend to become Iixed and to remain unexamined, even iI utopists themselves are diligently selI-critical about their own adherence to
those Iounding principles. Thus, as we have seen, Iew utopian experimenters analyzed the possible unintended consequences oI their Iundamental worldview. At
Oneida, Ior example, which was Iamous Ior its members' selIcriticism, the community's reproductive system that resulted in "stirpiculture" babies was not subject to
critique; the community's male leaders emphasized the presumed genetic beneIits oI group practices and gave little thought to their eIIects on the community'S young
women. Such habits oI utopian thought overlook the causal relationships that exist among all elements oI a system and ignore the Iact that any changes in a system
involve many related changes, oIten with unintended results (Richards 1980, 33). Without such analysis, the massive social overhauls
typical oI utopian schemes can become dangerously unpredictable and uncontrollable. That conclusion points
to utopianism's sometimes tragic irony: its present Iocus. Our own assumptions that modern people have surely outgrown that utopian Ilaw
illustrate it as well as the examples we have seen throughout the history oI utopian thought and experimentation. Through the beneIits oI hindsight we can identiIy, say,
Charles Lane's blind spot about sex roles in his analysis oI Abigail Alcott's excessive workload at Fruitlands. We are less able to see modern utopian pitIalls, however, as
in Aaron Betsky's heterotopian vision oI Los Angeles.
A related Ilaw is utopianism's appeal to selI-interest. Just as my desire Ior the kitchenless house emerged when I
had small children, more women oI childbearing age joined the celibate Shaker societies than did men or
women oI any other JJge group or social circumstance.ll Added to utopianism's present Iocus, its
accommodation oI selI-interest heightens its potential Ior parochialism and creates the Ialse impression that
analyzing a problem is tantamount to solving it, when, in Iact, understanding what is wrong does not
automatically reveal what is right (Richards 1980,38).

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
72
Link: Utopianism
Utopianism depends on faulty epistemologies, just like astrology
Finally, utopianism entails certain epistemological implications through its particular approaches to the acquisition
and validation oI knowledge. We shall consider more oI 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, oIten insuIIiciently examined or limited
premises. At its most extreme, this problem generates coherentism, a system in which belieIs are justiIied by their
relationship to other held belieIs and knowledge claims rather than by their relationship to evidence or anything
that can pass Ior "truth" (Duran 1991, 13). Although such systems may present an internal logic and may be valid, they can and oIten do lead to errors and
Ialsehood. Indeed, coherent systems have no particular relationship to truth, because the premises on which they are based can be either true or Ialse, valid or invalid,
sound or unsound. Our Iervent belieI 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 oI an invalid closed conceptual system. Having swallowed the Iraudulent tailors' claim that their cloth would be invisible to anyone unintelligent or unsuited
Ior 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 diIIicult to establish, since no one wished to
reveal him- or herselI as unsuitable or otherwise unintelligent. Astrology is another example oI a closed conceptual system. It depends
on an initial Iaith in the inIluence oI stars and planets on human liIe, a belieI that prevents believers in astrology
Irom noticing how generalized horoscopes are and how adaptable to a wide variety oI circumstances.

Utopianism reinforces gender stereotypes
Gender Studies, 'Higher Ground, p.77)
Another aspect oI the utopian present Iocus is its unwitting incorporation oI prevailing gender stereotypes, and
conventions. For example, although startling Ior its time on soine levels, Gilman's Herland also clearly reIlects many nineteenth- and early twentieth-
century conventions, such as "woman's sphere," "Ieminine nature," and the "eternal Ieminine." Herlanders'
monosexuality can even be read as a valorization oIIemale sexlessness, the virtues oI which were implicit in late-Victorian sexual
ethics (Bartkowski 1989,26,31). By the same token, romantic turn-oI-the-century ideas about domestic womanhood led utopian Iiction writer Helen Winslow, in
A WVman Ior Mayor (1909), to abort Mayor Gertrude Van Deusen's political career on account oIlove. Gertrude does not seek re-election as mayor because an
appropriate male candidate, her Iiance, appears on the scene. Even though Gertrude has previously disparaged a purely intimate, narrowly Iocused domestic liIe, the
novel suggests that she lives happily ever aIter because "the loving heart oI the woman was to stand alongside
the strong desire oI the man" (Kolmerten 1994, 118). Another sign oI present Iocus in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century works are representations
oI the era's racist and anti-Semitic views, Ior which modern critics Iind themselves apologizing.

Gender ro|es and character|st|cs are re|nforced by utop|an|sm
Underlying assumptions that gender or sexuality is always the primary salient Ieature oI every human
interaction reIlect the utopian propensity to isolate behaviors and characteristics as the Ioundation oI a utopian
plan. The Shakers, Ior example, identiIied sexual activity and procreation (or the abjuration oI same) as the Ioundation oI all human thought, belieI, behavior, and
relationships. But imbuing a single act or characteristic with so much importance both distorts its meaning and
obscures the signiIicance oI 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
inIallibly wise, as some Ieminist utopian novels and certain Ieminist theories oI Iemale gender identity imply. While Ilattering, such characterizations
set the stage Ior both external resistance to tile hyperbole and internal dissent around unacknowledged diversity
within the group.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
73
Link: Utopianism
Utopianism kills critical thinking, which is key to feminism
My resolve to seek post-utopian approaches to Ieminist thought and theory is reaIIirmed when I consider perhaps the most dangerous consequence oI
utopianism-its eIIect on critical thinking. By avoiding counterarguments and ducking hard questions, utopian Ieminist ought distorts
epistemological issues at the very heart oI Ieminist thinking. Clearly, such a consequence is not unique to Ieminism. Any stem oI thought
can be derailed by utopianism; even utopian ought itselI (as we have seen). Equally clearly, reality can also disappoint. Realistic plans can produce unintended
consequences and create all kinds oI mischieI. But utopianism increases the risk oI such eIIects as well as oI disappointment,
because its belieIs and assumptions discourage many oI the saIeguards, such as critical thinking, that mitigate
such risks. Critical thinking is one oI those terms that arouses the utopian hackles oI Ieminist purists. It suggests
capitulation to so-called masculinist values that Ieminists are supposed to deplore (reason, logic, linear thought) and seems to disparage alleged Ieminine and/or Ieminist
approaches to knowledge (intuition, emotion, experience). Yet, that purist urge to distance everything Ieminist Irom everything known in patriarchy is utopian at its
heart. It assumes that critical thinking must be the opposite oI Ieminist epistemology or women's ways oI knowing, a dichotomy that overlooks the interdependence and
interconnection oI thought and Ieeling, emotion and reason. In post-utopian analyses, intuition, belieI, and opinion are elements oI reason, and vice versa. We test our
belieIs; we intuit the course oI action that we also our way toward. Our passions contain judgments.Without utopian dichotomies, reason and critical thinking serve
Ieminist thought. Even more important, reason and its manipulation, critical thinking, support the ethics oI Ieminism,
the moral obligation to construct Ieminist judgments, opinions, and theory careIully in recognition oI their
serious consequences Ior individual lives and Ior society. Reason is a powerIul tool Ior overcoming stereotypes
and prejudice that Ieminists intend to combat. Perb. most important, critical thinking is our best weapon against Ianaticism in ourselves and
others. Despite a certain reIlex against reason as a patriarchal conce most Ieminist objections to reason have actually been more 0Ppos to the conventional politics oI
truth, logic, and reason than to reasoni selI. When women are deIined as knowing subjects who determine the objects oI their
own knowing, and when knowledge is selI-reIlexive and scrutinizes and reveals its own processes, Ieminists
acknowledge that reason can serve Ieminist purposes (Grosz 1993, 207-9). Wi out utopianism, Ieminism's compatibility with critical thinking
b comes increasingly apparent. Critical thinking guards against biase unexamined belieIs, inappropriate literalism, and other characteristi that prevent "constructive
skepticism" about precepts and Ioreclose selI-reIlective evaluation oI our own positions (Mullen 1995, 4; PaUl 1990, 136).

Utopianism creates gender differences
Recognizing the utopian tendency to exaggerate and misinterpret gender diIIerences makes us better consumers
oI diIIerence claims. Indeed, careIul research oIten modiIies hyperbolic claims about sex diIIerences. For example,
in the Iederal elections oI the I990s, the media anticipated a so-called gender gap in which women's vote would
turn the tide. Even aIter the results were in, the gender gap was given credit Ior election outcomes. CareIul
reading oI the election results, however, unraveled that claim. For the 1994 Congressional election, the National Women's Political
Caucus did Iind a gender gap that was bigger than in previous elections. But they also Iound that women were by no means a monolithic voting bloc. In Iact, diIIerences
in marital tuS, income, geographical location, and race among voters oI both xes were at least as signiIicant Ior the outcome as-and in some ses many times more
signiIicant than-diIIerences between men ld women, where the "gap" was ILl percent (Berke 1995, AIO). Studies oI the 1996 election reveal that the gender gap in the
vote Ior the House oI Representatives actually shrank between the two electionns, Irom II percent in 1994 to 9 percent in 1996. Much more iIicant in the 1996 House
elections was marital status, with a 26 'rcent gap between married and unmarried voters. Also signiIicant the outcome was the Iact that there was a decline oI ten
percentage bints in support Ior Democratic candidates Ior the House among lack voters (New York Times 1996, BS). Utopianism creeps into analyses
oI gender diIIerence when sex beomes a metaphor Ior diIIerence, as in Shaker Elder Frederick Evans's roclamation about gendered
Creation at the beginning oI this segent oI chapter 4. That is when assumptions too easily replace observation. We Iorget to ask what the diIIerences really signiIy. Are
they ean diIIerences? What is the range and overlap oI distributions? What is the setting in which the diIIerences are observed, a Iactor that dearly determines the size
and direction oI gender diIIerences in behavior and attitudes? We Iorget to distinguish between stereotypes and actual or observable
diIIerences. We are subject to preconceptions about the complementarity or opposition oI the sexes (Hare-Mustin and
Marecek 1988, 456).
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
74
Link: Utopianism
Utopian thinking leads to gender binaries
Utopianism encourages dualistic thinking about sex and gender, predicating theories and actions on assumed
(rather than observed) diIIerences in behavior or character resulting Irom physical or reproductive diIIerences between
women and men. It encourages us to posit diIIerence a priori and to overlook connections and commonalities
between the sexes. OIten Ieminist utopian thinking about gender diIIerence leads to the idealization oI Iemaleness, especially in conjunction with motherhood
or sexuality. Utopianism in this discourse oIten leads to problem reversal as a substitute Ior problem solution by transIorming traditional sources oI women's
subordination and degradation into sources oI their value and superiority. Another consequence oI utopian thinking about gender diIIerence
is the Iormation oI dichotomized theoretical perspectives. Thus, diIIerence Ieminism is pitted against gender Ieminism) categories
represented respectively by the Irigaray and Connell quotations that open this segment oI chapter 6. DiIIerence Ieminists recognize and celebrate an essential Iemale
subject; they wish to empower woman in her Iemale speciIicity, to take the material basis oI Iemale reproduction as the Ioundation oI woman herselI. Luce lrigaray's
identiIication with this position is rooted in psychoanalytic theory. Like others in that tradition, she considers Iemale physiological and (repressed) psychological
characteristics a unique Iemale "essence" (or complex oI "essences") that translates into a unique Iemale 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 Ieminine because oI the
diIIerence. By creating a new sexual economy, diIIerence Ieminists like Irigaray intend prevent that erasure oI the
Ieminine (Fuss 1989, 108). Variations on reIerence Ieminist theories include such historical categories as cultural Ieminism and radical Ieminism) both oI which
have celebrated Iemale sexuality and/or reproductive physiology as the basis oI a unique male sexual character or even a superior gender identity.

Utopianism is created in rhetoric, something that feminism solves
Utopian critics might, at this point, Ieel that I have set myselI a They have undoubtedly noticed my evocation oI linguistic constitution in the pursuit oI realism, despite
my having associated that co cept with utopianism. To an extent, they would be justiIied in glowing. I have indeed identiIied linguistic reIorm as
a realistic Iorce. I have also observed that language creates misperceptions oI gender, race sexuality, and other
identity categories and have deIined language as a means oI reIormulating such identities in realistic Ieminist
thee In addition, I have Iocused on modes oI representation as constituti elements oI 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 oI experience as a discursive construction. Finally, I have used an essentially linguistic metaphor-translatability-to establish
continuities among cultures and groups oI women. Such critics would be wrong, however, to conclude that my recognition oI
language as a key player in the construction oI realistic Ieminist theory is necessarily utopian. Utopianism
enters the picture when all agents oI both social construction and social change are reduced to language or when
change is envisioned as only or primarily a Iunction oI resigniIication or when the newly signiIied world is as ... summed to be Iree
oI oppressive structures, constitutive conventions.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
75
Link: War/Solving War
The affirmative`s 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 ProIessor Emerita in the History oI Consciousness Department at UC Santa Cruz, Simians, Cyborgs, and
Women, The Reinventing oI Nature)

This is not just literary deconstruction, but liminal transIormation. Every story that begins with original innocence and privileges the
return to wholeness imagines the drama oI liIe to be individuation, separation, the birth oI the selI, the tragedy
oI autonomy, the Iall into writing, alienation; that is, war, tempered by imaginary respite in the bosom oI the
Other. These plots are ruled by a reproductive politics - rebirth without Ilaw, perIection, abstraction. In this plot
women are imagined either better or worse oII, but all agree they have less selIhood, weaker individuation,
more Iusion 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 oI Woman born,
who reIuse the ideological resources oI victimization so as to have a real liIe. These cyborgs are the people who reIuse to
disappear on cue, no matter how many times a 'Western' commentator remarks on the sad passing oI another primitive, another organic group done in by 'Western'
technology, by writing.28 These real-liIe cyborgs (Ior example, the Southeast Asian village women workers in Japanese and US electronics Iirms described by Aihwa
Ong) are actively rewriting the texts oI their bodies and societies. Survival is the stakes in this play oI readings.
To recapitulate, certain dualisms have been persistent in Western traditions; they have all been systemic to the logics
and practices oI domination oI women, people oI colour, nature, workers, animals - in short, domination oI all
constituted as others, whose task is to mirror the selI. ( ChieI among these troubling dualisms are selI/other, mindlbody, culture/nature,
male/Iemale, civilized/primitive, reality/appearance, whole/part, agent/resource, maker/ made, active/passive, right/wrong, truth/illusion, total/partial, God/man. The
selI is the One who is not dominated, who knows that by the service oI the other, the other is the one who holds the Iuture, who knows that by the experience oI
domination, which gives the lie to the autonomy oI the selI. To be One is to be autonomous, to be powerIul, to be God; but to be
One is to be an illusion, and so to be involved in a dialectic oI apocalypse with the other. Yet to be other is to be
multiple, without clear boundary, Irayed, insubstantial. One is too Iew, but two are too many.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
76
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 oI women's studies and associate proIessor oI political science at Wright State University, and Marianne,
Senior Lecturer, Department oI Political Science, University oI Amsterdam 'Gender and (post?) Iinancial crisis, in Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites
and Resistances By Marian Marchand, pp. 245-8|

Taking this a step Iurther, we can see that the Iinancial world is replete with gendered constructions, in particular related to risk-
taking in Iinancial markets. For instance, in Marieke de Goede's analysis oI the Asian Iinancial crisis oI 1997, she argues that international Iinance 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 oI the rise oI Iinance credit in the seventeenth century in Britain to pay Ior war and underpinning the
break Irom Ieudal relations that ushered in commercial relations, represented the "Iemale inconstant" oI credit that must be "mastered" to
maintain the kind oI trust necessary Ior Iinance capital transactions (de Goede 2000: 62). Scrupulous and scientiIic bookkeeping and
accounting methods were extolled as "moral technologies" that not only would keep the Iinancier true to himselI, but also would keep Lady Credit's virtue, which would
otherwise be sullied by proIligate desires Ior wealth that Lady Credit tempts (de Goede 2000: 67-9). As Marieke de Goede's analysis oI the workings oI the ideology oI
Lady Credit in the Asian Iinancial crisis shows, it was assumed by Western economists that all that was needed was a re-injection oI
restraint to control excesses (blamed, in Orientalist Iashion, on the Ieminized weaknesses oI Asian economies) in order to restore
Iinancial authority (2000: 74). This resort to "technical rationality which makes possible a particular mode oI governance"
precludes the questioning oI Iinancial authority itselI and the "value and validity" it places on "international debt and other
Iinancial instruments" (de Goede 2000: 72). Maintaining the Iinancial authority oI "homo creditus" requires constant perIormance as ... the mastery oI Lady
Credit is never complete and Iinancial man is never saIe Irom her temptations and the internal desires and weaknesses she generates in him. This discursive tension
becomes most apparent in times oI Iinancial crises when the integrity oI the system needs to be reaIIirmed by the retroactive identiIication oI Iinancial irregularities. (de
Goede 2000: 75) We have seen this time-worn perIormativity oI homo creditus to attempt to restore Iaith in the Iinancial
system once again in the wake oI US-centered Iinancial crisis oI 2008 and beyond. which occurred not in the (semi-) periphery but in the core
oI the Iinancial world. But the Iact that even in mainstream media the current Iinancial and economic crises were early on being
tied to masculine Iailings 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 Irom the University oI Cambridge links levels oI testosterone and cortisol in Iinancial traders to risk taking and
market volatility (Coates and Herbert 2008). This led some newspaper editorialists to suggest that Wall Street would be better oII iI run by women who would restore
Lady Credit's virtue (Dobrzynski 2008: BennhoI 2009: KristoI 2009). But as Birgitte Young and Helene Schuberth (2010:2) have documented, in the time since the
onset oI this crisis, women remain highly underrepresented in the Iinancial sector in the West, accounting, Ior example, Ior only 7 percent oI the
boards oI directors oI banks in the European Union (EU) and constituting only 10 percent oI mutual Iund managers in the US with relatively small portIolios.
Interestingly, those hedge Iunds managed by women dropped Iar less (9.6) than those managed by men (19) at the height oI the crisis in part because more men
trade more and more oIten which sets up a "groupthink- that encourages greater risk based on less inIormation (Young and
Schuberth 2010: 2). Women have been also virtually absent on the G20 expert committees set up to propose regulatory reIorms
in the wake oI the crisis, although Iceland appointed women to manage its new state-controlled banking industry (Young and Schuberth 2010: 2. 8). But as Young and
Schuberth argue, women themselves will not make much oI a diIIerence unless both gender norms and Iinancial norms are deeply challenged. The association oI
women (and other "others") with Lady Credit as "unscientiIic. subjective, and irrational" (Young and Schuberth 2010: 3) makes them
unsuitable Ior the Iinancial sector which claims to operate according to the "moral technologies" oI scientiIic, objective,
and rational rules. Yet, while this association is being used to exclude women Irom international Iinance, the opposite is true in the realm oI microcredit where women are the preIerred subjects Ior receiving
small loans because oI their better management oI household and micro-enterprise budgets, as exempliIied by the activities and priorities oI the Grameen Bank. So while international Iinance is being constructed as a
masculine Iield where women and "Lady Credit" should be excluded, micro-credit is seen as a virtually exclusive realm Ior poor women. Financial norms and rules never raise
questions oI "who beneIits, and why, and what might be a more human Iinancial alternative that aims at generating high levels oI employment and reduces
income inequality" (Young and Schuberth 2010: 3). Such rules also do not acknowledge the gendered nature oI Iinance capital nor its
gendered costs, especially when it is in crisis-mode. As Young and Schuberth delineate, as Iinance capital shills income to shareholders, Iull-time Iormal work has been constantly
deteriorating over the last two to three decades, consigning women, ethnic minorities, and migrants mostly to part-time, Ilexibilized labor; Iinancial risk has been shiIted to households saddled with more and more debt, as in
the case with the sub-prime meltdown; and the Iinancial industry has been exerting more and more pressure on governments to reduce social welIare and public works spending (2010: 3-4). The impact oI the crisis has taken
these trends to Iurther extremities. In the West, men have lost the most jobs (due to their concentrations in building, manuIacturing, and Iinance), but women are losing too in terms oI lower wages, rising job losses in retail,
health, and education, government cuts in social services, and loss oI Iamily beneIits 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 beneIited more Irom the "transition" to capitalism, the crisis has Iurther deepened unemployment Ior women. By October 2009, the Iemale unemployment rate was higher than the male
unemployment rate in the Czech Republic. Poland, Romania and Slovakia'' while the Iemale share oI employment continued to drop in Eastern Europe generally Irom the 1990s onward (Young and Schuberth 2010: 7). In
many parts oI the Global South. where the crisis has generated dramatic declines in exports, tourism, Ioreign investment, and remittances, Iemale workers concentrated in agriculture, tourism, and export-processing industries
are bearing the brunt oI these declines, with 22 million more women becoming unemployed in 2009 in the Least Developed countries (Young and Schuberth 2010: 7). Foreign aid Ior and government spending on health and
welIare has also decreased. Women dependent on remittances Irom migrant Iamily members saw them drop by "$305 billion in 2008, which corresponds to almost three-times the $104 billion Irom the world's combined
Ioreign-aid budget" (Young and Schuberth 2010: 8). Finally, gender. race, and ethnic discrimination always grow in times oI Iinancial crisis. Such discrimination is also built into the
perIormance oI "recovery." Unconditional bank bailouts went largely to elite men who dominate the industry, and public Iunds
Iunneled to them have translated into even greater pressures to reduce public welIare spending Ior the rest oI us. Stimulus Iunding in the West (which is less
available in much oI the Global South) was heavily earmarked Ior physical inIrastructure projects that privilege male employment,
despite the Iact that even "Irom an eIIiciency standpoint, investment in social inIrastructure (pro-poor growth. early-childhood
development. home-based care projects) has a greater impact on direct job creation programs than does investment in physical
inIrastructure" (Young and Schuberth 2010: 9).
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
77
Impact: Environment
Space creates a disengaged view of Earth and environmental negligence.

With respect to issues oI objectivity, one striking aspect oI remote sensing oI the environment is indeed its very remoteness. In a sense, satellite-generated
photographs oI the earth represent the ultimate subject/object dichotomy. Space tech-nology oIIers the
tantalizing prospect oI being able to leave the earth in order to get a better view-the ultimate Archimedean
vantage point. Rather than being embedded participants in the reality depicted, Earth system scientists become disengaged observers
oI that reality.23Thus, according to the celebratory dis-course, remote sensing is "building a valid picture oI the earth 'Ior the Iirst time.24 Presumably this
picture is "valid" because it is drawn Irom huge quantities oI objective, remotely acquired inIormation. It is a
picture that privileges knowledge derived from abstract science over knowledge derived from lived
experience. The main elements oI a spaceborne remote sensing system are "spacecraIt, instruments, and data elements that modeling/systems engineering,
processing,"25 give primacy to an expert structure comprised primarily oI white men in aIIluent societies. To the question, "Who shall be designated as
reliable environmental narrators?"Earth system science answers, "Scientists with proIessional credentials in physics,
chemistry, and computer sciences-particularly those whose work is most distant Irom the everyday lived
experience oI poor people and most women." Whenever quantiIiability monopolizes the mantle oI legitimacy, qualititative values are given short
shriIt, so that even iI satellite data are supplemented with "ground truth," the privileging oI abstract decontextualized data is likely to de-value other approaches to
knowledge.rsb26 In particular, as a male-dominated activity, it may reinIorce the division oI labor that Joni Seager
suggests permeates environmental politics: Women care about the environment and men think about it. 27A
strong Ieminist 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
oI satellite monitoring oI the global environment also Iail the test Irom another when countries neutrality perspective, developing are taken into account. Not only
is the "remoteness" oI remotely sensed data emblematic oI a masculinist bias, it also exempliIies the schism
between the rich and the poor. The multicolor renditions oI 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 oI most oI the world's people. The Iact that satellite data
must be converted to visual images, a task that requires highly sophisticated imaging technologies, also
illustrates the diIIerence in how experience oI 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 oI those whose
material survival is continually in jeopardy.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
78
Impact NVTL

And, adherence to scientific and economic calculations guarantees extinction and destroys value to life

Ekins (1992: 202) has arrived at a similar conclusion. He Iinds that science is the most dangerous maniIestation oI the Western world-
view. Being Iounded on a mechanistic, reductionist, atomistic and anti-ecological perception oI 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 oI which are part oI our reality. Being in this way
limited, science cannot help us to create well-Iunctioning societies. Furthermore, since development is a scientiIic 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 scientiIic Iocus on monetary and quantitative values development overlooked other values that
matter to people and it consequently destroyed the quality oI liIe Ior women, Others and nature. The scientiIically based state
system was an accomplice in this. In the modern world-view, the government is the ultimate legitimate Iorm oI political authority. It thereIore exercises absolute
power over the lives oI its people, its natural environments and determines the rules that make economic development possible. This has been disastrous Ior hundreds
oI millions oI people. Governments have ruthlessly enIorced upon them the dominant development model. They have
wasted resources on arms, prestige projects and their own luxury liIe styles. They have generated wars and
repressed their own citizens. They have been laying waste natural resources meant Ior people's subsistence. Hence, science, development and the state has been a cruel
deception Ior people in the South. Its perceptions have brought humanity to the brink oI war, repression, poverty and
environmental collapse oI a potentially terminal nature. (Ekins 1992: 203-207).

Impact: Space war
Because of masculine domination space will be the next battlefield
The most striking aspect oI the sociality oI 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 Ior peaceIul purposes`. But its attempt to prohibit the
weaponizing` oI 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 oI the ability to dispatch a nuclear device to the other side oI the
world. This association remains strong, as the concern over Iran`s space programme (with its Shahab Iamily oI medium range missiles and satellite launch vehicles)
makes clear. Several commentators in strategic aIIairs have noted the expanding geography oI war Irom the two
dimensions oI land and sea to the air warIare oI the twentieth century and more recently to the new strategic
challenges oI outer space and cyberspace (see, Ior instance, Gray, 2005: 154). These latter dimensions are not separate Irom
the battle-Iield` but rather they Iully support the traditional military objectives oI killing people and destroying
inIrastructure. Space itselI may hold Iew human targets but the capture or disruption oI satellites could have Iar-
reaching consequences Ior liIe on the ground. Strictly speaking, we have not yet seen warIare in space, or even
Irom space, but the advent oI such a conIlict does appear closer.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
79
IMPACT: Structural Violence and War
Masculinist ideologies result in ever-increasing structural violence and warfare.

A willingness to engage in violence is built into our constructions oI masculinity and is exacerbated by
militarization-the extension oI military practices into civilian liIe. And to the extent that we deIine national security as the deIense and
protection oI sovereignty, militarization becomes hard to avoid. Believing that peace requires preparation Ior war, we
become locked into arms races and other selI-perpetuating cycles; These involve sacriIicing social welIare objectives in Iavor oI
deIense spending and training young people-men and women-to risk lives and practice violence in the name oI putatively higher objectives. There are no
simple Iormulas Ior determining appropriate trade-oIIs between "butter" and "guns," and we are not suggesting
that security concerns are illusory or easily resolved. But in a climate oI militarization, we must be careIul to
assess the ostensible gains Irom 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 reIers to reduced liIe expectancy as a consequence oI oppressive political and
economic structures (e.g., greater inIant mortality among poor women who are denied access to health-care services). Structural violence especially aIIects the lives oI
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.
Inappropriate/d Others, ultural Studies eds. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A Treichler, p 321)
The limitless reaches oI outer space, joined to Cold War and post-Cold War nuclear technoscience, seem vastly
distant Irom their negation, the enclosed and dark regions oI the inside oI the human body, domain oI the
apparatuses oI biomedical visualization. But these two quadrants oI our semiotic square are multiply tied
together in technoscience's heterogeneous apparatuses oI bodily production. As Sarah Franklin noted, "The two new
investment Irontiers, outer space and inner space, vie Ior the Iutures market." In this "Iutures market," two
entities are especially interesting Ior this essay: the Ietus and the immune system, both oI which are embroiled
in determinations oI what may count as nature and as human, as separate natural object and as juridical subject.
We have already looked brieIly at some oI the matrices oI discourse about the Ietus in the discussion oI earth (who speaks Ior the Ietus?) and outer space (the planet
Iloating Iree as cosmic germ). Here, I will concentrate on contestations Ior what counts as a selI and an actor in contemporary immune system discourse. The
equation oI Outer Space and Inner Space, and oI their conjoined discourses oI extraterrestrialism, ultimate
Irontiers, and high technology war, is literal in the oIIicial history celebrating 100 years oI the National
Geographic Society (Bryan, 1987). The chapter that recounts the magazine's coverage oI the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Mariner voyages is called "Space"
and introduced with the epigraph, "The Choice Is the Universe-or Nothing." The Iinal chapter, Iull oI stunning biomedical images, is titled "Inner Space" and introduced
with the epigraph, "The StuII oI the Stars Has Come Alive."44 The photography convinces the viewer oI the Iraternal relation oI inner and outer space. But,
curiously, in outer space, we see spacemen Iitted into explorer craIt or Iloating about as individuated cosmic
Ietuses, while in the supposed earthy space oI our own interiors, we see non-humanoid strangers who are the
means by which our bodies sustain our integrity and individuality, indeed our humanity in the Iace oI a world oI
others. We seem invaded not just by the threatening "non-selves" that the immune system guards against, but
more Iundamentally by our own strange parts.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
80
Impact: War
The reliance on techno-science and scenario planning results in the apparatuses necessary for mass war.

Temporalities intertwine with particular spatial modalities, and cyborg spatialization seems to be less about "the
universal" than "the global." The globalization oI the world, oI "planet Earth," is a semiotic-material production
oI some Iorms oI liIe rather than others. Technoscience is the story oI such globalization; it is the travelogue oI
distributed, heterogeneous, linked, socio technical circulations that craIt the world as a net called the global. The
cyborg liIe Iorms that inhabit the recently congealed planet Earththe "whole earth" oI eco-activists and green commodity catalogsgestated in a historically speciIic
technoscientiIic womb. Consider, Ior example, only Iour horns oI this multilobed reproductive wormhole: 1/ The apparatuses oI twentieth-century
military conIlicts, embedded in repeated world wars; decades oI 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 Ior postcolonial global control inscribed in low-intensity-conIlict doctrines; and post-Cold War, simultaneous-multiple-
war-Iighting strategies depending on rapid massive deployment, concentrated control oI inIormation and communications, and high-intensity, subnuclear precision
weapons (Helsel 1993; Gray 1991; Edwards 1995) 2 The apparatuses oI hypercapitalist market traIIic and Ilexible accumulation
strategies, all relying on stunning speeds and powers oI manipulation oI scale, especially miniaturization, which
characterize the paradigmatic "high-technology" transnational corporations

Impact: Warming
This leads to warming

Consider the controversy over measurements oI greenhouse emissions, in-Iormation that would appear to be derivable through objective means. During
negotiations Ior 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 country-
by-country estimates oI greenhouse gas emissions. Without any attempt to Irame its data in terms oI emissions
per capita, WRI concluded that India, China, and Brazil are among the top Iive countries responsible Ior global
warming.28In a rare instance oI a challenge to Western science emanating Irom a developing country, two scientists Irom the Center Ior
Science and Environment (CSE) in New Delhi argued that both the WRI Iigures and conclusions were wrong.
Starting with the premise that "there is no reason to believe that any human being in any part oI the world is
more or less important than another,"they ask: "Can we really equate the carbon dioxide contributions oI gas-
guzzling automobiles in Europe and North America (or, Ior that matter, anywhere in the Third World) with the
methan emissions oI water buIIalo and rice Iields oI subsistence Iarmers in West Bengal or Thailand?"29The
WRI-CSE controversy was not merely scientiIic; it reIlected deep dissension over moral and political
responsibility. As subsequent commen-tators noted, the WRI study implicitly "recycledan old scare tactic: What iI the poor rise to the average
level oI per capita greenhouse gas emissions as the rich?"30 Without explicitly Iocusing on this issue, the CSE
report attempted to shiIt the blame Ior global warming Irom population to consumption. While developing countries rarely
contest the neutrality oI Western science, we can expect such controversies to become more common iI research agendas and
environmental data continue to be dominated by industrialized countries.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
81
Impact Calculus: Ethics/Oppression
Oppression is immoral even when it doesn't cause harm
Oppression is more than harm, and though oppression is oIten painIul, it is morally problematic Ior reasons not
accommodated by a utilitarian perspective that is concerned only with pleasure and suIIering, 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 Irom an anti-oppressive perspective. So
what is oppression iI it is not merely a Iorm oI pain, or obvious harm? One dictionary deIines the verb to oppress as to keep down by the cruel or unjust use oI power or
authority; to crush; to trample down; to overpower (Webster`s New World 1994). The concept oI keeping something down,` is more
subtle, more deep and comprehensive than pain and suIIering. Iris Young deIines oppression as consisting in: "Systematic institutional
processes which prevent some people Irom learning and using satisIying and expansive skills in socially recognized settings, or institutionalized social processes which
inhibit people`s ability to play and communicate with others or to express their Ieelings and perspectives on social liIe in contexts where others can listen. While the
social conditions oI oppression oIten include material deprivation and maldistribution, they also involve issues beyond distribution." (1990: 38) Her list oI Iive Iaces oI
oppression` exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence describe some oI the
correlates oI oppression, or tools oI subjugation that coexist with and enIorce oppression. Another correlate is domination, which Mark
Blasius deIines in Gay and Lesbian Politics: Sexuality and the Emergence oI a New Ethic as an expression oI power that allows the actions oI one to elicit and guide or
command the actions oI another with a high degree oI certainty` (1994: 21). In an early essay that set out to deIine and describe women`s oppression in ways not
eIIectively 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 oI particular interest to ecoIeminists, she characterized the position oI oppressed women as being like
entrapment in a birdcage. A system oI many individual wires limits the Ireedom oI a bird in a cage, although
each wire in and oI itselI hardly appears to be an impediment to movement. When options are greatly reduced by diIIuse causes
that are historically, economically, and psychologically entrenched, pain might not be the best indicator oI when we have been
immobilized or compromised. A stunningly pernicious aspect oI oppression is how it can eIIectively create desires in the oppressed that are not in their
own interest, including, Ior example, women who want to be with men who seriously, physically threaten their lives.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
82
Alt: Consciousness
Naming difference is a difficult, but necessary element to reorient our political ontologies.

Ontological denial oI embodiment is implicit to ontological complicity. It is a part oI the game. In order to shiIt
the centriIugal place oI masculinity and whiteness in institutional structures and practices, as well as the
symbolic imagination oI authority, the central place oI whiteness and masculinity needs to be named and
problematised. Naming, however, can prove to be extremely diIIicult when institutions disavow cultural and corporeal speciIicity. ProIessional
institutional liberal narratives have a propensity to deny the invisible centre. The levels oI the denial are quite speciIic to each
institution. For instance, the masculinist bias oI the House oI Commons is much more readily voiced than the masculinist nature oI the senior civil service, and the
gendered nature oI both oI these institutions is more likely to be recognised than their racial character. The condition oI colour-blindness is much more extensive than
gender- blindness. There is a huge amount oI resistance within the proIessions to making the gendered and racial nature oI these environments visible. There is a
reluctance to Iace up to how diIIerent staII are aIIorded the advantages oI ontological complicity`. The debate between those who emphasise
diIIerence` and those who stress sameness is at the centre oI all struggles to acknowledge the embodied nature
oI social relations and institutions. The contours oI this dispute are repeatedly circulated in debates on the
saliency oI embodiment and the prematurely imagined community oI human sameness. It is extremely diIIicult
to get recognition oI the Iact that the norm is based on a one-dimensional man and that universal standards are
based on a speciIic culture, when proIessions think oI 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 oI embodiment makes it very diIIicult Ior those who are situated as
diIIerent Irom the centre to actually name their diIIerence. Admitting diIIerence in an organisation which asserts
that everybody is the same and that standards are neutral is more than a troublesome task. AIter all, it goes against a core
identity oI being a proIessional. The diIIiculty is illustrated by the way in which one oI the women in the senior civil service spoke about the experience oI women
coming together in her department as a group as being a bit like genies coming out`. There is a certain amount oI 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, 'ReIlections 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 Iilm. The women pilots, who stayed on
the ground, were judged as more suitable than the men Ior space travel: Ior example, they required less oxygen
per minute and had a much higher tolerance to sensory deprivation. However, within a Iew months oI passing
all the medical and scientiIic tests, the women were told they would not be part oI the space race. They were the
right stuII, but the wrong sex. This story oI the Iorgotten women astronauts may be seen as part oI the Ieminist project to
uncover and recover women 'hidden Irom 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 deIined in
terms oI technical competence. History might have been otherwise. II a woman, rather than a man, had been the Iirst
American in space, the masculine culture oI technology might have been disrupted, or at least destabilized.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
83
Alt: Consciousness
Disrupting hegemonic fantasies is crucial to creating a feminist politics.
PUWAR, senior lecturer at the University oI London, 2004 (Nirmal, Space Invaders. Race, ender and Bodies out of Place, 17)
Irigaray argues that Iantasies oI the capacities oI public man are reIlected all around him, in language, in laws, in
dwellings and in emotions. Each oI these work together to Iorm what she reIers to as a palace oI mirrors` (1985a: 137). She
adds that the mirrors are Ilat, and that the Ilat mirror privileges the relation oI man to his Iellow man` (1985b: 154).
Viewing Churchill`s scene Irom this perspective, it is possible to argue that he was literally surrounded by halls oI mirrors in Westminster, where hand-painted, soIt-
Iocused portraits oI the great and the good (men), in grand gold-embossed Irames, Ilank the walls. These images tower over corridors oI power
where the male simulacrum is repeated back to itselI, as conIirmation oI who men are and what they are. The
coherence` oI the mirrors is assured so long as they remain uninterrupted` (Irigaray 1985b: 75). In Churchill`s
encounter they became interrupted by the presence oI a Iemale body in this masculine domain (House). The
interruption induced a mild case oI ontological anxiety. An ontological disruption oI the subject questions what
the subject is. The whole basis oI an identity which had relied on a border is placed at stake when the boundaries do not obey the slicing oI mind/body,
man/woman. With the body coded as Iemale per se, women`s bodies represent Ioreign matter that threatens to
contaminate the realm oI serene, clean thought. The Iear oI Iusion, oI the boundaries bleeding into each other,
drains ideal political man (in this case Churchill) oI the strength he derives Irom the separation. The invisibility
oI the disembodied male body becomes visible, as he in this Ileeting moment is deprived oI his armour oI
culture and reason and stands naked with, as he puts it, nothing with which to deIend myselI`. In the normal state oI
play, the subject is invisible to himselI as he looks out Irom his palace oI mirrors` and contemplates the world (Irigaray 1985a: 21213). Now, Ior Churchill, his
contemplation is reduced to that most private oI places, the bathroom, used as a simile Ior the House oI Commons. Although he has seen reIlections
oI himselI in the mirrors, symbolic and literal, all around him, the corporeality oI the male Iorm has been denied
in Iantastic projections. In this encounter, what he reIers to as an intrusion` has laid his body bare. In a moment oI
disorientation, Churchill alerts us to the pyschosomatic dimensions oI public masculinity. The demarcation oI an inside/outside around the body, oI the body as a
territory with a line drawn around it` (Irigaray 1992: 17), is Ior a remote second turned upside down by the movement oI 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
deIining limits oI body/space to the point oI engulIing them. II it is our positioning within space, both as the point oI perspectival
access to space, and also an object Ior 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 Churchill`s positioning oI himselI in the public
sphere and its (disembodied) bodily characterisations in relation to the private was momentarily toppled? The traditional sources oI his historical and conceptual schema
entered the category oI being at risk. Hence he is disorientated. The work oI the artist Anish Kapoor can be particularly IruitIul Ior thinking about this encounter.
We must make the female body present to trouble current configurations of gender blindness.
The Iragility oI the masculine claim to public space and most speciIically the body politic is disturbed by the
arrival oI the abject. That is, the advent oI what the place oI rationality, reason, culture and debate has sought to
take transcendence Irom the Ieminine (nature, emotion and the bodily) incites a sense oI unease. The
stability oI the identity oI the body politic is constituted through a series oI oppositional binaries (borders)
which deIine it in contra- distinction to the Ieminine/private and all that it is beheld as representing. Historically the
political/public realm has been constructed through the exclusion oI women and all that we symbolize` (Pateman 1995: 52). Thus the presence oI the
Ieminine as a bodily entity disrupts the partition between the private and the public even iI it does not render it
altogether invalid. As the ways we live in space aIIect our corporeal alignments, comportment, and
orientations` (Grosz 1999: 385), a Iemale body in a male dwelling, as the abject (Kristeva 1980), threatens corporeal and psychic boundaries and, in the case
beIore us, brings on a state oI disorientation. Churchill speaks oI the arrival oI a woman in a male space as an intrusion oI a
bodily kind. He Ieels naked, somehow exposed and vulnerable. His body is revealed as being important to how
he orients himselI, and yet the body is denied in somatophobic political discourse. Even though metaphors oI
the body have served to naturalise political Iorms, the universal political individual is declared to be
disembodied. Neutrality and transcendence oI the bodily by the mind are what are declared as the norm.
Discussions oI the political realm, radical or conservative, imagine an image oI the polity which| is
anthropomorphic` (Gatens 1996: 23). The sexual subtext is not mentioned in the mass oI malestream political theory. Gender-blindness has been
the orthodoxy in political theory, even in radical critiques oI liberal democracy.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
84
Alt: Consciousness: Solves Gendered Language
Education eradicates sexism -- when people are made aware of gendered language, they change it
The legal community's shiIt Irom its use oI reasonable man to reasonable person oIIers 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 oI sexist language described above, n104 Ior instance, the researchers conIirmed the striking eIIect oI education on
subjects' sensitivity to subtly sexist language. Study participants who were given deIinitions and speciIic
examples oI discriminatory language were almost three times better at detecting it. n105 Moreover, both individuals who
agreed and disagreed with modern sexist belieIs beneIited equally Irom the education, n106 suggesting that even those who are progressive about
gender issues do not necessarily realize what constitutes sexist language and can proIit Irom 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.
For the second halI oI the twentieth century, dreams oI Ireedom have been associated with space travel. Here was the
contemporary equivalent oI man's historic quest to conquer nature. Drawing on earlier Western colonial narratives about discovering
the New Worlds, NASA named its Ileet oI space shuttles aIter pioneering sea vessels: olumbia, Discovery, tlantis,
Endeavour, hallenger. These space explorations were imbued with the adventure and romance oI earlier maritime voyages. However, inter-
galactic travel was also about escaping earthly space and time, and drew on the iconography oI science Iiction
Irom Star %rek to Star Wars to promote the Utopian potential oI science. DeIying gravity and Iloating weightless in space, the body
was in orbit. The image oI the Earth as seen Irom space has come to represent our greatest scientiIic achievement,
that oI sending a man to the Moon. And Irom the perspective oI space, Earth itselI appears as a small vessel
carrying its human population oI space travellers. Today, space travel seems stalled. Astronauts and cosmonauts
are modernist heroes in a narrative that was in part the product oI Cold War competition between superpowers
that no longer holds. Cyberspace, virtual reality and the Internet have taken over as the new Irontiers Ior
exploration and transcendence. They provide an opportunity on Earth to experience the romance oI space, oI
seemingly inIinite possibilities. Unlike real space travel, cyberspace is open to the many. While the dream oI new
communities in outer space remains remote, cyberspace has been quickly populated by disembodied settlers. Progress is still deIined 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 Ieminists
have seized upon new digital technologies Ior their potential to Iinally Iree women Irom the constraints oI their
sex.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
85
Alt: cyber-space solves.
Cyberfeminism provides an arena to shift the power relations towards difference and away from unity
and domination.
An optimistic - almost Utopian - vision oI the electronic community as Ioreshadowing the 'good society' is also
characteristic oI cyberIeminism. Although the above literature is silent on gender issues, it shares with some new strands oI
Ieminism the idea that Web-based technology generates a zone oI unlimited Ireedom. For cyberIeminism, however, this
means liberation Ior women. And just as cyber-gurus such as Castells have attracted many enthusiastic Iollowers, so too have many Ieminists been drawn
to writers such as Sadie Plant, the leading British exponent oI cyberIeminism. CyberIeminist discourse is particularly appealing to a new young generation, who have
grown up with computers and pop culture in the 1990s, with their themes oI 'grrrl power' and 'wired worlds'. In this section I want to read Plant's work as representative
oI this expanding trend within Ieminism. In part, cyberIeminism needs to be understood as a reaction to the pessimism oI the 1980s Ieminist approaches that stressed the
inherently masculine nature oI technoscience. In contrast, cyberIeminism 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 diIIuse and open. Thus, cyberIeminism marks a
new relationship between Ieminism and technology. For Plant, technological innovations have been pivotal in the
Iundamental shiIt in power Irom men to women that occurred in Western cultures in the 1990s, the so-called genderquake. Old
expectations, stereotypes, senses oI identity and securities have been challenged as women gain unprecedented
economic opportunities, technical skills and cultural powers. Automation has reduced the importance oI
muscular strength and hormonal energies and replaced them with demands Ior speed, intelligence and
transIerable, interpersonal and communication skills.
15
This has been accompanied by the Ieminization oI the
workIorce, which now Iavours independence, Ilexibility and adaptability. While men are ill-prepared Ior a
postmodern Iuture, women are ideally suited to the new technoculture.

Cyberspace provides the communication technology necessary for world harmony.
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 oI the political spectrum, communication media are seen to play a key role - either as the cause oI the
problem or its cure. Indeed, cyber-gurus Irom 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 Iorms oI socia-
bility that will result in enhanced communities and greater world harmony.
6
Castell's belieI in the potential oI enhanced Internet
connectivity is reminiscent oI McLuhan's argument in %he utenberg alaxy that television would be a restorer oI organic culture and community in the global
village.
7
In line with Howard Rheingold's original vision oI %he Jirtual ommunity, cyberspace is portrayed as an
inIormal public place where people can rebuild aspects oI connectivity and community that have been lost in
the modern world.
8
Virtual communities result Irom social collectivities that emerge Irom the Net to Iorm webs
oI interpersonal ties in cyberspace.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
86
Alt: Cyberfeminism solves
Cyberfeminism is liberatory.
An optimistic - almost Utopian - vision oI the electronic community as Ioreshadowing the 'good society' is also
characteristic oI cyberIeminism. Although the above literature is silent on gender issues, it shares with some new strands oI
Ieminism the idea that Web-based technology generates a zone oI unlimited Ireedom. For cyberIeminism, however, this means
liberation Ior women. And just as cyber-gurus such as Castells have attracted many enthusiastic Iollowers, so too have many Ieminists been drawn to writers
such as Sadie Plant, the leading British exponent oI cyberIeminism. CyberIeminist discourse is particularly appealing to a new young generation, who have grown up
with computers and pop culture in the 1990s, with their themes oI 'grrrl power' and 'wired worlds'. In this section I want to read Plant's work as representative oI this
expanding trend within Ieminism. In part, cyberIeminism needs to be understood as a reaction to the pessimism oI the 1980s Ieminist approaches that stressed the
inherently masculine nature oI technoscience. In contrast, cyberIeminism 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 diIIuse and open. Thus, cyberIeminism marks a
new relationship between Ieminism and technology. For Plant, technological innovations have been pivotal in the
Iundamental shiIt in power Irom men to women that occurred in Western cultures in the 1990s, the so-called genderquake. Old
expectations, stereotypes, senses oI identity and securities have been challenged as women gain unprecedented
economic opportunities, technical skills and cultural powers. Automation has reduced the importance oI
muscular strength and hormonal energies and replaced them with demands Ior speed, intelligence and
transIerable, interpersonal and communication skills.
15
This has been accompanied by the Ieminization oI the
workIorce, which now Iavours independence, Ilexibility and adaptability. While men are ill-prepared Ior a
postmodern Iuture, women are ideally suited to the new technoculture.

Cyberspace cannot be dominated: connections are too numerous.
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 oI man's control: virtual reality
destroys his identity, digitalization is mapping his soul and, at the peak oI his triumph, the culmination oI his
machinic erections, man conIronts the system he built Ior his own protection and Iinds it is Iemale and
dangerous.'
16
Far Irom being a technology oI male dominance, computing is a liberatory technology Ior women
which delivers a post-patriarchal Iuture. The idea that the Internet can transIorm conventional gender roles,
altering the relationship between the body and the selI via a machine, is a popular theme in recent postmodern
Ieminism. 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 Irom communication. As a
result, our interactions are Iundamentally diIIerent, because they are not subject to judgements based on sex,
age, race, voice, accent or appearance, but are based only on textual exchanges. In ife on the Screen, Sherry Turkle enthuses
about the potential Ior people 'to express multiple and oIten unexplored aspects oI the selI, to play with their identity and to try out new ones . . . the obese can be
slender, the beautiIul plain, the "nerdy" sophisticated'.
17
It is the increasingly interactive and creative nature oI computing
technology that now enables millions oI people to live a signiIicant segment oI their lives in virtual reality.
Moreover, it is in this computer-mediated world that people experience a new sense oI selI, which is decentred, multiple and Iluid. In this respect, Turkle argues, the
Internet is the material expression oI the philosophy oI postmodernism. Interestingly, the gender oI Internet users Ieatures mainly in Turkle's chapter about virtual sex.
Cyberspace provides a risk-Iree environment where people can engage in the intimacy they both desire and Iear.
Turkle argues that people Iind it easier to establish relationships on-line and then pursue them oII-line. Yet, Ior
all the celebration oI the interactive world oI cyberspace, what emerges Irom her discussion is that people
engaging in Internet relationships really want the Iull, embodied relationship. Like many other authors, Turkle
argues that gender swapping, or virtual cross-dressing, encourages people to reIlect on the social construction oI
gender, to acquire 'a new sense oI gender as a continuum'.
18
However she does not reIlect upon the possibility that gender diIIerences in the
constitution oI sexual desire and pleasure inIluence the manner in which cybersex is used.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
87
Alt: Deconstruction

The deconstruction of masculinist discourse leads to non-domination, solved ecology, and world peace.
-hanenge 2007 (Iytte Masters of Art Degree |n Internat|ona| Deve|opment Stud|es at the Un|vers|ty of South Afr|ca (U-ISA) "Lcofem|n|sm towards
|ntegrat|ng the concerns of women poor peop|e and nature |nto deve|opment")
Deconstruction regenerates diversity, which leads to non-domination. The belieI in sameness is not universal,
nor is it desirable. Instead, it gives a certain kind oI selI-suIIiciency with no interest in others. DiIIerence
oppositely inspires a healthy interest in others. When we respect diIIerence, 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. DiIIerence between knowers necessitates interactive construction and a
Iorum 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 Iounded
on a un-dualised selIother recognition and a healthy interaction based on care Ior the other. Consequently,
ecoIeminism and postmodemism are in Cheney's opinion a natural combination. (Cheney 1994: 116, 166, 168).

Alt: Ethics key
Ethics has historically excluded those considered as Other. Inclusion of these Others undermines
traditional ethical frameworks
Where organic well-being beyond oneselI is concerned, and in so Iar as choice is possible, a matter is ethical. The
concept oI ethics is used to locate a particular category oI human problems: one involving the interests oI other people, or other morally valuable` beings, as Iactors,
and one which calls upon agents to make choices according to socially sanctioned, or appropriate,` criteria. Aristotle noted that one oI the distinguishing Ieatures oI
virtue, his concept Ior ethical responses to relationships and situations, is the Iact that it involves choice. According to the norms recorded by him and other inIluential
thinkers in the history oI ethics, ethical issues involve the exploration oI the good,` and right and wrong,` and their attempted realization in human interactions. The
norms concerning ethical concepts and matters, or the meanings oI good and appropriate actions and attitudes,
have been debated Irom the beginning oI philosophy. But these discussions oI norms are undergoing dramatic,
unparalleled upheavals on the wave oI social movements Ior liberation and political change. Two inIluential, multiIaceted,
and intertwined sites oI controversy in ethics have been at the intersections oI academic philosophy and Ieminism, and philosophy and environmentalism. From these
unIixed 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 oI all oI 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 oI philosophy. This erasure and
distortion is oI 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 justiIy all kinds oI
actions and identities. In eIIorts to unearth unIriendly reIerences to women and other Others in the history oI philosophy, and to include them qua women,
people oI color, workers, ecosystems and cows (rather than wives and mothers, slaves, exotics, Ioreigners and lower classes, Nature and meat) in philosophical
explorations, several parallel agendas have emerged as central in Ieminist and environmental philosophies. One such agenda is to locate and debunk Ialse
characterizations, and to map out their oIten hidden inIluences and implications. For example, Aristotle`s belieI that women are essentially,
naturally passive helps shape his claims that only certain men count as citizens, and that the political realm
entails men`s interactions with each other. Women and slaves are backgrounded in his conception oI 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 oI pain, betrays his predisposition to discount responses that are not uniquely human in his discussion oI what knowledge is and how it Iunctions.
Beyond this critical move, Ieminist and environmental philosophers also look at the implications oI including subordinated
groups and individuals among those who count as theoretically signiIicant 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 Irameworks are capable oI accommodating as Iull subjects those castigated as Others by those very
Irameworks. An inevitable project is a detailed exploration oI how counting historically discounted Others as relevant seriously
undermines or revises the assumptions and prescriptions oI traditional ethical Irameworks.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
88
Alt: Ethics Good
Although assumptions underlie all ethics, ethics are still useful
Drawing on Wittgenstein`s conception oI a Ioundation as like an axis, held in place by what revolves or spins around it,` Sarah Hoagland argues that the Ioundation oI
traditional Anglo-European ethics is dominance and subordination (Hoagland 1988: 14). In contrast, she constructs ethics Irom the Ioundation` oI lesbian lives and
communities. OI 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 meaningIul in discourses, political communities, and material practices, is to commit oneselI already to some basis upon which it
is arguable that something is better than something else. In The Subjectivity oI 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 Ior holding them. Ethics can provide normative, justiIiable standards without an objective basis, but
"somewhere in the input to this argument perhaps in one or more oI the premisses, perhaps in some part oI the Iorm oI the argument there will be
something which cannot be objectively validated some premiss which is not capable oI being simply true, or some
Iorm oI argument which is not valid as a matter oI 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 Iabrications that keep some oI us dry
and secure, these subjective Ioundations are designed and craIted by humans. Though the construction oI value systems is rarely as intentional as the
pouring oI concrete, it is no less human-generated and socially dependent. The most an ethicist can do Ior her audience is
Irankly to lay out her motivations and starting points, even iI 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 Iemale lions, who determine the size and constitution oI their prides, permanently cast oII certain
members, likely explanations include individual personalities, group dynamics, and environmental pressures. And we humans have our own strange and useIul
practices. For example, within most systems oI meaning, we place special value on persons, certain interactions, and ways oI being in the world a value that constrains
and motivates in ways not reducible to selI-regard.1 Like lioness` actions, human moral agency only makes sense in the rich varieties oI
our communities, and human community only exists as part oI 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 oI the privileged, though they sometimes enable radical shiIts in social power. Finding such
relationships between morals and power key to understanding human nature, Nietzsche`s genealogy oI morals characterizes the history oI modern Western ethics as a
careIully orchestrated attempt by the physically impotent to exert control over those whose physical strength, cunning, and Iearlessness endangers the weak. But
despite the negative potential oI ethics, iI normative evaluations are at all useIul or inevitable, and iI some aspects oI 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 oI common Iailures regarding ethics, and some might think oI themselves as
rejecting the normative process altogether, but the simple designations oI Ieminist` and environmentalist` implicitly endorse some practices over others, and denote
normative evaluations about what should be, not just descriptions oI what is.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
89
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
Ethics, values, and moralities, are always political they express, inIluence, and respond to power that is economic,
governmental, discursive, symbolic, and born in social relations. Values, practices, and conceptions oI moral agency derived in oppressive
institutions or practices are likely to promote, enable, or allow Ior oppression and mistreatment. In so Iar as they contribute to the
domination, silencing, and devaluation oI those deIined as Others, Ieminists believe that ethics must be rejected or
revised. For example, Ieminism begins with the belieI that women and other Others have Iull moral value, as both moral agents and objects, so the interests oI
oppressed people, as individuals, and as members oI groups, are ethically signiIicant. Historically and philosophically, in overlapping yet distinct ways,
people oI color, women, and other outsiders` to the public sphere have been considered less than Iull, or Iully
signiIicant, moral beings, and this Iact is Iundamental to their subordination. Feminists begin with a critique oI this
undervaluation, and its connection with other systems and logics oI domination, exploitation, and oppression. In some sense this
is the starting point Ior any Ieminist ethical criticism and the creation oI Ieminist ethical possibilities. As is common
among theorizing born Irom liberation movements, much oI the earliest rejecting and revising` work in Ieminist ethics took the Iorm oI responses to the tradition,
uncovering the sexism and criticizing the male-centeredness oI inIluential work in the Iield oI ethics. Some Ieminist scholars pointed out the outright misogyny
expressed by Kant, Locke, Nietzsche, Aristotle, and Schopenhauer, and traced the eIIects oI misogyny on respective theories oI selves, rational moral agents, good
persons, and good societies. Some investigated the ways in which traditional ethical theory has provided justiIications Ior the mistreatment oI women and other
inIeriors. Other theorists analyzed the ways in which a Iailure to pay attention to women`s lives and practices results in ethical schemes that render women invisible, or
that are completely unhelpIul in providing guidance or explanation Ior women`s moral lives. In addition to critically evaluating phallocentric
traditions, Ieminist scholars aimed to correct them and Iill in the gaps by incorporating more accurate
assumptions about the value oI women and the ethical signiIicance oI their lives. Projects along this line include a veritable
library oI essays and books on questions in applied ethics,` including abortion, surrogate motherhood, pornography, and rape, in which women`s autonomy over their
bodies and reproductive roles are a central issue. But this sort oI attention to the tradition also inevitably resulted in debates about whether nonIeminist philosophy was
at all salvageable. II adding women and stirring` resulted in dramatic changes in theoretical Irameworks and even
shiIts in grounding presuppositions about the nature oI persons and moral problems, then the corrective project
could only lead to bigger and better things.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
90
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
By way oI summary, I oIIer the Iollowing synopsis oI ecological Ieminist positions which ground the discussion oI ethics throughout the rest oI this book.(1) Ethical
systems and values born out oI conceptual universes that relegate what is considered Ieminine or natural to an
inIerior status help justiIy and implement both that relegation and the mistreatment oI those groups and entities.
The most obvious examples are ethical systems that allow Ior no moral consideration oI those entities, that speciIically claim that
women, nature, tribal people, Ioreigners, 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 oI moral agents and objects can import problematic belieIs in more clandestine ways. Ecological
Ieminist ethics thereIore Iollow in the Iootsteps oI Ieminist ethics in exploring values and practices that derive Irom a Ioundation that takes women, nature, and other
commonly excluded beings or groups seriously as morally relevant. This might include Iocusing on their particularities as (Ior humans) moral agents, or as objects oI
ethical decision-making.(2) When nature gets harmed, women and other Others (the poor, people oI color, indigenous communities, laborers,
and members oI other categorically disempowered social groups) are inevitably harmed, or harmed more than the socially and
economically privileged. The devaluation oI women and other oppressed groups justiIies (a) devaluing, and
consequently harming, other Ieminine` 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 careIully (even when women or agricultural workers, Ior example, may
have more intimate knowledge oI the objects in question); (d) preventing them Irom ownership and decision-making that might result in less destructive practices. (3)
Woman` and nature` are socially created concepts, each reIerring to highly varied categories oI beings and objects. The concepts do not belie essential or necessary
truths about beings and objects, but their deIinitive power helps constitute and regulate material realities. In Western and other hierarchical dualistic cultures, women
and nature are likened to each other and identiIied with Iemininity and corporealityopposite and inIerior to
masculinity, reason, and their associates. These deIinitions render the realm oI the Ieminine suitable Ior
domination, although the strange mechanisms oI oppression sometimes place the Ieminine in gloriIied positions imbued with purity, mystery, and Iertility. These
and similar Ialse generalizations are also made concerning other groups who come to be metaphysically or practically associated with Iemininity and/or nature,
including primitives` and sexual deviants.` (4) In the process oI exploring and creating ethical options and alternatives,
reclamations oI traditional ideas and practices might be helpIul, but they must be critically evaluated in terms oI present contexts as well as
their historical embeddedness. When the substance oI a moral claim cannot be logically abstracted Irom problematic
Ioundations or implications, it is not worth reconsideration or reclamation. Likewise, evidence that an ethical
imperative has proven emancipatory in the past is inadequate prooI that it can continue to do so. Hence, Ieminist ethics
are not Ieminine ethics. Feminist ethics help uncover and eradicate the devaluation and mistreatment oI women. Because nearly all women are inIluenced by conceptual
and material Irameworks that are oppressive to women, eIIorts to eradicate oppression involve criticizing concepts and institutions including Iemininity and
motherhood. Furthermore, since the oppression oI women includes oppression based on race, class, sexuality, physical ability, caste, and other Iactors, so all oI these are
Ieminist issues. None the less, the Iocus oI this approach is on Iemale humans is Ieminist Ior several reasons:(a) Women`s oppression is nearly
universal, and thereIore almost always visible and instructive in exposing various Irameworks and mechanisms
oI oppression at work in any given context. The oppression oI women is thereIore a paradigm Ior the
consideration oI oppression and exploitation in general. (b) The history oI Ieminist thought provides a speciIic cluster oI analyses oI
oppression, exploitation, and resistance. Thinkers and actors who call themselves Ieminist,` including ecological Ieminists, place themselves in agreement with some
aspect oI this history, though oI course they may also disagree with other aspects.(c) Many oI the most inIluential representatives in the
history oI thought` including most oI the builders oI Western modern science and technology and capitalism,
have included, as a central ideological and practical component, the systematic, direct devaluation and/or
oppression oI women and whatever else comes to be, or to be considered Ieminine.`(d) Feminists are aware that when the
Iocus is not on women, their needs, interests, and perspectives tend to be severely neglected.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
91
Alt (To Utopianism) Feminist Realism
Realistic feminism avoids the pitfalls of utopianism and makes itself better
Although Ieminist thought has long been compatible with utopianism, it does not need utopianism to Ilourish. Indeed, as this book endeavors to
explain, without utopianism Ieminist 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
identiIied and exorcized. Without utopianism Ieminism can more readily recognize contingent truths, inevitable
conIlicts, and complex motivations and loyalties, as it addresses the problems it can name. Realistic Ieminist
thought can embrace the serendipity and vagaries oI human liIe, identity, relationships, and institutions. It can avoid exclusivist or separatist metaphors and replace them
with tropes oI coexistence. It can embrace selI-criticism and ideological tension. It need not risk utopianism's proclivity Ior idealization, demonization, and Ialse
dichotomies. It need not breed the disappointment that inevitably results Irom unIulIilled utopian promises and
unrealized utopian ideals. In short, Higher Ground argues that, without utopianism, Ieminism becomes a richer and more
dynamic system oI thought. It allows the continual interplay oI simultaneously held but diverse and sometimes
contradictory "truths" about women's lives and the concept oI gender, gender diIIerences, equality in the Iace oI
diIIerence, diIIerence in the Iace oI equality, and scores oI similar contingencies.

@he US government |s |nherent|y sex|st and oppress|ve Adopt|ng a rea||st fem|n|st eth|c |s the on|y
way to so|ve for th|s
Familiar social values and principles oI social change, such as democracy and equality, also present contradictory legacies Ior a politics oI realism. United States
democracy carries the taint oI imperialism and exploitative global capitalism abroad, and the stench oI sexism,
racism, and other Iorms oI discrimination at home. In our democracy, some Ireedoms mask other oppressions;
we enjoy Ireedom oI speech, perhaps, but not Ireedom Irom want. Proclamations oI equality oIten entail white
male standards against which women and minority men are measured and inevitably Iound lacking. Or such anomalies
produce other, more egregious ones, such as the specter oI "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 speciIic models and concrete Iuture visions. There is too much
we do not know about the problems that exist in our current situation; there is too much about the Iuture we cannot predict. What is leIt to us, then, is a
quest Ior political processes that accommodate realism's multiIaceted demands. We can ask whether a particular process provides
Ior the changing nature oI social values or iI it appreciates, even cultivates, diversity, ambiguity, and complexity. We can seek to establish a social and
political context Ior general liberatory projects, since in reality Ieminism(s) will not prevail in the absence oI
overall support Ior social justice. We can insist that the politics oI the Iuture allow-even require-continuous reexamination and reevaluation oI cherished
goals and Ioundational principles, including any that might emerge Irom this book. We can devise processes that resist pre-eXisting categories, that lead to appropriately
incremental or appropriately revolutionary changes, and that accommodate contradictions and complexities.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
92
A|t (@o Utop|an|sm) Iem|n|st kea||sm
kea||sm |s a better a|ternat|ve |t va||dates know|edge |s adaptab|e and avo|ds the prob|ems of utop|an|sm
Utopianism's alternative-realism-contrasts with these conceptual pitIalls 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 oI apparent oppositions or dualities. Existentialist Paul Tillich has
expressed such a realistic view oI utopianism itselI. For Tillich, utopianism is both true and untrue, IruitIul and unIruitIul. Its truth Ior illich lies in its expression oI
humanity's inner aim and essence, the los oI human existence. Its untruth lies in its assumption oI an unlienated humanity, which overlooks the inevitable "Iinitude and
estrangement oI man" Irom his essential being, which is ultimately unattainable. Likewise, Tillich Iinds utopian thinking IruitIul, insoIar as it opens up possibilities and
provides "anticipatory inventiveness," but unIruitIul insoIar as it describes "impossibilities as real possibilities" and becomes wishIul thinking, a selI-deIeating
unrealism (1966, 296, 299-300). As Tillich's analysis suggests, realism can reIlect utopianism's desires. Realism can be an agent Ior
social change, but it typically starts Irom diIIerent premises than utopianism. Realism also seeks truth, but
usually through probing and complicating its variations rather than by deIending a Iixed position. Realism
entails validating knowledge, but it usually involves questioning rather than possessing it. Realism is more
cognizant oI ambiguity and contingency than utopianism tends to be. Realism enters the analysis when the
arbitrary and symbolic nature oI language is being explored, thereby revealing the mutability and Iluidity oI
categories and their labels. Realism recognizes that human knowledge and depictions oI truth may not constitute
all knowledge and truth. Realism considers the limits to establishing truth once and Ior 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 Iamiliar rather than toward those who reinIorce our preconceptions. Based on the history and uses oI the term, which we will explore more
Iully in chapter 5, realism seems to have much to oIIer the task oI Ieminist theorizing. It provides an alternative to utopianism that explores
ideas' unintended consequences by probing Ior their traitorous propensities and recognizes that even the
grandest oI ideas may contain the seeds oI their own destruction. Realism represents an alternative that seeks
the Iine line between the best and worst attributes oI even our most cherished precepts. Realism also allows us to consider
the beneIits oI salvaging the best oI what is even as we seek novelty, oI drawing no hasty conclusions about what ought to be based only on knowing-or claiming to
knowwhat is wrong with the present. RealisIu leads us to disavow the discourse oI perIection and attend to the task oI justiIying Ieminist knowledge claims. It
encourages us to consider balancing apparently oppositional concerns rather than casting our lot too hastily with
one or the other.

ke[ect Utop|an|sm by engag|ng |n rea||st po||c|es
Fraser also avoids utopianism by recommending that all policy making-including, presumably, her own approach to welIare reIorm-
must involve the participation oI multiple publics, including "subaltern counterpublics," in which diIIerences
(pace Habermas) are neither bracketed nor ignored, real conIlicts oI interest are recognized, and no a priori deIinition
oI 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 oI analysis, and establish meaningIul
exchanges within and among varying groups oI people whose diIIerences are neither predetermined nor
disregarded. They promote the willingness oI all parties to be changed by the exchange oI perspectives, to distribute power and resources broadly and Iairly, and
to resist corruption. These processes do not yet exist in American society at large, but the tools Ior 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 oI those tools and the enactment oI those processes in the way we construct our own
interactions-among ourselves and with the world. And then we can pass it along.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
93
Alt (To Utopianism): Feminist Realism
Realism is a better alternative to utopianism
Higher Ground argues that the movement away Irom utopianism and toward realism produces a richer, and possibly
more enduring, Ioundation Ior Ieminist thought. But rejecting utopianism as a metaphor Ior, or even a strong component oI, Ieminist thinking
also raises ,me additional questions. What, iI not a realizable dream oI social ctures and practices, could Ieminism possibly be? How can Iemale principles
best be Iormulated and shared? What, iI anything, do inists 'have in common? Are there limits to the diversity oI
ideas at qualiIy as Ieminist? Higher Ground argues that the best approaches those questions reside outside the parameters
oI utopian thinking. As the analysis proceeds, we shall explore other alternatives, rooted in alism, Ior the establishment oI a principled yet Ilexible, dynamic,
rid complex Iramework Ior Ieminist 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.
Gender Studies, 'Higher Ground, p.161)
One key attraction oI utopian dreams and desires is the sense oI optimism they convey. How else, we may ask,
can we rally our hopes Ior the Iuture, especially when the realities oI today are so discouraging? But there are other
sources oI optimism. Indeed, realism and optimism are compatible partners, as Robert Goheen, the Iormer resident oI Princeton University and
director oI the National Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation, suggests. Recognizing how much in this world needs improvement
could make us cynical, Goheen continues, "but most oI us, iI we have courage, would preIer to have such clear sight as
we can. We would preIer to know as accurately as possible where we are and in what kind oI 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 speciIic: "Knowledge ... oIIers us Irameworks Ior making sense oI the
Iragments .... Knowledge helps us imagine how we might act." And knowing how to make sense oI 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.
Seen in its historical context, realism becomes a useIul Iramework Ior Ieminist inquiry which contrasts with the Iramework oI
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 oI the way things are to the way things
ought to be and to recognize that the issues that engage us can camouIlage more important, hidden Iorces. Realism guides
us in challenging notions oI Iixed identities and leads us to recognize that however deep our knowledge oI people may be,
it is never complete. Realism suggests that the desire Ior normative Ieminist standards in realistic Ieminist 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 oI our own
perceptions in our understanding oI ourselves and the world. Although Iew Ieminist theorists have employed the term, my survey oI Ieminist
theoretical works reveals that realism as a process oI thought has not escaped Ieminist notice. Indeed, there is a long but as yet undeIined tradition oI realism in Ieminist
thought and theory oI which we have already seen evidence. That tradition does not reside exclusively in complaints about "utopic" or
"utopian" Ieminist ideas and strategies, although those complaints exist. Rather, it resides primarily in persistent and
probing thought processes that lead to more eIIective and more lasting Iorms oI social change than those that are possible
through utopian means. There is no Iinite set oI "realistic" Feminist belieIs or values, or even a line oI Ieminist theory called "realistic Ieminism." Nor should
there be. Such codiIication would contradict realism's utility as a process Ior the Iormulation oI Ieminist thought.
ThereIore, the evidence Ior realism in Ieminist theorizing exists as a core sample oI arguments, questions, and concerns Irom a broad spectrum oI Ieminist views. It
includes parameters Ior thinking and inquiring about Ieminism in a way I hope readers will Iind important and relevant to
ideas and theories they both generate and consume.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
94
Alt (To Utopianism): Feminist Realism
Feminism shouldn`t be utopian, Realism is a better alternative
Thus, rather than debating the details oI the ideal Ieminist Iuture, realistic Ieminist theorists do better to
concentrate on considering various solutions and compromises and assessing their consequences. "Wouldn't it be
wonderIul iI ... " must be tempered by "Here's what will likely result Irom." Arguments should be made, challenged, and reconsidered.
IdentiIying Ieminist values must entail recognition that even the most positive oI values must be tempered in
order to prevent negative excess. Without sympathy and Iairness, Ior example, the anger that motivates social change can become destructive. Even
sympathy and Iairness require selI-control, however, and a sense oI duty to keep Irom becoming mere selI-satisIaction and narrow loyalty (Wilson 1993, 246).
SpeciIically Ieminist values also require correctives to reduce their potential Ior excess in the pursuit oI
beneIicial social change.

ALT: Haraway
THE THEORETICAL MAPPING PRO1ECT 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 PRO1ECT CAN
CULTIVATE A POLITICS CAPABLE OF DISORIENTING TECHNOCRATIC DOMINATION

Inappropriate/d Others, ultural Studies eds. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A Treichler, p 295-6)
"The Promises oI Monsters" will be a mapping exercise and travelogue through mind-scapes and landscapes oI what may count as nature in certain
local/global struggles. These contests are situated in a strange, allochronic time-the time oI myselI and my readers in the last decade oI
the second Christian millenium-and in a Ioreign, allotopic place-the womb oI a pregnant monster, here, where we are reading and writing. The purpose oI this
excursion is to write theory, i.e., to produce a patterned vision oI how to move and what to Iear in the
topography oI an impossible but all-too-real present, in order to Iind an absent, but perhaps possible, other
present. I do not seek the address oI some Iull presence; reluctantly, I know better. Like Christian in Pilgrim's Progress, however, I am committed to skirting the
slough oI despond and the parasite-inIested swamps oI nowhere to reach more salubrious environs.7 The theory is meant to orient, to provide the
roughest sketch Ior travel, by means oI moving within and through a relentless artiIactualism, which Iorbids any direct
si(gh)tings oI nature, to a science Iictional, speculative Iactual, SF place called, simply, elsewhere. At least Ior those whom this essay addresses, "nature" outside
artiIactualism is not so much elsewhere as nowhere, a diIIerent matter altogether. Indeed, a reIlexive artiIactualism oIIers 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 oI such craIt tools. Such sighting devices have been known to reposition
worlds Ior their devotees-and Ior their opponents. Optical instruments are subject-shiIters. Goddess knows, the subject is being changed relentlessly in the late twentieth
century. My diminutive theory's optical Ieatures are set to produce not eIIects oI distance, but eIIects oI
connection, oI embodiment, and oI responsibility Ior 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 Ior the activists and advocates engaged in Iitting
political Iilters to see the world in the hues oI red, green, and ultraviolet, i.e., Irom the perspectives oI a still
possible socialism, Ieminist and anti-racist environmentalism, and science Ior the people. I take as a selI-evident premise
that "science is culture."3 Rooted in that premise, this essay is a contribution to the heterogeneous and very lively contemporary discourse oI science studies as cultural
studies. OI course, what science, culture, or nature-and their "studies"-might mean is Iar less selI-evident.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
95
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
technoscintific masculinity.
The optimistic register oI such Ieminisms, stressing women's agency and capacity Ior empowerment, resonates with a
new generation oI women who live in a world oI much greater sex equality. That a strong current oI Seventies
Ieminism sought to reject technology as malevolent is now seen as IanciIul. Wired women in cyber-caIes, experimenting with new
media, clutching mobile phones, are immersed in science Iiction and their imaginary worlds. It presents a seductive image
Ior a culture with an insatiable appetite Ior novelty. The possibilities oI reinventing the selI and the body, like cyborgs in
cyberspace, and the prosthetic potential oI biotechnologies, have reinvigorated our thinking. But the sometimes tenuous link
between visceral, lived gender relations and the experience oI virtual voyages has led many to desire a more materialist analysis oI
gender and technology. To move Iorward, we Iirst need to bridge the common polarization in social theory between
metaphor and materiality. Technology must be understood as part oI the social Iabric 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 arteIacts, people, organizations, cultural meanings and knowledge. It Iollows that technological
change is a contingent and heterogeneous process in which technology and society are mutually constituted. Indeed, the linear
model oI innovation, diIIusion and use has given way to the idea that technology is never a Iinished product.
Long aIter arteIacts leave the research laboratory, they continue to evolve in everyday practices oI use. The interpretative
Ilexibility oI technology means that the possibility always exists Ior a technology and its eIIects to be otherwise.
II society is co-produced with technology, it is imperative to explore the eIIects oI gender power relations on
design and innovation, as well as the impact oI technological change on the sexes. An emerging technoIeminism
conceives oI a mutually shaping relationship between gender and technology, in which technology is both a source and a consequence
oI gender relations. In other words, gender relations can be thought oI as materialized in technology, and masculinity
and Iemininity in turn acquire their meaning and character through their enrolment and embeddedness in
working machines. Such an approach shares the constructivist conception oI technology as a sociotechnical network, and
recognizes the need to integrate the material, discursive and social elements oI technoscientiIic practice.
Feminist scholarship has been critical in exposing the gender-blindness oI mainstream technoscience studies.
Donna Haraway's contribution has been key, continuing the tradition oI socialist-Ieminist inquiry into the possibilities that
technoscience oIIers women. I have argued that her material-semiotic approach moves beyond the limitations oI
cyberIeminism, 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 chieI
critic. Haraway's spotlight on the liIe sciences raises crucial issues oI our time - in particular, whether the boundaries between nature
and culture and between humans and machines, which have been an underlying premiss oI the Enlightenment world-view, can be
sustained and, iI not, what the consequences are Ior our conception oI humanness and the gendered body.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
96
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.

The only way to characterize the inIormatics oI domination is as a massive intensiIication oI insecurity and
cultural impoverishment, with common Iailure oI subsistence networks Ior the most vulnerable. Since much oI
this picture interweaves with the social relations oI science and technology, the urgency oI a socialist-Ieminist
politics addressed to science and technology is plain. There is much now being done, and the grounds Ior political work are rich. For example,
the eIIorts to develop Iorms oI collective struggle Ior women in paid work, like SEIU's District 925,. should be a high priority Ior all oI us. These eIIorts are
proIoundly tied to technical restructuring oI labour processes and reIormations oI working classes. These eIIorts
also are providing understanding oI a more comprehensive kind oI labour organization, involving community,
sexuality, and Iamily issues never privileged in the largely white male industrial unions. The structural
rearrangements related to the social relations oI science and technology evoke strong ambivalence. But it is not
necessary to be ultimately depressed by the implications oI late twentieth-century women's relation to all
aspects oI work, culture, production oI knowledge, sexuality, and reproduction. For excellent reasons, most
Marxisms see domination best and have trouble understanding what can only look like Ialse consciousness and
people's complicity in their own domination in late capitalism. It is crucial to remember that what is lost, perhaps especially Irom
women's points oI view, is oIten virulent Iorms oI oppression, nostalgically naturalized in the Iace oI current violation. Ambivalence towards the disrupted unities
mediated by high-tech culture requires not sorting consciousness into categories oI 'clear-sighted critique grounding a solid political epistemology' versus 'manipulated
Ialse consciousness', but subtle understanding oI emerging pleasures, experiences, and powers with serious potential Ior changing the rules oI the game. There are
grounds Ior hope in the emerging bases Ior new kinds oI unity across race, gender, and class, as these
elementary units oI socialist-Ieminist analysis themselves suIIer protean transIormations. IntensiIications oI
hardship experienced world-wide in connection with the social relations oI science and technology are severe.
But what people are experiencing is not transparently clear, and we lack suIIiciently subtle connections Ior
collectively building eIIective theories oI experience. Present eIIorts - Marxist, psychoanalytic, Ieminist, anthropological - to clariIy even 'our'
experience are rudimentary. I am conscious oI the odd perspective provided by my historical position a PhD in biology Ior 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 Ior hope in Iocusing on the contradictory eIIects oI politics designed to produce loyal American technocrats, which also
produced large numbers oI dissidents, than in Iocusing on the present deIeats. The permanent partiality oI Ieminist points oI view has
consequences Ior our expectations oI Iorms oI political organization and participation. We do not need a totality
in order to work well. The Ieminist dream oI a common language, like all dreams Ior a perIectly true language,
oI perIectly IaithIul naming oI 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 Irom our Iusions with
animals and machines how not to be Man, the embodiment oI Western logos. From the point oI view oI pleasure
in these potent and taboo Iusions, made inevitable by the social relations oI science and technology, there might
indeed be a Ieminist science.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
97
Alt: Gender IR
The only way to solve is through a restructuring on how we view the world
Press. pp 131|

The gendered perspectives on security I have presented point to the conclusion that the discipline oI
international relations, as it is presently constructed, is deIined in terms oI everything that is not Iemale. While
classical realism has constructed its analysis out oI the behavior and experiences oI men, neorealism's
commitment to a positivist methodology that attempts to impose standards oI scientiIic inquiry used in the
natural sciences, has resulted in an extreme depersonalization oI the Iield that only serves to hide its masculinist
underpinnings. My analyses oI "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 Iorms oI masculinity and Iemininity 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 oI a set oI characteristics
that, while they are drawn Irom certain behaviors oI Western males, do not necessarily Iit the behavior oI all
men, Western men included. The individual, the state, and the international system, the levels oI analysis Iavored by realists Ior explaining
international conIlict, are not merely discrete levels oI analysis around which artiIicial boundaries can be drawn; they are mutually reinIorcing
constructs, each based on behaviors associated with hegemonic masculinity. While various approaches to international relations
critical oI realist thinking have questioned the adequacy oI these assumptions and explanations oI contemporary realities, they have not done so on the basis oI gender.
Marxist analyses oI the world economy are also constructed out oI the historical experiences oI men in the public world oI production. Revealing the
masculinist underpinnings oI both these types oI discourse suggests that realism, as well as the approaches oI
many oI its critics, has constructed worldviews based on the behavior oI only halI oI humanity Characteristics
that have typically been associated with Iemininity must thereIore 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 oI women with moral virtues such as caring comes not Irom women's innate moral superiority
but Irom women's activities in the private sphere where these values are accepted in theory, iI not always in
practice. Since they are linked to women and the private sphere, however, these Ieminine characteristics have
been devalued in the public realm, particularly in the world oI 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 Iuture that rejects the rigid separation oI public and private
sphere values and the social distinctions between women and men requires that the good qualities oI both are
equally honored and made available to all.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
98
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|

Previous chapters have also called attention to the extent to which these various Iorms oI military, economic, and ecological insecurity are
connected with unequal gender relations. The relationship between protectors and protected depends on gender
inequalities; a militarized version oI security privileges masculine characteristics and elevates men to the status
oI Iirst-class citizens by virtue oI their role as providers oI security. An analysis oI economic insecurities
suggests similar patterns oI gender inequality in the world economy, patterns that result in a larger share oI the
world's wealth and the beneIits oI economic development accruing to men. The traditional association oI
women with nature, which places both in a subordinate position to men, reIlects and provides support Ior the
instrumental and exploitative attitude toward nature characteristic oI the modern era, an attitude that contributes
to current ecological insecurities. II, as I have argued, the world is insecure because oI these multiple insecurities, then international relations, the
discipline that analyzes international insecurity and prescribes measures Ior its alleviation, must be reIormulated. The reconceptualization oI security in
multidimensional and multilevel terms is beginning to occur on the Iringes oI the discipline; a more comprehensive notion oI security is being
used by peace researchers, critics oI conventional international relations theory, environmentalists, and even
some policymakers. But while all these contemporary revisionists have helped to move the deIinition oI security
beyond its exclusively national security Iocus toward additional concerns Ior the security oI the individual and
the natural environment, they have rarely included gender as a category oI analysis; nor have they
acknowledged similar, earlier reIormulations oI security constructed by women.

ALT: Rhetorical Intervention

NATURE IS NOT AN OB1ECT 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


So, nature is not a physical place to which one can go, nor a treasure to Ience 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 oI
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 Ior the reproduction oI man. Nature is, however, a topos, a place, in the sense oI a rhetorician's
place or topic Ior consideration oI 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 speciIic to places and peoples. We need these spirits, rhetorically iI 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 Iigure, construction, artiIact, movement, displacement.
Nature cannot pre-exist its construction. This construction is based on a particular kind oI move- a tropos or "turn." FaithIul to the Greek, as tro'pos
nature is about turning. Troping, we turn to nature as iI to the earth, to the primal stuII-geotropic, physiotropic. Topically, we travel
toward the earth, a commonplace. In discoursing on nature, we turn Irom Plato and his heliotropic son's
blinding star to see something else, another kind oI Iigure. I do not turn Irom vision, but I do seek something other than enlightenment in
these sightings oI science studies as cultural studies. Nature is a topic of public discourse on which much turns, even the
earth.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
99
ALT: Standpoint Epistemology

We must explicitly recognize those who are excluded by traditional notions of science. Merely integrating
others into our predetermined thought fails-we must keep our dedication to partiality open.
WATSON, visiting assistant proIessor in Sociology and Anthropology at George Mason, 2011 (Mathew C. 'Cosmopolitics and the Subaltern: Problematizing
Latour`s Idea oI the Commons, %heory, ulture, Society, 28:55; DOI: 10.1177/0263276410396913)

Standpoint theory, however, should not be reduced to the phenomenological insistence that all points oI view issue
Irom subjects` speciIic worldly experiences. It does not merely hold that perceptions oI reality are idiosyncratic reIlections oI 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 Ior critics ` or, to use Latour`s (1999a) terminology, students` ` oI science to speak Irom below` or Irom the
margins`. Thus, to be good cosmopolitical citizens and oppositional science studies scholars we must innovate a
power` additional to those oI taking into account`, arranging in rank order`, and Iollow- ing up` (Latour, 2004a).
We must continuously attempt to engage with those externalized Irom the common world while acknowledging
the possibility that they may not continuously return to the gates oI the citadel. Without relegating the externalized small
transcendences` (Latour, 2004a: 196) to a space oI absolute alterity, we must reserve the possibility that they remain at least partially
unassimilable to the given procedures oI representation. In other words, I think that the democratization oI
science entails more than a reuniIication oI the two houses`, science and politics. Projects Ior democratization
should consider the problematic ways in which scientiIic knowledges, technological innovations, and political
decisions render conse-quences that Iurther entrench social and economic inequalities. Democratization requires something
beyond breaking down the walls oI Plato`s Cave to allow more than a handIul oI experts to relay between the Iormer inside and the outside, society and nature (Latour,
2004a). It entails innovating practices oI situated representation that speak to, with, and oI scientists Irom the
standpoints oI externalized, marginalized actors (human and nonhuman). Standpoint epistemology thus provides
a necessary additional sense oI democracy as the struggle to recognize and combat the Iorms oI subordination
enacted by our political and scientiIic institutions. The Ieminist and postcolonialist projects have maintained
that the externality oI subjects to the institutions oI representation ` their status as necessary exceptions to the
system ` can be read as a critique oI the system itselI (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 Irom the common world, those specters that
take the place oI nature, share an intrinsic proclivity to appeal their cases. I counter that some actors occupying the haunts oI the common
world necessarily remain partially unassimilable to its procedures oI representation. They are not all
committed appellants, and some are not appellants at all (as I discuss in the Iollowing section). ThereIore, the users oI
cosmopolitics are not excused Irom explicitly conceptualizing the program`s potential complicity with the
sociomaterial marginalization oI the subaltern, despite this metaphysics` primary emphasis on the positive
construction oI a common world. For Ieminist, postcolonialist science studies scholars such as myselI, and I think Ior Latour as well, these
marginalized outsiders are not just rhetorical placeholders in a politico-scientiIic allegory.They are selI-immolating Hindu widows (Spivak, 1988), endangered snails
cared Ior in Michael Hadeld`s laboratory at the University oI Hawaii (Haraway, 2008: 91`2), Santals who cite a god as the instigator oI rebellion (Chakrabarty, 2000:
102`6), indigenous subjects cut Irom the networks oI pharmaceutical production that they enable (Hayden, 2005), and mosquitoes that go unacknowledged in
histories oI a malaria epidemic (Mitchell, 2002: ch. 1), among countless others.10
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
100
Alt: Standpoint Epistemology
Alternative solves for domination and creates new political possibilities.

Feminist philosopher oI science Helen Longino argues in The Fate oI Knowledge Ior an epistemology oI science Ior social justice that considers
social norms designed to subject 'what is ratiIied as knowledge to criticism Irom multiple points oI view.42
These norms are oI a piece with deliberative democracy and the participatory mechanisms cited in note 38, each
oI which embody some oI what Donna Haraway meant by 'situated knowledges.43 Longino`s Iirst three norms were creating public
venues that do not marginalize critical discourse; assuring uptake oI criticism on both sides oI scientiIic and
advocacy communities to enable change; and advancing publicly recognized standards to make evident
divergence between the goals oI inquiry and its outcomes. Critical communities who have become involved with technoscientiIic elites
have sometimes encountered the appropriation oI their scarce material and ideological resources in the course oI their interactions with scientiIic research enterprises.
Sadly, techniques oI inclusion and 'empowerment can also be used to appropriate resources, deIuse valid
criticisms, or ease implementation diIIiculties.44

Feminist science solves: a democratized science undoes the work of objectivity as domination.

Feminist science and technology studies can be 'applied to eIIorts to democratize and diversiIy the conduct,
content, and eIIects oI science and technology. The concept oI 'situated expertise recognizes that expert
knowledge can become context-sensitive and capable oI taking multiple perspectives into accountand that it
will need to become so iI it is to have broader beneIits and increased social relevance. Drawing on Donna Haraway`s notion
oI 'situated knowledges and Sandra Harding`s idea oI 'strong objectivity, as well as studies oI epistemic and enunciative cultures and speciIic cultures oI expertise
that have been produced in STS, the idea oI 'situated expertise relies upon accumulation and independent validation oI 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 inIlux oI women or
people oI color into science, engineering, or policy-making cultures as upon recognizing the extent to which
gendered and racialized asymmetries structure the local cultures oI scientiIic practice and (mis)inIorm decision
making within them. Distinctions between basic and applied research subordinate practical expertise in ways
that make it more diIIicult Ior '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 oI the university and the increasing pressure on scientiIic Iaculties to bring in
grant money, how can socially relevant questions be more systematically Iormulated and pursued in scientiIic arenas? Greatly improved and integrated
scientiIic inquiry, knowledge, and policy requires opening decision-making and research design processes to
scrutiny Irom more transdisciplinary perspectives, to more democratic deliberation, and to inIluence 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 Iooting require attention to the social
processes by which knowledge production is gendered, racialized, and shaped by cross-cutting axes oI
diIIerence to which Ieminists 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 liIe. Feminists emphasize everyday liIe as a starting place Irom which to problematize what needs knowing Ior the sake oI making scholarly
inquiry more relevant. The problem is that science and technology policyas well as the conduct oI scientiIic and technological innovation themselvestakes place at
considerable extralocal distance Irom almost everyone`s everyday liIe. Thus does the class, race, and gender composition oI policy-making elites matter when it comes
to shaping the products and processes oI technoscience.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
101
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
17 This dilemma corresponds to the situation oI the postmodern subject who is also torn between the trajectories oI boundary maintenance and deconstruction. The
'grand narratives' oI an alleged truth and hermetic unity have become obsolete in postmodernity. Stable meaning has been replaced by the Iree play oI the signiIier. By
detaching itselI Irom the phallogocentric inscriptions into the body, the postmodern subject begins to
incorporate a new model oI liberty and emancipation. In the words oI Susan Bordo, "Western science and technology have now arrived |
at a new, postmodern imagination oI human Ireedom Irom bodily determination" (Unbearable Weight 245). Within the postmodern imagination, anatomy is thus
no longer destiny. The individual him/herselI decides which position within the symbolic order she or he wants
to take. The most obvious example oI this new Iorm oI individual selI-Iashioning is the transsexual body, which
combines organic and technological Ieatures to a new and unique concept - "the romance oI the kniIe," as Sue-Ellen Case has put it (115). The old slogan, "Become
whatever you want to be," assumes a new meaning in the age oI plastic surgery and body modiIication. Everyone can Iorge his or her own
individual body. ReIerring to the transsexual body in cyberpunk Iiction, Cathy Peppers thus speaks oI a "utopian subjectivity Iounded on the pleasure oI
boundary conIusions" (166). The act oI transcending boundaries is no longer a sacrilege but a promise. 18 The poststructuralist
philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari have developed a theory that almost sounds like an instruction manual: "How Do You Make YourselI a Body without
Organs?" (149). The traditional image oI the body as a stable unity is replaced here by the notions oI 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 Iull body without organs is a body populated by multiplicities." (30) In this
model, subject and object are no longer seen as homogenous unities separate Irom each other, but as loose interconnections oI energy, movement, Ilow, strata, segments,
and intensities (Grosz 167). Through a process oI continual becoming, Deleuze and Guattari explain, diverse Iorms oI identity constitution are Iacilitated. The
postmodern body image encompasses a multitude oI diIIerent identity options. It almost seems as iI the Ieminist 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 Ior new ways oI identity constitution, we are conIronted with a conIusing, yet also liberating number oI
possible identities. Subjectivity here assumes a nomadic quality, Iar Irom normative inscriptions.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
102
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


What we look Ior depends a great deal on how we make sense oI, or "order," our experience. We learn our
ordering systems in a variety oI contexts. From early childhood on, we are taught to make distinctions enabling us to perIorm
appropriately within a particular culture. As college students, we are taught the distinctions appropriate to particular disciplines
(psychology, anthropology, political science) and particular schools oI thought within them (realism, behavioralism, structuralism). No matter in which
context we learned them, the categories and ordering Irameworks shape the lens through which we look at, think about,
and make sense oI the world around us. At the same time, the lens we adopt shapes our experience oI the world itselI because it shapes what we do
and how and why we do it. For example, a political science lens Iocuses our attention on particular categories and events (the meaning oI power, democracy, or
elections) in ways that variously inIluence our behavior (questioning authority, protesting abuse oI power, or participating in electoral campaigns). By Iiltering
our ways oI 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 oI selI-IulIilling prophecies: II
we expect hostility, our own behavior (acting superior, displaying power) may elicit responses (deIensive poshtring, aggression) that
we then interpret as "conIirming" our expectations. In general, as long as our lens and images seem to "work," we keep them and build on
them. Lenses simpliIy our thinking. Like maps, they "Irame" our choices and exploration, enabling us to take advantage oI knowledge already gained and to move more
eIIectively toward our objectives. The more useIul they appear to be, the more we are inclined to take them Ior granted and
to resist making major changes in them. We Iorget 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 diIIicult and sometimes unpleasant to reIlect critically on our assumptions, to question their accuracy or
desirability, and to explore the implications oI adopting a diIIerent lens. OI course, the world we live in and thereIore our
experiences are constantly changing; we have to continuously modiIy our images, mental maps, and ordering systems as well. The required shiIt in lens may be minor
Irom liking one type oI music to liking another, Irom being a high school student in a small town to being a college student in an urban environment. Or the shiIt may
be more pronounced: Irom casual dating to parenting, Irom the Ireedom oI student liIe-styles to the assumption oI Il1ll-time job responsibilities, Irom Newtonian to
quantum mechanics, East-West rivalry to post-cold war complexities. More dramatic shiIts occur as we experience and respond to radical or systemic transIormations,
such as economic recession, environmental degradation, or the eIIects oI war. To Iunction eIIectively as students and scholars oI world politics, we must modiIy our
thinking in line with historical developments. That is, as changes, our ways oI 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 Irom our objectives.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
103
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.

Gender issues surIace now because new questions have been raised that cannot be addressed within traditional Irameworks. The amassing oI global data
reveals the extent and pattern oI 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 oI the world oI 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 oI gender Iorces us to reevaluate traditional explanations, to ask how they are biased and
hence render inaccurate accounts, As in other disciplines, the study oI world politics is enriched by acknowledging and systematically examining how
gender shapes categories and Irameworks that we take Ior granted. This is necessary Ior answering the new questions raised and Ior generating Iresh insights-about the
world as we currently "know" it and how it might be otherwise. Finally, gender-sensitive studies improve our understanding oI global
crises, their interaction, and possibilities oI moving beyond them. These include crises oI political legitimacy
and security as states are increasingly unable to protect their citizens against nuclear, economic, or ecological
threats; crises oI maldevelopment as the dynamics oI our global economic system enrich a Iew and impoverish
most; and crises oI environmental degradation as the exploitation oI natural resources continues in
nonsustainable Iashion. 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 oI race, class, ethnicity, nationality, and religious identiIication. 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 oI us. We daily reproduce its dynamics-and suIIer its costs-in multiple ways. By
learning how gender works, we learn a great deal about structures oI inequality and how they are intentionally
and unintentionally reproduced. We can then use this knowledge in our struggles to transIorm not only global gender inequality but also other oppressive
hierarchies at work in the world.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
104
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.
While our tendency is to take language literally and not to look Ior meaning beyond the apparent message, cultural and psycholinguists propose that language
conveys much more than the literal message. n10 Benjamin Lee WhorI is oIten 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 WhorIian hypothesis oI "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
Iundamental domains oI thought. That is, it appears that what we normally call 'thinking' is in Iact a complex set oI
collaborations between linguistic and nonlinguistic representations and processes." n1

This argument is important Ior Iour reasons:
a. TlE PERVuTATl0N l3 3EvERANCE - TlE AFFlRVATlvE w0uL0 lAvE T0 ARTlFlClALLY JETl30N
ELEVENT3 0F TlE 1AC lN A 3TRATE0lC EFF0RT T0 Av0l0 LlNK3 T0 AN 0FFCA3E P03lTl0N. Tll3 l3
08vl0u3LY uNFAlR, 0E3T0RY3 lN0EPTl E0uCATl0N, AN0 l3 lNTELLECTuALLY 0l3l0NE3T. Tll3 l3 A
v0TlN0 l33uE.
o. N0 30LvENCY: TlE AFFlRVATlvE w0uL0 lAvE T0 RE-0E3l0N AN0 RE-REA0 TlElR 1AC. EvEN lF TlEY
wlN Tll3 l3 TlE0RETlCALLY LE0lTlAVTE, TlEY lAvE N0T 00NE 30. TlE CRlTlC w0uL0 lAvE
N0TllN0 T0 v0TE F0R
c. N0 NET 8ENEFlT: lF wE wlN TlAT A C0VVlTVENT T0 0EN0ER P0LlTlC3 w0uL0 PR00uCE A 8ETTER
RELATl0N3llP T0 3PACE, TlEN TlE AFFlRVATlvE l3 lRRELEvANT AN0 NEE0 N0T 8E lNCLu0E0.

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 doesn`t solve the criticism and is political demobilizing


So, I think my problem and 'our' problem is how to have simultaneously an account oI radical historical contingency Ior
all knowledge claims and knowing subjects, a critical practice Ior recognizing our own 'semiotic technologies' Ior making meanings, and a no-
nonsense commitment to IaithIul accounts oI a 'real' world, one that can be partially shared and Iriendly to earth-wide projects oI Iinite
Ireedom, adequate material abundance, modest meaning in suIIering, and limited happiness. Harding calls this necessary multiple desire a need Ior a successor science
project and a postmodern insistence on irreducible diIIerence and radical multiplicity oI local knowledges. All components oI the desire are paradoxical and dangerous,
and their combination is both contradictory and necessary. Feminists don't need a doctrine oI objectivity that promises
transcendence, a story that loses track oI its mediations just where someone might be held responsible Ior
something, and unlimited instrumental power. We don't want a theory oI innocent powers to represent the world,
where language and bodies both Iall into the bliss oI organic symbiosis. We also don't want to theorize the
world, much less act within it, in terms oI Global Systems, but we do need an earth-wide network oI
connections, including the ability partially to translate knowledges among very diIIerent - and power-
diIIerentiated - communities. We need the power oI modern critical theories oI 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
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
105
PERMUTATION BLOCK

Ior a Iuture. Natural, social, and human sciences have always been implicated in hopes like these. Science has been about a search Ior translation, convertibility,
mobility oI meanings, and universality - which I call reductionism, when one language (guess whose) must be enIorced as the standard Ior all the translations and
conversions. What money does in the exchange orders oI capitalism, reductionism does in the powerIul mental orders oI global sciences: there is Iinally only one
equation. That is the deadly Iantasy that Ieminists and others have identiIied in some versions oI objectivity doctrines in the service oI hierarchical and positivist
orderings oI what can count as knowledge. That is one oI the reasons the debates about objectivity matter, metaphorically and
otherwise. Immortality and omnipotence are not our goals. But we could use some enIorceable, reliable
accounts oI things not reducible to power moves and agonistic, high status games oI 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 oI the words objectivity and science as we slide around the discursive terrain. In our
eIIorts to climb the greased pole leading to a usable doctrine oI objectivity, I and most other Ieminists in the objectivity debates have alternatively, or even
simultaneously, held on to both ends oI the dichotomy, which Harding describes in terms oI successor science projects versus postmodernist accounts oI diIIerence and I
have sketched in this chapter as radical constructivism versus Ieminist critical empiricism. It is, oI course, hard to climb when you are holding on to both ends oI a pole,
simultaneously or alternately. It is, thereIore, 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 oI Iowa, 'The Re-Vision oI 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|

Such a reading is borne out in the science oI the manned space program. As Smith illustrates, the objective oI
greater scientiIic knowledge set Iorth as a justiIication Ior the program by the scientists and political and
military leaders who initiated it was "candy coating" Ior the real motivations oI national power and prestige. In
Iact, not much knowledge or even economic beneIit was gained Irom the lunar missions. As Tom WolIe remarked, "the moon was in economic terms pretty much what
it looked like Irom Earth, a gray rock." 40 In light oI the general lack oI 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 Irom the new world with riches such as TeIlon and improved electrocardiographs, "as iI the way to develop a better electrocardiograph were to send men to
the moon." The moon shot, according to Lewis MumIord, represented "an extravagant Ieat oI technological
exhibitionism." "Sjpace technics," he wrote, "oIIer a new type oI non-existence: that oI the Iastest possible locomotion in a uniIorm environment, under uniIorm
conditions, to an equally undistinguishable uniIorm destination." 41 This was science/technology, or "commodity scientism," as Smith calls it, Ior its own sake,
governed only by its Iacility at perIorming itselI. Environmentalism also Iound its value in perIormativity in the Iorm oI the
mainstream practice that emerged Irom the 1960s. The radical potential oI the early movement was neutralized by the
procedures (such as abstraction and instrumentalism) oI the dominant discourse on the environment, and the movement
evolved into a proIessionalized, elitist institution, disjoined Irom the masses it had converted. 42 In its structure and
modes oI operation, environmentalism became completely compatible with the institutions it set out initially to
undermine. Mainstream environmental organizations came to engage not in the activity oI improving the
condition oI the environment but in the perIormance oI environmentalism. Likewise, as consumer capitalism moved in to colonize
new territory, build a "green" marketplace, and so inoculate itselI against the disease oI anti-consumption, the ecologically conscious individual was
converted into the "green consumer," who did not have to practice environmentalism so much as perIorm it
through "liIestyle" choices pivoting on the purchase oI "EarthIriendly" products.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
106
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 Irom State U oI NY, Magna Cum Laude. MS in sociology, U Wisconsin-Madison. PhD expected in Spring
2010 Wendy, 'Cowboy oI the World? Gender Discourse and the Iraq War Debate, http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mIerree/documents/ChristensenFerree.pdI|

In the spring oI 2002, the Bush Administration began publicly to discuss the possibility oI US military action against Iraq and by spring 2003, the invasion oI Iraq had
begun. In retrospect, media commentators have asked why they were not more critical oI the administration`s war plans, and why
reservations about going to war expressed by some oI the US`s closest allies were not taken more seriously. In this paper, we argue that
the use oI gender images and metaphors in this public debate impoverished the quality oI media coverage oI the
issues. As such, it is an excellent example oI the symbolic power oI gender to Irame issues and constrain
alternatives. Cultural ideologies such as gender Iorm an implicit Iramework Ior popular thought and are available to be
mobilized in public policy discussions (Stone 1988), especially when gendered images can serve as portrayals oI other
binary oppositions (us/them, good/evil, oIIense/ deIense). 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 Irame
political issues, the speakers align themselves with particular understandings oI gender as well as express their
positions in relation to speciIic policies. As a consequence, media discourse preceding the war in Iraq became a debate both about which notions oI
masculinity are positively valued and about the appropriateness oI a decision to go to war, with each side oI the war debate simultaneously contesting both the policy
and the versions oI masculinity symbolically invoked to justiIy their positions. In this paper we use a content analysis oI the year-long debate preceding the war in Iraq
to show how images oI Bush as a 'cowboy and Europe as a 'wimp were advanced and contested by those Iavoring and opposing the war. We Iurther show that the
organization oI war debate in gendered terms expressed and encouraged binary thinking and so lowered the
quality oI war debate. Although we do not claim that the gendered nature oI the debate preceding the 2003 war caused the nation`s Iailure to Iocus on the
complex issues that the invasion proved to raise, we argue that symbolically mobilizing masculinity in this context contributed to the
shallowness oI media debate by placing the voices Ior peace, both in the US and in Europe, on a devalued, Ieminized
Iooting and by casting the Administration`s posture oI masculinity as the multivalent, but quintessentially American,
'cowboy. The American cowboy represents both the power oI 'civilization against the 'savage and 'outlaw Iorces oI disorder and the more 'raw and
'untamed American West against the 'eIIete, urban and over-reIined East. As such the cowboy is associated with negative values oI racism and imperialism as well as
with positive images oI law, independence and Ireedom; the opposite oI the cowboy image is not merely a positive view oI urban masculinity as civilized, rational,
educated but also a negative one oI such men being under the power oI women, bosses and the discipline oI 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 Iorm a complex system oI reIerence. As Joan Scott (1986, p. 1096) has argued, gender is not only 'a constitutive
element oI social relationships based on perceived diIIerences between the sexes but also 'a primary way oI signiIying relationships oI power. This is a relationship oI
reciprocal signiIication: Invoking gender carries connotations oI strength or weakness, as in reIerences to 'emasculating America, and invoking images oI strength and
weakness, such as the 'pitiIul, helpless giant, carry connotations oI gender (Scott 1986; Cohn 1993). Since nation-states are powerIul Iorces and the decision to use
military Iorce is an extreme expression oI this power, war debate is an excellent Iorum Ior seeing the co-connotations oI gender and power at work symbolically. Our
empirical case is developed in three steps: we Iirst show the relevance oI gendered imagery in the debate running up to the Iraq war by examining the Irequency oI
gender language in news media, in both those sources that are more typically critical and those more typically aIIirmative oI the Bush Administration. We then examine
the gendered language to see how particular versions oI masculinity are debated in concert with debates about appropriate policy toward Iraq. We Iocus on the
memorable image oI 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.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
107
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

Tho oquaI oppoilunilios slialogy has had Iinilod succoss piocisoIy locauso il faiIs lo chaIIongo lho soxuaI division of Ialoui in lho vidoi
socioly. Wonon's ioIuclanco 'lo onloi' is lo do vilh lho sox-sloioolyping of lochnoIogy as an aclivily appiopiialo foi non. As vilh
scionco, lho voiy Ianguago of lochnoIogy, ils synloIisn, is nascuIino. Il is nol sinpIy a quoslion of acquiiing skiIIs, locauso lhoso skiIIs
aio onloddod in a cuIluio of nascuIinily lhal is IaigoIy coloininous vilh lho cuIluio of lochnoIogy. olh al schooI and in lho
voikpIaco lhis cuIluio is inconpalilIo vilh fonininily. Thoiofoio, lo onloi lhis voiId, lo Ioain ils Ianguago, vonon havo fiisl lo foisako
lhoii fonininily. Indood, lho voiy dofinilion of lochnoIogy is casl in loins of naIo aclivilios. Wo lond lo lhink aloul lochnoIogy in loins
of indusliiaI nachinoiy and cais, foi oxanpIo, ignoiing olhoi lochnoIogios lhal affocl nosl aspocls of ovoiyday Iifo. Tho hisloiy of
lochnoIogy sliII iopiosonls lho piololypo invonloi as naIo. Hovovoi, lho concopl of lochnoIogy is ilsoIf suljocl lo hisloiicaI chango, and
diffoionl opochs and cuIluios had diffoionl nanos foi vhal vo nov lhink of as lochnoIogy. A gioaloi onphasis on vonon's aclivilios
innodialoIy suggosls lhal vonon, and in pailicuIai indigonous vonon, voio anongsl lho fiisl lochnoIogisls. Afloi aII, vonon voio
lho nain galhoiois, piocossois and sloiois of pIanl food fion oaiIiosl hunan linos onvaid. Il is lhoiofoio IogicaI lhal lhoy shouId lo
lho onos lo havo invonlod lho looIs and nolhods invoIvod in lhis voik, such as lho digging slick, lho caiiying sIing, lho ioaping knifo
and sickIo, poslIos and poundois. Tho naIo oiionlalion of nosl lochnoIogicaI iosoaich has Iong olscuiod lho significanco of 'vonon's
sphoio' invonlions, and lhis in luin has soivod lo ioinfoico lho cuIluiaI sloioolypo of lochnoIogy as an aclivily appiopiialo foi non.
Indood, il vas onIy vilh lho foinalion of onginooiing as a vhilo, naIo, niddIo-cIass piofossion lhal 'naIo nachinos ialhoi lhan fonaIo
faliics' locano lho nodoin naikois of lochnoIogy.
5
Duiing lho Ialo ninoloonlh conluiy nochanicaI and civiI onginooiing incioasingIy
cano lo dofino vhal lochnoIogy is, dininishing lho significanco of lolh ailofacls and foins of knovIodgo associalod vilh vonon. This
vas lho iosuIl of lho iiso of onginoois as an oIilo vilh oxcIusivo iighls lo lochnicaI oxpoiliso. CiuciaIIy, il invoIvod lho cioalion of a naIo
piofossionaI idonlily, lasod on oducalionaI quaIificalions and lho pioniso of nanagoiiaI posilions, shaipIy dislinguishod fion shop-
fIooi onginooiing and lIuo-coIIai voikois. Il aIso invoIvod an idoaI of nanIinoss, chaiacloiizod ly lho cuIlivalion of lodiIy piovoss and
individuaI achiovononl. Tho discouiso aloul nanIinoss vas noliIizod lo onsuio lhal cIass, iaco and gondoi loundaiios voio diavn
aiound lho onginooiing laslion. Il vas duiing and lhiough lhis piocoss lhal lho loin 'lochnoIogy' look on ils nodoin noaning.
Whoioas lho oaiIioi concopl of usofuI ails had incIudod noodIovoik and nolaIvoik as voII as spinning and nining, ly lho 193Os lhis
had loon suppIanlod ly lho idoa of lochnoIogy as appIiod scionco. Al lho sano lino, fonininily vas loing ioinloipiolod as incon-
palilIo vilh lochnoIogicaI puisuils. Tho Iogacy of lhis ioIalivoIy ioconl hisloiy is oui lakon-foi-gianlod associalion of lochnoIogy vilh
non.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
108
PERMUTATION BLOCK

SIk@ CCU-@Lk LkMUA@IC- CLI@ICS CI DIIILkL-CL The permutations politics of unity-
through-incorporation is a failed strategy for challenging masculine domination. We must forge
unities based on difference, not on sameness.


The theoretical and practical struggle against unity-through-domination or unity-through-incorporation
ironically not only undermines the justiIications Ior patriarchy, colonialism, humanism, positivism, essentialism,
scientism, and other unlamented -isms, but all claims Ior an organic or natural standpoint. I think that radical and socialist
Marxist-Ieminisms 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 Iail us in the task to build eIIective aIIinities. It is important to note that
the eIIort to construct revolutionary standpoints, epistemologies as achievements oI people committed to
changing the world, has been part oI the process showing the limits oI identiIication. The acid tools oI postmodernist theory
and the constructive tools oI ontological discourse about revolutionary subjects might be seen as ironic allies in dissolving Western selves in the interests oI survival.
We are excruciatingly conscious oI what it means to have a historically constituted body. But with the loss oI
innocence in our origin, there is no expulsion Irom the Garden either. Our politics lose the indulgence oI guilt with the naivete oI
innocence. But what would another political myth Ior socialist-Ieminism look like? What kind oI politics could embrace partial,
contradictory, permanently unclosed constructions oI personal and collective selves and still be IaithIul,
eIIective and, ironically, socialist-Ieminist? I do not know oI any other time in history when there was greater
need Ior political unity to conIront eIIectively the dominations oI 'race', 'gender', 'sexuality', and 'class'. I also do
not know oI any other time when the kind oI unity we might help build could have been possible. None oI 'us'
have any longer the symbolic or material capability oI dictating the shape oI reality to any oI ' them'. Or at least
'we' cannot claim innocence Irom practising such dominations. White women, including socialist Ieminists, discovered (that is, were
Iorced kicking and screaming to notice) the non-innocence oI the category 'woman'. That consciousness changes the geography oI all previous categories; it denatures
them as heat denatures a Iragile protein. Cyborg Ieminists have to argue that 'we' do not want any more natural matrix oI unity and that no construction is whole.
Innocence, and the corollary insistence on victimhood as the only ground Ior insight, has done enough damage. But the constructed revolutionary subject must give late-
twentieth- century people pause as well. In the Iraying oI identities and in the reIlexive strategies Ior constructing them, the
possibility opens up Ior weaving something other than a shroud Ior the day aIter the apocalypse that so
prophetically ends salvation history.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
109
PERMUTATION BLOCK

CA1S C8AuLL 1he 1AC precludes Lhe modesL wlLnesslng necessary for Lransformlng Lechnosclence Merely
lncludlng reflexlvlLy ls noL enough Lo undo Lhe domlnaLlng effecLs of currenL sclence We musL dlffracL Lhe 1ac
and break lL aparL ln order Lo open Lhe way for new soclal formaLlons


I have tried to persuade my readers that several apparently counterintuitive claims should have the status oI matters oI Iact-that is, crucial points oI contingent stability
Ior possible sociotechnical orders, attested by collective, networked, situated practices oI witnessing. Witnessing is seeing; attesting; standing
publicly accountable Ior and psychically vulnerable to, one's visions and representations. Witnessing is a collective, limited
practice that depends on the constructed and never-Iinished-credibility oI those who do it, all oI whom are mortal, Iallible, and Iraught With the consequences oI
unconscious and-.disowned desires and Iears. A child -oI Robert Boyle's Royal Society oI the English Restoration and oI the experimental way oI liIe, I remain attached
to the Iigure oI the modest witness. I still inhabit the stories oI scientiIic revolution as earthshaking mutations in the apparatuses oI production oI what may count as
knowledge. A child oI antiracist, Ieminist, multicultural, and radical science movements," I want a mutated modest witness-to-live in worlds oI technoscience, to yearn
Ior knowledge, Ireedom, and justice in the world oI consequential Iacts. I have tried to queer the selI-evidence oI witnessing, oI experience, oI the conventionally
upheld and invested perceptions oI clear distinctions between subject and object, especially the selI-evidence oI the distinction between living and dead, machine and
organisms, human and nonhuman, selI and other ,as well as oI the distinction between Ieminist and mainstream, progressive and oppressive, local and global.
Queering all or any oI these distinctions depends, paradigmatically, on undoing the Iounding border trace oI
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 Iinally a modern, reinvented desire Ior justice and democratically craIted and lived well-being. It is
important to remember that these were also, oIten, the dreams 'oI the players in the Iirst ScientiIic Revolution, that Iirst time machine oI modernity as they sought to
avert, terrors oI civil war, absolutist religion, and arbitrary monarchs. Perhaps ironically, meeting the criterion oI heightened, strong objectivity, rather than lowing in the
soIt and Ilaccid swamps, oI ordinary technoscientic objectivity depends on undoing the tricks oI modernity's Wizard oI Oz's masterpiece called the air-pump. The air-
pump is the synecdochic and originary Iigure in my story Ior the whole apparatus oI production oI what may count as reliable knowledge in technoscience. I want
to call the problematic but compelling world oI antiracist Ieminist multicultural studies oI technoscience "cat's
cradle." Making string Iigures on Iingers is cat`s cradle (Westerveld 1979). Relying on relays Irom many hands and Iingers, I try to
make suggestive Iigures with varying threads oI science studies, antiracist Ieminist theory, and cultural studies.
Cat`s cradle is a game Ior nominalists like me who cannot not desire what we cannot possibly have. As soon as
possession enters the game, the string Iigures Ireeze into a lying pattern. Cat`s 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 oI string Iigures on a single pair oI hands, but the cat`s cradle Iigures can be passed back and Iorth on
the hands oI several players, who add new moves in the building oI complex patterns. Cat`s cradle invites a
sense oI collective world, oI one person not being able to make all the patterns alone. One does not win at cat`s
cradle; the goal is more interesting and more open-ended than that. It is not always possible to repeat interesting
patterns, and Iiguring 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 signiIicance. Cat`s cradle is both local and global, distributed and knotted together (Haraway 1994a). The
mutated modest witness who plays cat`s cradle gamesrather than joining the strategic, agonistic contest oI
matching Ieats oI strength and amassing allies, measured by strength and numbers, reputed to constitute
ordinary science in actioncannot aIIord selI-invisibility. And reIlexivity is not enough to produce selI-
visibility. Strong objectivity and agential realism demand a practice oI diIIraction, not just reIlection.
DiIIraction is the production oI diIIerence patterns in the world, not just oI the same reIlecteddisplaced
elsewhere. The modest witness in the cat`s cradle game cannot breathe any longer in the culture oI no culture.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
110
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 oI Women`s Studies at Rutgers & Associate proIessor oI Physics at Pomona, 1998 (Karen, 'Getting real: TechnoscientiIic practices and the
materialization oI reality, Differences. Journal of eminist ultural Studies 10:2, p AcademicOneFile)
While talk about the "real" on the precipice oI the twenty-Iirst century may be the source oI such discomIort that it always needs to be toned-down, soItened by the
requisite quotation marks, I believe that "we" cannot aIIord to not talk about "it." Positivism's death warrant has many signatories, but its anti-metaphysics legacy lives
on even in the heart oI its detractors. However strong one's dislike oI 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 Iorward an ontology: making metaphysical assumptions explicit
exposes the exclusions upon which any given conception oI reality is based. Yet, the political potential oI deconstructive analysis lies
not in the simple recognition oI the inevitability oI exclusions, but in insisting upon accountability Ior 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 oI reality
that takes account oI both the exclusions upon which it depends and its openness to Iuture reworkings. I call this ontology agential reality. Bohr's attitude towards the
relationship between language and reality is exempliIied by the Iollowing 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 Iundamental, but that it must be reality which, so to speak, lies beneath language, and oI 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) UnIortunately, 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 oI reality (Barad "Meeting"). Reality is not composed oI 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 oI phenomena.
The ontology I propose does not posit some Iixed notion oI being that is prior to signiIication (as the classical realist assumes), but neither is being completely
inaccessible to language (as in Kantian transcendentalism), nor completely oI language (as in linguistic monism). That reality within which we intra-act - what I term
agential reality - is made up oI material-discursive phenomena. Agential reality is not a Iixed ontology that is independent oI human practices, but is continually
reconstituted through our material-discursive intra-actions. ShiIting our understanding oI the ontologically real Irom that "which
stands outside the sphere oI cultural inIluence and historical change" (Fuss 3) to agential reality allows a new
Iormulation oI realism (and truth) that is not premised on the representational nature oI knowledge. II our descriptive
characterizations do not reIer to properties oI abstract objects or observation-independent beings, but rather through their material instantiation in particular practices
contribute to the production oI agential reality, then what is being described by our theories is not nature itselI, but our participation within nature. That is, realism
is reIormulated in terms oI the goal oI providing accurate descriptions oI 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 Ior both the new Iorm oI realism and the larger epistemological and ontological Iramework that I propose.(20) According to
agential realism, reality is sedimented out oI the process oI making the world intelligible through certain
practices and not others. ThereIore, we are not only responsible Ior the knowledge that we seek, but, in part, Ior
what exists. Phenomena are produced through complex intra-actions oI multiple material-discursive apparatuses oI bodily production.(21) Material-
discursive apparatuses are themselves phenomena made up oI speciIic intra-actions oI humans and nonhumans,
where the diIIerential constitution oI "human" (or "nonhuman") itselI designates a particular phenomenon, and
what gets deIined as a "subject" (or "object") and what gets deIined as an "apparatus" is intra-actively
constituted within speciIic practices.
OBSERJ%IO WI%OU% OSIDER%IO. THE PERMUATION IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SHOT-
OUT TO WOMEN.

The observation oI more or less diIIerent bodies statistically, in terms oI race` or gender, in the predominantly
white and male echelons oI power does not by itselI speak oI the contradictory terms oI their existence or,
indeed, how their presence is received in an overwhelmingly white or male outIit. It Iails to appreciate the
complexity oI coexisting in organisations and elite positions previously reserved Ior speciIic types oI bodies. In
contrast, a consideration oI the terms oI coexistence allows us to see how less obvious and more nuanced
exclusion operates within institutions via the tacit reservation oI privileged positions Ior the somatic norm.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
111
Framing card:
NASA and space exploration operates as a metaphor for instructing contemporary social
relations to technology and collective community.
Science is popular in America. An astonishing number oI ordinary Americans take an extraordinary interest in exploring
the human relation to science and technology. In turn, the institutions oI science and technology increasingly strive
to be popular, that is, to try to Iind ways to communicate their ideas and endeavors in such a way that people (in
government, media, and everyday liIe) Ieel they are suIIiciently part oI those ideas and endeavors to want to
lend their enthusiastic support. S%REK sketches a picture oI our collective, it sometimes conIlictual, imaginary oI 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 liIe, iI one knows how to recognize it and, at least, provincially accept it on its own terms.
AT: Alt Bad
The 2AC`s 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.
There is an undeclared white masculine body underlying the universal construction oI the enlightenment individual`. Critics oI the universal ideal
human type in Western thought elaborate on the exclusionary some body in the no body oI political theory that
proclaims to include every body. In the Iace oI a determined eIIort to disavow the (male) body, critics have
insisted that the individual` is embodied, and that it is the white male Iigure, oI a changing habitus, who is
actually taken as the central point oI reIerence. The successive unveiling oI the disembodied human individual`
by class theorists, Ieminists and race theorists has collectively revealed the corporeal speciIicity oI the absolute
human type. It is against this template, one that is deIined in opposition to women and non-whites aIter 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 oI speciIic bodies (women and non-whites) as
lacking rationality and all that the abstract male type exempliIied was historically and conceptually a central Ieature oI the constitution oI the political subject.
Racialised and gendered discourses on the body occupied an essential place in the construction oI citizenship and
political subjecthood. Women were deIined as representing all that the social contract in the political realm
sought to exclude, that is, emotion, bodies, nature, particularity and aIIectivity. Men`s bodies, on the other hand, were associated
with the Iantastic qualities oI transcendental rationality and universal leadership. Pateman emphasises the role oI bodily distinctions when she states: In the patriarchal
construction oI the diIIerence between masculinity and Iemininity, women lack the capacities necessary Ior political liIe. The disorder oI women` means
that they pose a threat to political order and so must be excluded Irom the public world` (1995: 4)
AT: Astronaut turn
Space programs construct the ideal astronaut as a masculine Iigure that leads the quest into space.
Persons (Ior example, those astronauts selected Ior spaceIlight) cannot be signiIied, as Butler argues, without the mark oI gender` (ibid.: 28). Inextricably
bound to the popular heroes` oI the Cold War (American) cultural imaginary, the construction oI the astronaut as
space pioneer is embedded within a broader political Iramework oI space travel, wherein women` are seen as
essentially diIIerent to men both physiologically and in terms oI 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 (Irom its reIusal to consider women candidates in the 1950s and 1960s, to ongoing controversies surrounding the
possibility oI 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 oI normalization` (2004: 41).
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
112
AT: Alt no solvo environment

With increasing amounts of patriarchy comes increasing amounts of resource exploitation and
environmental destruction


Modem institutions have consequently universalized rational scientiIic knowledge while intuitive knowledge is being dismissed as not acceptable. The emphasis on
rational thought has taught people to identiIy with their minds only, rather than with their whole organism. This dualism oI mind and body has spread throughout
modem culture. It has led people to believe that the universe is a mechanical system, consisting oI separate parts, put together as building blocks. The view has been
extended to living organisms, which are regarded as machines constructed Irom separate parts. Although new physics has taught us that reality is diIIerent, this out-
dated view is still the basis oI most oI modem society's scientiIic and economic activity. It has led to Iragmentation 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 oI women, who have been
identiIied 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 pre-patriarchal era the many aspects oI nature were
identiIied with that oI the Goddess. Under patriarchy, the gentle image oI nature changed. It became a wild,
dangerous Iemale that had to be controlled by men. Thus, nature and women became subservient to men. This
association oI nature and women has been used by patriarchal society to legitimize the 114 exploitation oI both. Nature, because it is associated with the Ieminine,
women, because they are associated with nature. Both are oI a lower order, which exists to serve man's physical needs. Man is consequently seen as being both separate
Irom, but also above nature and women, which he thereIore can dominate. It was mainly with the rise oI modem science and its capitalism that nature changed Irom
being organic and alive to become a dead machine that could be manipulated and exploited. This happened parallel to the domination and
exploitation oI women. Thus, there is an ancient association oI women and nature. (Capra 1982: 24; Birkeland 1995: 56).
Feminists Iind that the Western world's identiIication oI maleness with rationality and Iemaleness with nature has provided the intellectual basis Ior the domination oI
women. The masculine sphere oI reason includes public, social and cultural liIe, together with production and justice. These are contrasted to the Ieminine sphere oI
emotion, which includes the private, domestic and reproductive liIe. The masculine sphere is the active one where aIIairs and nature is controlled via science. The
Ieminine sphere represents passiveness and the unchangeable human nature and natural necessity. Rationality is a highly regarded part oI the human character as are the
characteristics oI control and Ireedom. These characteristics are seen as making men superior and separate Irom inIerior nature and animals. Hence, also natural women
emerge as inIerior, imperIect human beings, lacking these characteristics. Thus, the dualism oI rationality-nature is a major tool to keeping women "in their place". It is
thereIore allegedly the use oI the concept nature, rather than social arrangements, that determines the lot oI women and it is nature that justiIies inequality. This ancient
association oI women and nature has resulted in a contemporary kinship between Ieminism and ecology. It is maniIested in their common opposition against the
patriarchal, rational, reductionist and scientiIic world-view; its domination oI both women and nature; and the damage its actions causes to liIe itselI. (Capra 1982: 24;
Plumwood 1992: 8). It is thereIore 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 Iluctuations. However, such
understanding is hindered by the rational mind, which can only think in linear terms. Thus linear enterprises, like indeIinite economic growth and eternal technological
development, will necessarily interIere 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 oI many traditional cultures, where liIe was
organised around a highly reIined awareness oI 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
OI course, it is possible Ior a more critical object-attentive approach to take the category woman` as reIerring to a diverse, multiIarious group oI diIIering and complex
individuals. The clear and present commonalities, patterns and connections among women`s gendered positions and experiences necessitate a Ieminism that Iocuses on
those oI us who Iall under the category woman.` None the less, it conceives oI the category as multiplicitous, complex, and even contradictory, and realizes that
improving the lives oI women thereIore necessarily entails working against all oppressions experienced by anyone in the category woman.` As Elizabeth Spelman
points out, gender oppression cannot be sliced out Irom women`s experiences or identities. There is no pure gender, or instance oI sexism, not coexistent with race,
class, and sexuality, and accompanying oppressions and privileges. Feminists stand contrary to women`s oppression, and woman` is always Iormed within social
relations other than gender. Any Ieminism that aims to deconstruct women`s oppression,` conceptually or materially, must
recognize that even where aspects oI oppression can be identiIied as being about gender,` they are commonly,
intimately, linked with other oppressions. Feminism cannot thereIore merely involve promoting anything that
can be characterized as simply in women`s interests.` Because other social categories, such as race, class, and
sexuality, Iundamentally shape gendered relations and identities (and vice versa), it is incoherent to promote a
Ieminism that does not address oppressions based on these categories as well. On this view, connections
between woman` and nature` exist because women are part oI nature,` as are all humans, and the suppression
and hatred oI nature is played out in speciIic ways on women`s bodies, activities, and conceptual Irameworks.
These connections are relevant because both women and nature are categorically devalued, with their distinct
and similar qualities.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
113
AT: Case O/W
Our epistemology claims call into question every answer they made-their objective understandings of
the world beg the question of the speaker
Christensen 8 MS in sociology BS in sociology Irom State U oI NY, Magna Cum Laude. MS in sociology, U Wisconsin-Madison. PhD expected in Spring
2010 Wendy, 'Cowboy oI the World? Gender Discourse and the Iraq War Debate, http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mIerree/documents/ChristensenFerree.pdI|

In the spring oI 2002, the Bush Administration began publicly to discuss the possibility oI US military action against Iraq and by spring 2003, the invasion oI Iraq had
begun. In retrospect, media commentators have asked why they were not more critical oI the administration`s war plans, and why
reservations about going to war expressed by some oI the US`s closest allies were not taken more seriously. In this paper, we argue that
the use oI gender images and metaphors in this public debate impoverished the quality oI media coverage oI the
issues. As such, it is an excellent example oI the symbolic power oI gender to Irame issues and constrain
alternatives. Cultural ideologies such as gender Iorm an implicit Iramework Ior popular thought and are available to be
mobilized in public policy discussions (Stone 1988), especially when gendered images can serve as portrayals oI other
binary oppositions (us/them, good/evil, oIIense/ deIense). 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 Irame
political issues, the speakers align themselves with particular understandings oI gender as well as express their
positions in relation to speciIic policies. As a consequence, media discourse preceding the war in Iraq became a debate both about which notions oI
masculinity are positively valued and about the appropriateness oI a decision to go to war, with each side oI the war debate simultaneously contesting both the policy
and the versions oI masculinity symbolically invoked to justiIy their positions. In this paper we use a content analysis oI the year-long debate preceding the war in Iraq
to show how images oI Bush as a 'cowboy and Europe as a 'wimp were advanced and contested by those Iavoring and opposing the war. We Iurther show that the
organization oI war debate in gendered terms expressed and encouraged binary thinking and so lowered the
quality oI war debate. Although we do not claim that the gendered nature oI the debate preceding the 2003 war caused the nation`s Iailure to Iocus on the
complex issues that the invasion proved to raise, we argue that symbolically mobilizing masculinity in this context contributed to the
shallowness oI media debate by placing the voices Ior peace, both in the US and in Europe, on a devalued, Ieminized
Iooting and by casting the Administration`s posture oI masculinity as the multivalent, but quintessentially American,
'cowboy. The American cowboy represents both the power oI 'civilization against the 'savage and 'outlaw Iorces oI disorder and the more 'raw and
'untamed American West against the 'eIIete, urban and over-reIined East. As such the cowboy is associated with negative values oI racism and imperialism as well as
with positive images oI law, independence and Ireedom; the opposite oI the cowboy image is not merely a positive view oI urban masculinity as civilized, rational,
educated but also a negative one oI such men being under the power oI women, bosses and the discipline oI 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 Iorm a complex system oI reIerence. As Joan Scott (1986, p. 1096) has argued, gender is not only 'a constitutive
element oI social relationships based on perceived diIIerences between the sexes but also 'a primary way oI signiIying relationships oI power. This is a relationship oI
reciprocal signiIication: Invoking gender carries connotations oI strength or weakness, as in reIerences to 'emasculating America, and invoking images oI strength and
weakness, such as the 'pitiIul, helpless giant, carry connotations oI gender (Scott 1986; Cohn 1993). Since nation-states are powerIul Iorces and the decision to use
military Iorce is an extreme expression oI this power, war debate is an excellent Iorum Ior seeing the co-connotations oI gender and power at work symbolically. Our
empirical case is developed in three steps: we Iirst show the relevance oI gendered imagery in the debate running up to the Iraq war by examining the Irequency oI
gender language in news media, in both those sources that are more typically critical and those more typically aIIirmative oI the Bush Administration. We then examine
the gendered language to see how particular versions oI masculinity are debated in concert with debates about appropriate policy toward Iraq. We Iocus on the
memorable image oI 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.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
114
AT: Cede the Political
The alternative is an engagement in political contestation that refigures our political commitments.

Embracing partisanship and struggle as they do, reconstructivists have End Page 7| taken to heart various critiques oI
objectivity, among which Ieminists Iigure prominently. Quoting Harding`s 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 oI denial about the maldistribution oI costs and beneIits oI
technoscience.24 Taking 'science-policy inIluentials to task Ior Iailing to mention inequality except in toothless and conventional ways, Woodhouse and
Sarewitz call Ior greater recognition oI social conIlict in the tussle over who gets what, when, and how that is
science and technology policy and politics. They share with Ieminists the intention to 'move equity
considerations higher on science-policy agendas. They share the suspicion that the social organization oI
technoscience exacerbates social inequality and consistently rewards the already aIIluent, while hurting the
persistently poor. They call Ior reIocusing R&D on 'poor people`s problems yet do not call upon Ieminist
scholarship to explain precisely how welIare states and labor markets are structured to reproduce gendered and
racialized poverty.25 How can it be that well intentioned and well inIormed scholars seeking to reIocus technoscientiIic R&D on the needs oI the poor,
broaden participation in research priority-setting, and reorient technoscientiIic innovation toward the creation oI public goods miss the Ieminist 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 Iield
among diverse social interests so that all are represented Iairly miss the point that Iorms oI 'Iairness
inattentive to power diIIerentials lead to unIair processes and outcomes?26 The reconstructivist agenda is too important to be
dismissed by Ieminists 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, proIessor in the Department oI 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 oI space, it is rooted in modernist discourses oI cultural and political critique. A tendency
towards the idea oI the cyborg as a radical Iusion oI the body and technology can be discerned well beIore the term cyborg` began to acquire its current panoply oI
potential meanings and applications. The Iantastical conjunction oI human and machine, Ior example, predates the emergence oI the cyborg as a named arteIact and is
an integral element in the critical vocabularies oI cultural modernism that emerged as a counter discourse to the technological Iervour oI twentieth-century modernity.
Unlike Haraway, however, I have emphasized those aspects oI technological monstrosity which allow us to explore those contradictory aspects to modernity which can
fnd no straightIorward articulation. By enlisting the cyborg as a conceptual tool in urban discourse we can develop an imaginative
response to the unknowability oI the city and its power to generate cultural energies that ultimately impact on wider
social and political processes. II the clearly defned human body oI the industrial city has been replaced by the
technologically diIIuse body oI the cyborg city, then what kind oI bodily occlusions are implicated in this shiIt?
How do the poorly paid workers within the interstices and margins oI the global economy the hidden bodies oI late capitalism struggling under the yoke oI what
Alain Lipietz once described as bloody Taylorization` ft into an enlarged and more sophisticated conception oI the human subject? The undiIIerentiated
we` oI the more speculative and Iuturistic urban literature tends to overlook the emerging disparities in access
between wired` and wireless` inIrastructures exemplifed by the inIrastructure crisis Iacing the rapidly growing
cities oI the global South: new communications technologies may be increasingly ubiquitous but the numbers oI
people without adequate access to saIe drinking water or eIIective sanitation have grown inexorably over the
last quarter century. The cyberslums oI the Iuture will be the living embodiment oI the contradictions inherent
in a technologically rather than politically driven strategy Ior the creation oI more socially inclusive cities. II
monstrous representations oI the cyborg city represent allegories Ior wider social injustice then we need to
explore those Iorms oI political monstrosity that have generated imaginary monsters. In dreams, aIter all, it is Iear that creates
our monsters rather than monsters that create our Iear.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
115
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 sphere-this ensures structural violence becomes inevitable
Shepherd 8 Laura J. Shepherd, Department oI Political Science and International Studies, University oI Birmingham, 'Gender, Violence and Global Politics:
Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies, EBSCO|

By drawing her readers' attention to the ways in which discourses oI gender (ideas about how 'proper' men and women should behave) Iunction, Enloe reminds us that
adhering to ideals oI masculinity and Iemininity is both productive oI violence and is a violence in itselI, a
violence against the empowered human subject. 'Ideas matter', she concludes, ideas about modernity, security,
violence, threat, trust. 'Each oI these ideas is Iraught with blatant and subtle presumptions about masculinity and
Iemininity. Ideas about both masculinity and Iemininity matter. This makes a Ieminist curiosity a necessity' (Enloe, 2007, p. 161). While
conventional studies oI 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 Ior a Iuller understanding oI why it is that particular violences Iall outside the traditional parameters oI study. As to the question oI when violence is worthy
oI study, all three texts implicitly or explicitly draw on the popular Ieminist phrase: 'the personal is political'. This slogan neatly encapsulates
the Ieminist critique oI a supposed foundational divide between the private and the public realms oI social
liIe. In arguing that the personal is political, Ieminist theory reIuses to accept that there are instances oI human behaviour or situations in social liIe that can or should
be bracketed Irom study. At its simplest, this critique led to the recognition oI 'domestic violence' as a political, rather than
a personal issue (see, Ior example Moore, 2003; Youngs, 2003), Iorming the Ioundation Ior critical studies oI gendered
violence in times oI war and in times oI peace that would otherwise have been ignored. Crucially, Enloe extended the
boundaries oI critique to include the international, imbuing the phrase with new analytical vitality when she suggested, Iirst, that the phrase itselI 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 oI allegedly
private relationships in order to conduct their Ioreign aIIairs. ... To operate in the international arena,
governments seek other governments' recognition oI their sovereignty; but they also depend on ideas about
masculinised dignity and Ieminised sacriIice to sustain that sense oI autonomous nationhood (Enloe, 2000, pp. 1967).

AT Cyborg NOT REAL WORLD

Cyborgs allows us to negotiate an increasingly complex world.
GANDY, proIessor in the Department oI 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 oI the cyborg as a means to explore the contemporary
urban condition. Yet a cursory glance at the recent literature shows that the earlier incarnations oI the cyborg as an isolated yet technologically enhanced body
have proliIerated into a vast assemblage oI bodily and machinic entanglements which interconnect with the contemporary city in a multitude oI diIIerent ways. The
richness oI the cyborg concept allows us to negotiate a multiplicity oI spaces and practices simultaneously and
in so doing develop epistemological strategies Ior the interpretation oI urban liIe which come closer to any
putative reality` than those approaches which long Ior the mechanistic or deterministic simplifcation oI their
object oI study. Unlike some oI the other conceptual tools currently in vogue whose deployment oI the post` prefx denotes an ending or culmination oI a
predetermined sequence oI developments the cyborg oIIers a sense oI continuity in our critical appreciation oI the intersection between diIIerent and oIten
contradictory modernities.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
116
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, 'ReIlections on Gender and Technology Studies: In what State is the Art? Social Studies
of Science 30, DOI: 10.1177/030631200030003005)

While the eIIects oI structural exclusion on technological development are not easy to analyse, they should not
be overlooked. Feminists have stressed that women's absence Irom spheres oI inIluence is a key Ieature oI
gender power relations. Few women Ieature among the principal actors in technological design, as the sexual
division oI labour has excluded them Irom entering science, engineering and management.25 As several commentators
have pointed out, the problem with a primary Iocus on 'relevant social groups' in the process oI technological development is how to take account oI those actors who
are routinely marginalized or excluded Irom a network. 26 Within the broad social shaping approach, Ieminists have Iound 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 oI interests in maximizing proIits, so
we could talk oI men's interests as a sex being institutionalized. The concept oI patriarchy was oIten deployed as a shorthand Ior
institutionalized power relations between men and women where gender is a property oI institutions and
historical processes, as well as oI individuals. However, this was not meant to imply that men are a
homogeneous group. For example, in Feminism ConIronts Technology, I stressed that men's interests are not all identical, and that when it comes to
inIluencing the design and development oI a speciIic technology, some groups will have more power and resources than others. So, long beIore the so-
called 'postmodern challenge', 'diIIerence' within the category oI men, and between women, was already widely
recognized.


BUTLER`S 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 ProIessor oI Parody, %he ew Republic, http://www.tnr.com/index.mhtml)

To whom, then, is Butler speaking? It would seem that she is addressing a group oI young Ieminist theorists in
the academy who are neither students oI philosophy, caring about what Althusser and Freud and Kripke really
said, nor outsiders, needing to be inIormed about the nature oI their projects and persuaded oI their worth. This
implied audience is imagined as remarkably docile. Subservient to the oracular voice oI Butler's text, and
dazzled by its patina oI high-concept abstractness, the imagined reader poses Iew questions, requests no
arguments and no clear deIinitions oI terms.
Still more strangely, the implied reader is expected not to care greatly about Butler's own Iinal view on many
matters. For a large proportion oI the sentences in any book by Butler--especially sentences near the end oI
chapters--are questions. Sometimes the answer that the question expects is evident. But oIten 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 oI the view described.
MystiIication as well as hierarchy are the tools oI her practice, a mystiIication that eludes criticism because it
makes Iew deIinite claims.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
117

THE LIBERATION IN BUTLER`S POLITICS IS A LIE- SUBVERSION CAN BOTH UNDO DOMIANTION
AND REAFFIRM IT. EVEN IF GENDER IS A PERFORMANCE, THE NEGATIVE`S RHETORIC IS STILL
PREFERABLE.

NAUSSBAUM, 99 (MARTHA, 'The ProIessor oI Parody, %he ew Republic, http://www.tnr.com/index.mhtml)

There is a void, then, at the heart oI Butler's notion oI politics. This void can look liberating, because the reader
Iills it implicitly with a normative theory oI human equality or dignity. But let there be no mistake: Ior Butler, as
Ior Foucault, subversion is subversion, and it can in principle go in any direction. Indeed, Butler's naively empty
politics is especially dangerous Ior the very causes she holds dear. For every Iriend oI Butler, eager to engage in
subversive perIormances that proclaim the repressiveness oI heterosexual gender norms, there are dozens who
would like to engage in subversive perIormances that Ilout the norms oI tax compliance, oI non-discrimination,
oI decent treatment oI one's Iellow students. To such people we should say, you cannot simply resist as you
please, Ior there are norms oI Iairness, decency, and dignity that entail that this is bad behavior. But then we
have to articulate those norms--and this Butler reIuses 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.

There has been a notable metonymic shiIt in the increased presence oI women and racialised minorities into
spaces in the public realm which have predominantly been occupied by white men. The shiIt is undoubtedly slow and uneven
across organisations and diIIerent sectors. There are also, oI course, considerable diIIerences between gender and race`. While the glass ceiling` has been cracked quite
signiIicantly with gender, Ior race` a concrete ceiling` has just been chipped ever so slightly. The cultural landscape oI the public sphere has nevertheless been the site
oI a change that warrants close attention. Looking across space/time, in terms oI gender, Doreen Massey notes: I can remember very clearly a sight which oIten used to
strike me when I was nine or ten years old. I lived then on the outskirts oI Manchester, and Going into Town` was a relatively big occasion; it took over halI an hour
and we went on the top deck oI a bus. On the way into town we would cross the wide shallow valley oI the River Mersey, and my memory is oI dank, muddy Iields
spreading away into a cold, misty distance. And all oI it all oI these acres oI Manchester was divided up into Iootball pitches and rugby pitches. And on Saturdays,
which was when we went into Town, the whole vast area would be covered with hundreds oI little people, all running around aIter balls, as Iar as the eye could see. (It
seemed Irom the top oI 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 thoughtIul little girl that all this huge stretch oI
the Mersey Ilood plain had been entirely given over to boys. I did not go to those playing Iields they seemed barred, another world (though today, with more nerve
and some consciousness oI being a space- invader, I do stand on Iootball terraces and love it). (Massey 1996:185) The sheer maleness oI particular
public spaces and women`s experience oI increasingly occupying them while still being conscious oI being
space invaders` even while they enjoy these places is vividly captured by Massey. To this, oI course, we could add that the sheer
whiteness oI spaces is also being altered, that is, on the Iootball terraces, as well as elsewhere, in a wider sense. To be oI and in a space, while at the same time not quite
belonging to it, is pertinent to Massey`s positionality. Formally, today, women and racialised minorities can enter positions that
they were previously excluded Irom. And the Iact that they do is evidence oI this. However, social spaces are
not blank and open Ior 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 oI bodies that are tacitly designated as being the natural` occupants
oI speciIic 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 oI place`. Not being the somatic norm, they are space invaders. The
coupling oI particular spaces with speciIic types oI bodies is no doubt subject to change; this usually, however, is not without consequence as it oIten breaks with how
bodies have been placed.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
118
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
Sarah Hoagland argues that to debate the value oI women`s lives is to admit that it is possible that women`s lives are not valuable (Hoagland 1988). Perhaps the best
we can do in communicating the justiIication Ior a premise oI basic moral value is try to evoke a Ieeling to draw
attention to narratives, poems, experiences, and observations oI what we take to be valuable.2 In pointing out that the Ioundations Ior ethics are Ielt, we
should keep in mind that Ieelings are neither irrational nor nonrational. David Hume located the genesis oI morality in
human sentiment. Hume believed that reason and morality are rightIully slaves oI the passions,` that society is
necessary Ior the development oI morality, and that goodness does not inhere in objects. For Hume, introducing a
discussion oI sentiment into ethical philosophy does not amount to conceiving oI morality as natural (given) or
asocial. In Iact, 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 Ieminist ethics do not take any Iixed
understandings oI 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 oI right and wrong, good and bad. For a thing to have meaningIul moral value, some moral agent must
value it as a member oI the ethical universe, and it must be the kind oI thing to which moral concepts and considerations can reIer. It must
thereIore be somehow connected to or appreciable by moral agents, and must thereIore be human, necessary Ior human
liIe, something which makes human liIe better than it would be without it, or something that humans can appreciate and respect even Irom a
distance. An ethically valuable entity must be capable oI having interests or doing well, or the consequences oI valuing it would be indistinguishable Irom not valuing it,
and moral value would be utterly inconsequential. Moral objects, or morally valuable entities, include whatever is capable, categorically, oI
being harmed, exploited, oppressed, degraded, pained, and mistreated by those agents. None the less, moral agents must use
some kinds oI living beings Ior Iood, shelter, technology, and science. Being alive` or even being worthy oI moral consideration, is not suIIicient to disallow the use
and even the death oI a thing. Some death and manipulation is necessary Ior human liIe and ethics to be at all possible, but iI abuse is understood as mistreatment, or
harm without justiIication, it is never necessary to abuse other living beings. Lori Gruen argues that because the interests and well-being oI all those who have such
things are inevitably connected to the interests and well-being oI others, it is diIIicult to argue that any one entity is valuable in itselI (unpublished). But human
interests can include the importance oI valuing things Ior reasons not reducible to their instrumentality, or use value
Ior humans. That is, we might assert that it is important Ior humans to value each other, and nonhuman entities and
communities Ior their own sake,` though this value also ultimately serves the valuers` interests, and always has extrinsic origins. In J. Baird Callicott`s words,
moral value is created by humans, "but it by no means Iollows that the locus oI all value is consciousness itselI or a mode oI consciousness like reason, pleasure, or
knowledge. In other words something may be valuable only because someone values it, but it may also be valued Ior
itselI, not Ior the sake oI any subjective experience it may aIIord the valuer." (1986: 40)Though values come Irom humans, they need not
be human-centered, or based only on the interests and well-being oI humans. We can see, appreciate, and care about the interests and well-
being oI other persons, species, systems and communities. This valuing might be Ior aesthetic reasons. It might
stem Irom the nature and quality oI our biological, cultural, or aIIectionate relationships. It might also be Ior
epistemological reasons. As we glean new knowledge Irom science and other spheres oI inquiry, we might
notice new sources oI respect and value. Many philosophers use the concept oI anthropocentrism` to denote ideologies and practices that are
human-centered in ways that are ethically suspect. The view oI ethics I put Iorth 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` oI an ecological Ieminist ethical scheme, it
is not anthropocentric in the sense oI being unjustiIiably or prejudicially biased toward human goods and interests. Indeed, we cannot truly
separate human Irom nonhuman well-being without dramatically changing our conception oI human physical,
emotional, and social well-being, and the Ialse belieI that we can separate these has severely disrupted the physical thriving oI both humans and nature.
Though an ecological Ieminist ethical scheme might be conceptually bound, or limited, by human capacities, our biases can vary signiIicantly according to the degree oI
inIormation and inclination we have concerning the interests, goods, and preIerences oI nonhuman entities. Rachel Carson hoped that knowledge oI our own epistemic
limitations would inspire caution and humility when we make decisions concerning relatively mysterious entities.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
119
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.
and War, YCISS Occasional Paper Number 31, January, www.yorku.caycisspublicationsOP31Workman.pdf )
The opening intellectual orientation oI the gender critique oI war rests upon a constructivist view oI human understanding and practice, that is, a view that
anchors practices, including war, within humankind's selI-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 iI delivered by the Gods; it arises out oI human-created understandings and
ways-oI- living that have evolved over the millennia. More speciIically, the assumption that men (the nearly exclusive
makers and doers oI war) are biologically hard-wired Ior aggression and violence is resisted, as is the related
notion that women are naturally passive and non-violent. The explanation Ior war will not be Iound in
testosterone levels. It is not the essential or bio-social male that makes war. War is the product oI the gendered
understandings oI liIeunderstandings oI the celebrated masculine and the subordinated Iemininethat have
been Iashioned over vast tracts oI cultural time. And since war arises Irom human-created understandings and practices it can be removed when
these understandings change. War is not insuperable. Indeed, the rooting oI war in human created phenomena is recognized
as a response to the political incapacitation associated with biologically determinist arguments: "Attempts oI genetic
determinists to show a biological basis Ior individual aggression and to link this to social aggression, are not only unscientiIic, but they support the idea that wars oI
conquest between nations are inevitable.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
120
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.

The operations oI gender as a norm, and normalizing principle, in discourses oI outer space need not be explicit.
The reproduction oI heteronormative gender identity(ies) instead implicitly governs the social intelligibility oI
action`, to borrow Butler`s terminology, in outer space; that is, it governs the means by which the politics oI
outer space makes sense. Heteronormative, heterosexist gender confgurations reside, Ior example, in discussions oI the viability oI outer space exploration
and human spacefight, 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 oI human activity, rather than a simple possibility. What can and cannot be done in and/or to
space are defned according to those physical, hormonal and perIormative Iorms (re)produced and normalized
according to heteronormative, heterosexual, discursive parameters. II, Ior example, humans are to colonize
space, as much scientifc writing would have us believe, it is essential that they perIorm reproductively: human
sexuality in space is thus Iramed and reifed such that it pertains only to heterosexual intercourse, and women
appear only in reIerence to their sexual nature and procreative Iunction` (Casper and Moore 1995: 319). In January 2006, Ior
example, NewScientist.com revealed that oI its top ten most accessed space stories oI 2005, the most popular was the aptly named report, Out-oI-This-World Sex
Could Jeopardise Missions` (McKee 2005). Thirteen years aIter a married couple were frst sent on a space shuttle mission, prompting at the time a furry oI public
curiosity and controversy concerning celestial intimacy` (Casper and Moore 1995: 312), the New Scientist`s article opens with the line, sex and romantic
entanglements among astronauts could derail missions to Mars and should thereIore be studied by NASA`. NASA has already long been studying the prospect oI sex (as
sexual intercourse) in outer space. As the New Scientist's article goes on to make clear, however, 'the question oI sexuality' and 'sexual issues' in spaceIlight and Iuture
outer space exploration is essentially, Ior NASA at least, a question oI heterosexuality.

Humans, suggests CrawIord, 'bring speed, agility, versatility and intelligence to exploration in a way that robots cannot', justiIying to many the employment oI
astronauts as 'Iield scientists' on other planets (CrawIord 2005: 252). The consistent discursive articulation oI outer space as a Irontier,
a `threshold' Ior human intervention requiring the utmost in human perIormance, depends on a regulatory
Iramework wherein 'humanity' is able consistently and without obstacle (material, psychological or otherwise)
to seize the challenge oI exploiting and controlling its natural environment and resources. Rarely conceived oI
purely in technological, aphysical terms, Space is a politics (in US discourse) entirely constituted in reIerence to
the corporeal attributes oI the (neo-liberally) human. Within the heteronormative, heterosexual, regulatory
Iramework oI US outer space discourse, the ideal, space-able, individual is constructed and reproduced within
an unspoken but unequivocal heteronormative Iramework oI reproductive sexuality, as a model that others
should approximate: a person, evolved oI 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 Iramework has
only solidiIied the sense oI male bodies existing as the norm against which Iemale bodies are evaluated, and
male physiology the standard by which Iemale bodies are judged (Casper and Moore 1995: 316-319).

This regulatory masculinism has undoubtedly resulted in the overwhelming dominance oI male astronauts in space. Although the Iirst American Iemale went into space
in 1983, in 2001 oI an active astronaut corps oI 158, only thirty-Iive were women (NASA 2001), and oI the 2004 class oI astronauts, only two oI eleven were Iemale
(NASA 2004). But the predominance oI male astronauts also stems Irom the gendered nature oI space discourse itselI. The quest to conquer space that
began with the Cold War 'space race' has long been coded (heterosexually) masculine, dependent on an
articulation oI masculine prowess realized through gendered assumptions oI physical and technical expertise,
strength, endurance and intelligence. The portrayal oI the earliest astronauts as popular heroes in the US media, and beyond (Bush, Ior example, pays
homage, in 2004, to two oI the 'veterans' oI the space age, Tom DeLay and Senator Bill Nelson), sedimented an image oI masculine achievement that, although highly
contingent on the militarized aggressivity oI Cold War discourse at that time, has proved enduring. Armstrong's Iamous announcement that the
Apollo 11 Moon landing was 'one small step Ior a man, one giant leap Ior mankind' thus in this instance speaks
more speciIically than universally, a continuation oI the Western history's overarching belieI in men's 'natural'
ability, indeed prerogative, to conquer Ior the good oI everyone.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
121
AT: Link of Omission
Gender operates through not being acknowledged. By leaving difference unmarked, the aff reifies
masculine domination.

To talk oI US outer space politics and discourse as sexed`, and thereIore gendered (through the pre/proscription and reproduction oI those
human identities considered most eIIective 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 oI whose obvious relation to sex may
be obscure (Berlant and Warner 1998: 547). As BedIord argues, using sexuality as an analytical concept extends beyond
discussion oI gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues to consider the ways in which heterosexuality as
unmarked` (that is, thoroughly normalized) is (re)produced in changing Iorms by political actors (2005: 296). The institutions,
structures oI understanding and practical orientations through which US space discourse privileges and
normalizes heterosexuality as universal are tacitly, not explicitly, gendered. The dominant discursive rationalizations oI 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 oI
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, diIfcult to read`, and discernible most clearly and dramatically`
in the eIIects that it produces, thus the prescription and reproduction oI 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.

The dearth oI attention paid to human Iactors reIlects a notion oI neutrality embedded in modernity's hierarchy oI the sciences, a hierarchy that elevates the sciences
most remote Irom everyday experience, especially physics, to the apex oI knowledge systems. The earth-system-science view oI global
change highlights atmospheric physics, geophysics, and chemistry, thus rendering human beings virtually
invisible. But iI the IPCC scientists are correct in surmising that global environmental change is imminent, then the agents oI that change are
almost exclusively human beings. From the perspective oI the social sciences, global environmental change is a
process where people are both the cause oI change and the object oI change-some much more so than others. It
is a result oI certain social choices and commitments, whether conscious or not, and will only be ameliorated by
alternative choices and commitments.35 But Irom the perspective oI remote sensing, human agency vanishes and
global change is reduced to physical processes. Since the "valid picture" transmitted Irom space omits the main
element oI the picture, it is a dubious impetus Ior "rational policy." II history serves as a guide, the mammoth scientiIic undertaking embodied in the
USGCRP is unlikely to become a principal catalyst Ior policy change-even when the results are in aIter two decades. The nearest approximation to a historical precedent is the ten-year, halI-billion dollar interagency program
in-tended to guide U.S. policy on acid rain, the National Acid Precipitation Assess-ment Program(NAPAP). Although NAPAP was applaudedIor its scientiIicachieve-ments, in the end it was virtually irrelevant to the acid rain
controls adopted in the 1990 Clean Air Act. Very little oI 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 Iollow in NAPAP's Iootsteps, 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 scientiIic data in its decision-making process. The report concluded that, to a great extent, EPA decisions are based upon
extrascientiIic Iactors.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 Iacts Irom which policy decisions are ra-tionally deduced. Rather, scientiIic inIormation tends to be Iramed and
interpreted according to preexisting discourses. As I have argued elsewhere, this was the case even Ior the
global ozone negotiations, where a comprehensive international assessment representing a scientiIic consensus
was available to all parties.39 OIten as not, the same scientiIic inIormation can be used to bolster an array oI
policy positions. II "irrationalities" tend to supplant scientiIic knowledge in the policy process Ior other
environmental issues, how much stronger will this tendency be Ior an issue like greenhouse warming, which
goes to the heart oI industrial civilization's dreams and aspirations?

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
122
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
Ideologies are oIten couched in terms oI biological determinism, positing narrow genetic or biological causes
Ior complex social behaviors. In the real world, human behavior is always mediated by culture-by systems oI meaning and the values they incorporate.
The role that biology actually plays varies dramatically and can never be determined without reIerence to cultural context. Ideological belieIs may exaggerate the role oI
biological Iactors (arguing that men's testosterone explains male homicide rates) or posit biological Iactors where none need be involved (arguing that because some
women during part oI their liIe bear children, all women should care Ior children and are unIit Ior political power). Reliance on biological determinism means that
ideologies tend to Ilourish in periods oI disruption or transition, when political conservatism serves to buttress traditional power wielders. When traditional
power wielders are threatened by change, it is easy and oIten eIIective Ior them to repeat ideological claims that
emphasize how natural and thereIore unchanging inequality is.
Finally, ideologies are most eIIective when most taken Ior granted. They resist correction and critique by making
the status quo appear natural, "the way things are," not the result oI human intervention and practice. Like stereotypes, ideologies depoliticize what are in
Iact diIIerences 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, Ior some, even desirable. The point is not that the world is as bad as it could be but that ideologies
prevent us Irom seeing the world as it really is.
Our Iinal point is that much oI our behavior unintentionally reproduces status quo inequalities. We cannot simply locate an "enemy" to blame Ior institutional
discrimination and its many consequences. Although there are no doubt individuals who actively pursue discriminatory policies and the perpetuation oI injustice, Iew oI
us would identiIy with such a characterization. Most oI us believe in the possibilities oI 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 belieI systems early in liIe, well beIore we have the
capacity to reIlect critically on their implications Ior our own or others' lives. Because ideologies are supported and sustained by those
with power in our societies, there are powerIul incentives Ior subscribing to these belieI systems-and negative
consequences oI not doing so. Unless something or someone prompts us to "see things diIIerently," these belieI systems become unconscious
assumptions. They serve to reinforce the status quo and blunt criticism of it. As such, they involve all oI us in the
oIten unintentional reproduction oI social hierarchies that are not in fact inevitable but transformable. II we are to
change the world, we have to change structures as well as how we think about them. Understanding the Iens oI stereotypes and ideologies is crucial Ior both

Realism is neither inevitable now accurate: feminist understandings of war have more explanatory power
and were forcibly excluded by scholarly practice.
WORKMAN, assistant proIessor oI political science at the University oI New Brunswick, 1996 (Thom, 'Pandora`s Sons: The Nominal Paradox oI Patirarchy
and War, YCISS Occasional Paper Number 31, January, www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31-Workman.pdI )
OI course, the Iact that two logically distinct lines oI querythe Iailure to recognize similarities and the exaltation oI a subject matterare bound together anticipates
one compelling response. The discipline that claimed the study oI war as its own in the aItermath oI World War I, that is, international relations, eclipsed
critiques that were inclined to locate war within a broader explanatory matrix. SpeciIically, the Ieminist and Marxist
critiques oI war were excluded in the initial Ilurry oI intellectual "homesteading" that quickly came to deIine the
incipient Iield.3 Feminist critiques that addressed World War I in terms oI patriarchal culture and society were
circulated throughoutthewar.4 Similarly, arguments about the origins oI World War I that Iocused upon the nature and dynamics oI globalizing capitalism
were present Irom the beginning.5 It is curious that a Iield with the raison d'etre oI explaining war would cast two
sobering lines of inquiry aside at its point oI inception. When viewed in this manner, the inaugural phase oI intellectual
activity in international relations, a phase that has been described recently as neo-Kantian in view oI its penchant Ior democratic republicanism and its
Iocus upon the cooperative prospects oI 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 patri-capitalism. The theory-that-
became-praxis crystallized within an early 20th century discursive matrix that marginalized Ieminist and
Marxist critique, and with it any possibility oI addressing war as a historically embedded social practice.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
123
AT: Realism is real, inevitable, accurate

Realism is wrong - Patriarchy is the root cause of war. We have comparative evidence on this question.
and War, YCISS Occasional Paper Number 31, January, www.yorku.caycisspublicationsOP31Workman.pdf )
The tendency to reiIy war, that is, to Iail to examine it as part oI a broader set oI cultural understandings and
practices, was intensiIied during the positivist pall oI international relations. The immediate task at hand became the application oI a naturalist
model oI science in the quest Ior nomological theories oI war. Scholars could apply this theoretical knowledge to the world "out there" in
order to promote and Ioster a more peaceIul world. "The cause oI the disease once known," presciently mused Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the bstract of the bbe de
SaintPierres Profect for Perpetual Peace in a manner that anticipated the spirit oI researchers throughout much oI the 20th century, "suIIices to indicate the remedy, iI
indeed there is one to be Iound." 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 maniIestation oI violence characteristic oI a gendered
society, was absent Irom almost all research. Nor was the developing Ieminist critique deemed to be all that relevant or
helpIul in understanding war.7 War was treated as a thing in need oI an account rather than a practice Iundamentally
linked to other sociocultural practices.
Realism is bad and not inevitable--- feminism proves
Press. pp 9-13|
Thus the discipline oI international relations began as a Iield that was concerned with breaking the seemingly inevitable cycle oI international war. But when a war oI
even greater devastation broke out in 1939, the disillusionment with what was seen as mistaken idealism, embodied in paciIist policies oI 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 oI popular passions and the inIluence oI uninIormed citizens on Ioreign policy, argued Ior the conduct oI
Ioreign aIIairs by detached "objective" elites insulated Irom the dangers oI the moralism and legalism that had had
such detrimental eIIects on earlier American Ioreign policy. Realists claimed that conIlict was inevitable: the best way to assure the
security oI states is thereIore to prepare Ior war. While most contemporary scholars oI international relations have drawn on the historical
writings oI the classical Greeks as well as on those oI early modern Western political theorists such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau, the central concern oI
realism, the dominant paradigm in international relations since 1945, has been with issues oI war and national security in the post-World
War II international system. 14 ProIoundly inIluenced by events in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s whence many oI its early
scholars came, political realism has been primarily concerned with explaining the causes oI international wars
and the rise and Iall oI states. Generally Anglo-American in their orientation, realists, described by one author as the "Iathers oI the classical
tradition," 15 have concentrated their investigations on the power-balancing activities oI the great powers. Reacting against the Iailure oI
what they have termed the "idealist" tradition oI the early twentieth century, realists take as their basic assumption a dangerous world devoid oI
an overarching authority to keep the peace. In this "anarchical" world, realists prescribe the accumulation oI power and
military strength to assure state survival, the protection oI an orderly "domestic" space, and the pursuit oI legitimate
national interests beyond one's territorial boundaries. The state oI Cold War in the latter halI oI the twentieth century led many oI these scholars to
Iocus on Soviet-American relations and military arms races and ensured the predominance oI realist explanations oI and prescriptions Ior state behavior in the
international system.Since many oI the early writers in the classical realist tradition were European men whose lives had been disrupted by the ideologies oI totalitarian
regimes oI the 1930s, realism strove Ior an objectivist methodology that, by discovering generalizable laws, could oIIer
universalistic explanations Ior the behavior oI states across time and space. Claiming that ideology was a cloak Ior the
operation oI 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 oI international politics; in Iact the exercise oI moral restraint,
epitomized by the policies oI British prime minister Neville Chamberlain in the interwar period, can be a prescription Ior disaster. In the United States in
the 1960s, however, classical realism came under attack, not so much Ior its basic assumptions and goals but Ior its methodology,
which critics Iaulted Ior Iailing to live up to the standards oI a positivist science. These early critics oI realism noted its
imprecision and lack oI scientiIic rigor. In an attempt to make the methodology oI international relations more rigorous
and inject a greater precision into the Iield, critics oI classical realism advocated the collection and analysis oI 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" oI international relations. Neorealists have used models Irom economics, biology, and physics, which they claim can oIIer
universal explanations Ior the behavior oI states in the international system. 17 The depersonalization oI the discipline, which results when methodologies are borrowed
Irom the natural sciences and statistics, has been carried to its extreme in national security studies, a subIield that has sought, through the use oI
operations research and game theoretic models, to analyze strategies for nuclear deterrence and nuclear war-fighting
"rationally."
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
124
AT: Realism
The alt solves Realism which solves nothing --- the aff`s assumption of realism is a bigger link
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 signiIicantly reduce the likelihood oI international violence and create minimally acceptable
conditions oI 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 Ior solving the multiplicity oI
problems on the international agenda. Militarized states can be a threat to the security oI their own populations; economic inequality,
poverty, and constraints on resources were seen as the results oI the workings oI global capitalism and thus beyond the control oI
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.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
125
AT: Science is objective
Only nonscientists make appeals to objectivity in an attempt to justify hyper-masculine politics and
delegitimate any movement against violent social organizations. We must insists on the work of
persuasion in all arenas of life, including science.

Academic and activist Ieminist enquiry has repeatedly tried to come to terms with the question oI what we
might mean by the curious and inescapable term 'objectivity'. We have used a lot oI toxic ink and trees processed into paper decrying what
they have meant and how it hurts tis. The imagined 'they' constitute a kind oI invisible conspiracy oI 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 Iinite point oI view, and so an inevitably disqualiIying and
polluting bias in any discussion oI consequence outside our own little circles, where a 'mass' -subscription journal might reach a Iew thousand readers composed mostly
oI science-haters. At least, I conIess to these paranoid Iantasies and academic resentments lurking underneath some convoluted reIlections in print under my name in the
Ieminist literature in the history and philosophy oI science. We, the Ieminists in the debates about science and technology, are the Reagan era's 'special interest groups'
in the rareIied realm oI epistemology, where traditionally what can count as knowledge is policed by philosophers codiIying cognitive canon law. OI course, a
special interest group is, by Reaganoid deIinition, any collective historical subject which dares to resist the
stripped-down atomism oI Star Wars, hypermarket, postmodern, media-simulated citizenship. Max Headroom doesn't
have a body; thereIore, he alone sees everything in the great communicator's empire oI the Global Network. No wonder Max gets to have a naive sense oI humour and a
kind oI happily regressive, pre-oedipal sexuality, a sexuality which we ambivalently - and dangerously incorrectly - had imagined was reserved Ior liIelong inmates oI
Iemale and colonized bodies, and maybe also white male computer hackers in solitary electronic conIinement. It has seemed to me that Ieminists have both selectively
and Ilexibly used and been trapped by two poles oI a tempting dichotomy on the question oI objectivity. Certainly I speak Ior myselI here, and I oIIer the speculation
that there is a collective discourse on these matters. On the one hand, recent social studies oI science and technology have made available a very strong social
constructionist argument Ior all Iorms oI knowledge claims, most certainly and especiaIly scientiIic ones.2 In these tempting views, no insider's perspective is
privileged, because all drawings oI inside-outside boundaries in knowledge are theorized as power moves, not moves towards truth. So, Irom the strong social
constructionist perspective, why should we be cowed by scientists' descriptions oI their activity and accomplishments; they and their patrons have stakes in throwing
sand in our eyes. They teIl parables about objectivity and scientiIic method to students in the Iirst years oI their initiation, but no practitioner oI the high scientiIic arts
would be caught dead acting on the textbook versions. Social constructionists make clear that oIIicial ideologies about objectivity and scientiIic method are particularly
bad guides to how scientiIic knowledge is actually made. Just as Ior the rest oI us, what scientists believe or say they do and what they reaIly do have a very loose Iit.
The only people who end up actuaIly believing and, goddess Iorbid, acting on the ideological doctrines oI
disembodied scientiIic objectivity enshrined in elementary textbooks and technoscience booster literature are
nonscientists, including a Iew very trusting philosophers. OI course, my designation oI this last group is probably just a reIlection oI residual disciplinary
chauvinism Irom identiIYing with historians oI science and too much time spent with a microscope in early adulthood in a kind oI disciplinary pre-oedipal and
modernist poetic moment when ceIls seemed to be cells and organisms, organisms. Pace, Gertrude Stein. But then came the law oI the Iather and its resolution oI the
problem oI objectivity, solved by always already absent reIerents, deIerred signiIieds, split subjects, and the endless play oI signiIiers. Who wouldn't grow up warped?
Gender, race, the world itselI - all seem just eIIects oI warp speeds in the play oI signiIiers in a cosmic Iorce
Iield. All truths become warp speed eIIects in a hyper-real space oI simulations. But we cannot aIIord these
particular plays on words the projects oI craIting reliable knowledge about the 'natural' world cannot be given
over to the genre oI paranoid or cynical science Iiction. For political people, social constructionism cannot be
allowed to decay into the radiant emanations oI cynicism. In any case, social constructionists could maintain that the
ideological doctrine oI scientiIic method and all the philosophical verbiage about epistemology were cooked up
to distract our attention Irom getting to know the world eIIectively by practising the sciences. From this point oI
view, science - the real game in town, the one we must play - is rhetoric, the persuasion oI the relevant social
actors that one's manuIactured knowledge is a route to a desired Iorm oI very objective power. Such persuasions
must take account oI the structure oI Iacts and arteIacts, as well as oI language mediated actors in the
knowledge game. Here, arteIacts and Iacts are parts oI the powerIul art oI rhetoric. Practice is persuasion, and
the Iocus is very much on practice. All knowledge is a condensed node in an agonistic power Iield. The strong programme in the sociology oI
knowledge joins with the lovely and nasty tools oI semiology and deconstruction to insist on the rhetorical nature oI truth, including scientiIic truth. History is a story
Western culture buIIs tell each other; science is a contestable text and a power Iield; the content is the Iorm.3 Period. The Iorm in science is the arteIactual-social
rhetoric oI craIting the world into eIIective objects. This is a practice oI world-changing persuasions that take the shape oI amazing new objects - like microbes, quarks,
and genes.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
126
AT: You`re 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.
Political Science. 'TechnoFeminism. Pgs. 86)
Again it is important to note that Haraway is not anti-science. Her understanding oI the ways in which sex and
gender are themselves deIined and constituted in the liIe sciences makes her want to build a stronger science. She
is sympathetic to Ieminist attempts to develop a successor science based on 'standpoint theory' - that is, Ieminist epistemologies which privilege women's 'ways oI
knowing' above others.
10
The key idea here is that knowledge produced Irom women's standpoint or experience is dis-
tinctive in Iorm as well as in content, and should be the Ioundation oI a more comprehensive, truer science.
Haraway's proposition is the notion oI 'situated knowledges', which avoids any essentialist idea oI a universal
women's perspective. Instead, she calls Ior a Ieminist science that acknowledges its own contingent, located
Ioundations just as it recognizes the contingent, located Ioundations oI other claims Ior knowledge.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
127
AII erm
Comb|n|ng gender w|th Ik |s poss|b|e soc|a| construct|v|sm |s based on the foundat|on necessary
for gender theory Convent|ona| Ik theory |s su|ted to study|ng gender as a subset of soc|a| re|at|ons
under|y|ng wor|d po||t|cs @he po|nt of v|ew wou|d be d|fferent but thats good |t underm|nes the
|dea that gender |s on|y for fem|n|sts
Carpenter 02 (R. Charli, Assistant ProIessor in the Department oI Political Science at University oI Massachusetts-Amherst, "Gender Theory in World Politics:
Contributions oI 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 satisIy three
criteria: 1) they must allow Ior the possibility oI talking about the social construction oI 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 Iormula requires gender theories to be explicitly normative, as Tickner and others claim Ieminism 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
oI the social constructivist work on norms and identities actually claims to share an epistemological Iramework with those
traditions Tickner considers conventional while possessing the ontological orientation that Whitworth claims is necessary Ior
gender theory. 16 II gender as an explanatory Iramework 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 Iocus 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 Ieminist gender theories; this may reIlect, as Tickner argues, a systematic gender bias.
Yet it does not result Irom theoretical incompatibility. This variant oI constructivism is ontologically suited to studying gender
norms and identities, as a speciIic component oI the broader category oI social relations composing world
politics. While Locher and Prugl correctly have pointed out that constructivists would epistemologically approach gender in a
diIIerent way than Ieminists, it does not mean, as they conclude, that constructivists must incorporate Ieminist epistemologies to study gender.17 It only
means that the two sorts oI gender theory will be somewhat diIIerent; the study oI gender norms and international policy should be no more an epistemological problem
Ior constructivists than the study oI nuclear weapons taboos or humanitarian intervention. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink's examination oI the spread oI
women's suIIrage as a norm oI civilized society may be an example oI such scholarship-a work that is absent Irom Tickner's bibliography oI scholarship on gender.18
This is less a matter oI inherent incompatibility than oI Ieminists and constructivists overcoming the notion that
gender studies is a Ieminist preserve.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
128
AII erm
We shou|d accept fem|n|sm on|y as one gender Ik theory of many -onfem|n|st gender theory |s poss|b|e
and necessary to f||| |n theoret|ca| gaps Iem|n|sts have tr|ed and fa||ed to do th|s themse|ves What |s
necessary |s a marr|age of gender theory and convent|ona| Ik
Research on gender in IR Iaces a conundrum. Feminist approaches-while rich, diverse, and a much needed critique-are substantively
narrow as their emphasis is women in world aIIairs rather than international politics itselI. Yet scholars working in
nonIeminist traditions Iace disciplinary barriers to appropriating "gender" in conventional Irameworks. Given the signiIicance oI
gender in world politics and some oI the limitations to Ieminist approaches described above, there are two questions Ior IR Ieminists and the broader community: Can
IR Ieminists adjust their Irameworks to generate more inclusive analyses while retaining their Iocus on women's
emancipation? Can nonIeminist scholars interested in gender create a space Ior generating their own theories oI gender in
world politics while engaging with rather than substituting Ior the insights oI Ieminist theory? Two recent books provide
clues. The collection edited by Caroline Moser and Fiona Clark begins by questioning some oI the stereotypes in earlier
IR Ieminist work on gender. The editors wish to go beyond the essentializing oI women as victims and men as
perpetrators oI violence, a view that they argue denies women agency, as well as obscures the complexity oI gender in armed conIlict. The book "aims to
contribute to a more comprehensive, global understanding oI the complex roles, responsibilities and interests oI women and men, whether as victims, perpetrators or
actors, in armed conIlict and political violence" (p. 4). A promising agenda, but how well do the chapters in this book actually Iollow through? OI all the
articles, only one chieIly concerns men and masculinity; only two have a roughly balanced gender analysis that emphasizes the eIIects oI armed conIlict on the well-
being oI 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 aIIects 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 aIIects any other aspects oI the war and peace
process; and comments such as the goal being "a peaceIul existence Ior women" (Simona Sharoni, p. 99) or "although war aIIected men and women alike, Ior women the losses are innumerable" (Ibanez, p. 117) are
hidden among the talk oI theoretical advancement.12 Despite Cynthia Cockburn's remarkably coherent explanatory Iramework, articulated in the Iirst chapter, Iew oI the chapters Iollow through on a systematic analysis oI
gender. Instead, most oI the authors conIuse sex and gender (pp. 10, 30, 92). What is leIt is a great deal oI descriptive research on sex-diIIerentiated behavior, impacts, and issues in armed conIlict but little explanatory
analysis oI how gender (identities, belieIs, and discourses) constructs these outcomes or how best to target those attitudes Ior change. The book remains a solid Ieminist
description oI women's troubles, with some attention given to the conjoint diIIiculties men Iace and a positive spin on how women can mobilize to create solutions. For example, Sharoni's
chapter on women activists on both sides oI the Northern Ireland conIlict and in Palestine examines variation in the impact oI national struggles on women's liberties. Donny Meerten's analysis oI displacement in Colombia
celebrates women's coping strategies as a buIIer against the struggles oI urban existence. Urvashi Butalia's work on women's Ieminist and antiIeminist mobilization in India both undermines the idea oI a generic pan-Iemale
solidarity and explains the paradox oI Iemale support Ior bloody communalism and suttee. These chapters indeed move Ieminist work on political violence beyond simple Iormulas, capturing situational nuance and providing
new puzzles and new answers. Yet the book does little to generate an inclusive agenda Ior showing how gender aIIects 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 aIIects not women per se, but patterns oI armed conIlict and political violence generally. Where the Moser and Clark book
tries to transcend Ieminist biases while retaining a Iocus on women, Goldstein brings Ieminist theories to bear on the
"conventional" agenda oI 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 warIare. War and Gender does not read like Francis
Fukuyama's Iacile argument about the relative utility oI 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 Ior or against a long list oI hypotheses drawn Irom evolutionary biology and Ieminist theories (essentialist
and constructivist). His survey is remarkably thorough, accounting both Ior sex diIIerentiation in the location oI human beings in institutions oI war and peace and Ior the gendered cultural constructions that sustain them. The
work will be important in placing "gender" in the Ieminist sense on the agenda oI those interested in understanding the social dynamics oI warIare. Moreover, War and Gender will become an important teaching resource in
undergraduate IR courses, which may do more than anything to mainstream concepts oI gender in the discipline. Goldstein's work is groundbreaking as an example oI
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 identiIies is one between Ieminism 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 ... oI war in and between states" that
Ieminists wish to push beyond.'4 Yet this work is only a Iirst step toward integrating gender as a theory into conventional IR. On
the subject oI 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 Ior the conversation itselI. Relative to the complexity oI Ieminist approaches to gender, Goldstein's analytical Iramework seems oversimpliIied. 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 Ieminine roles and bodies
alike" (p. 2), he is doing reIlectively 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 oI overlap between bodies and ideas is an important contribution because so much literature continues to posit a Ialse dichotomy between them. Nonetheless, the distinction between sex
and gender remains important Ior operationalizing the two, and the intelligibility oI Goldstein's analysis, particularly to the lay reader, suIIers as a result oI this conIlation. Moreover, Goldstein sets up male predominance in
organized Iighting as a constant rather than exploring what variation exists. He then seeks to explain it by reIerring to conIigurations in physiology and culture that actually do vary greatly. What is lacking is
reIerence to speciIic research agendas within mainstream theory: the democratic peace, ethnic conIlict, nuclear
proliIeration, collective security. Goldstein has demonstrated the breadth oI intersections among sex, gender, and the war system and has demonstrated that
objective empirical theory on gender is possible in IR. But gender as an analytical category must also be welded to the
mainstream IR agenda oI explaining variation in international political outcomes. The remaining section sketches such a possible
marriage oI explanatory gender theory with "conventional constructivism."
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
129
AII erm

A construct|v|st theory of gender |n Ik wou|d |ead to the understand|ng of gender |n po||t|cs |n three
ways by ref|n|ng the term|no|ogy |ncorporat|ng theory about groups bes|des women and creat|ng
more accurate mode|s
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 Ieminist theory routinely conIlates
these two concepts, either Ior theoretical reasons 19 or because oI 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 Irom some oI the issues that
postmodernists point to, and Irom certain anomalies in human biology, it useIully maps onto the constructivist
distinction between "material Iorces" and "ideas." For example, John Searle has distinguished between "brute Iacts" (objects that exist in the
real world like tanks, nuclear weapons, or people with uteruses) and "social Iacts" like money, Christmas, marriage, or misogyny, which require intersubjective
agreement on their existence and constitution.21 It is an empirical Iact 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 oI those gender ideologies are separate Irom the sheer
physiology oI humans; gender ideologies, institutions, and identities built on them are social Iacts. That the social and material interrelate does not mean, as Goldstein
insists, that the distinction is analytically irrelevant. It may be true, Ior 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 oI the mutual
interaction oI the social and material worlds that is the task oI constructivist IR in its critical and explanatory versions. An engagement oI conventional
constructivists with these operationalization questions is certain to generate interesting dialogue between
mainstream and Ieminist 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 oI work to draw on in this capacity,
emphasizing links between masculinism and militarism, the role oI gender in constructing national identities and interests, the embeddedness oI gendered thinking in
Ioreign policy discourses and its inIluence on political action, and the importance oI gender belieIs in sustaining the international political economy. But the key
purpose oI Ieminist theory is to investigate and argue Ior improvements in the well-being oI women. As Tickner
emphasizes, it is women, not interactions between states, that are the primary dependent variable in Ieminist IR (p. 139). Conversely, gender
constructivists can use the analytical category Ieminists have developed to understand the IR agenda as
conventionally deIined. A rich variety oI questions pertinent to mainstream IR theory is possible. Were American women allowed to Iight in the GulI War Ior
manpower reasons, to satisIy domestic women voters, or as a part oI psychological warIare against the opponent's male-dominated Iorces? Were these strategies
eIIective, or does increasing hostility among allied Middle Eastern publics constitute a variety oI "blowback" eIIect? Do the strategic advantages oI shiIts oI sex
composition oI modern militaries outweigh the social and institutional challenges? How best can states uphold morale among soldiers programmed with militarized
identities while successIully achieving the paciIist imperatives oI humanitarian interventions? Can assumptions about gender embedded in international custom help
explain patterns oI intervention? How do gender relations inIluence the personality and the behavior oI 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 belieIs about one's masculinity or Iemininity), gender ideology (principled belieIs about relations between men and women), and
gender structure (distribution oI embodied men and women into social and political institutions). All three oI these inIluence and are manipulated
by gender norms (collectively held causal and prescriptive belieIs regarding gender roles), and all constitute and reinIorce a global (but
changing) gender regime. SpeciIying and generating explanatory models Ior how these interrelate in diIIerent
contexts, with reIerence to speciIic issue areas relevant to studying world politics, can do much more than
advance knowledge on women's subordination. It can advance knowledge on IR itselI.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
130
AII erm
Comb|n|ng trad|t|ona| Ik w|th gender enab|es us to understand the wor|d
II we accept that Ieminism 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 Ieminists interested in "generating demands Ior change"
(Cockburn, p. 16), but also by "conventional" scholars who wish to understand the world as it is. II we take the explanatory
claims oI IR Ieminism seriously -- as I believe we must -- then conventional IR theorists must recognize gender, whether or not
they wish to be Ieminists, in the course oI Iurthering their own agenda. This research should be undertaken in
such a way as to complement and engage, rather than substitute Ior, Ieminist IR theory. Perhaps this could
engender the substantive dialogue between Ieminists and "the mainstream" that Tickner so Iervently seeks.
AFF - China - Perm
Cooperation in space creates an ethic of hospitality that suspends territorialized sovereignty
Battaglia Forthcoming Debbora, ProIessor oI Anthropology at Mount Holyoke College, 'Arresting Hospitality: The Case oI the Handshake in Space,
DraIt. In Press. Candea, M. and Da Col, G., eds. Journal oI the Royal Anthropological Institute. Special Issue on 'Hospitality',
http://arc5.academia.edu/DEBBORABATTAGLIA/Papers/332022/ArrestingHospitalityTheCaseoItheHandshakeinSpace|

Denying rights to hosting, authoring, or authorizing hospitality other than cooperatively, Iieldworking
astronauts and cosmonauts 'acted out' a separation Irom the tyranny oI territory, opening political as well as
cultural space Ior modeling a space ethics oI hospitality. As iI in one voice, they iterate the separation that Derrida perIorms Irom Kant's
position that another should not be treated with hostility when arriving on someone else's territory. With territory deIerred and displaced into an
unmarked Iuture, hospitality opens to Iaith-based acts oI relation: 'the welcomed guest is a stranger treated as a
Iriend or ally, as opposed to the stranger treated as an enemy (Iriend/enemy, hospitality/hostility)' (2000:4).
The Iurther extension is the eIIect oI this political-aesthetic regime on notions oI sovereignty. Space as related to sovereignty is oIten written as an elision oI 'space' and
'place'.' However, space-as-itselI absorbs this discursive Iield. Allowing that its properties have very speciIic
warping eIIects on entities, social practices and institutions, it is itselI unshapeable and as such, can be pressed
into service oI sovereign narratives and images only as a rhetorical device. Outer space reIuses speciIicity other
than as places like Moon or Mars, which reduce empire to terran dimensions Ior the imaginaries oI conquest or colonization they
elicit, and iterate as nomadic spacecraIt analogs. But not on the occasion oI the 'handshake'. The craIt and persons suspended in space likewise
suspend, iI only Ior the space oI a mission, their own sociopolitical dimensions (that is, commit the permeability oI boundaries oI metal and
human skins) to becoming deIerentially oI space, allied there in non-negotiable submission to its laws. To take up sidelong
the point that Agamben (2005) carries Iorward Irom Carl Schmitt Ior deIining sovereignty, space-as-itselI is the only possible sovereign
power: that to which exceptions to human laws source. It is in this sense that the cosmonauts and astronauts oI Apollo-Soyuz were acting
both humbly and boldly as 'little gods' who would deny a politics oI territory a place oI privilege in space or on Earth, even as the powers to which they
owed their allegiance committed to this value explicitly in oIIicial rhetorics oI colonization and/or conquest. It is
thus that space creates space Ior a God concept in the company oI which both religious orthodoxies and orthodox science can only be uncomIortable (cI. Derrida 2002).
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
131
Aff: Perm Satellites
A|t to fem|n|sm so|ves a|| even sate|||tes

Yet, while global satellite-based science has the earmarks oI a mammoth technocratic enterprise, it is not immune to public opinion, nor are its Iruits 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 behalI oI nature and cultural survival. Perhaps most intriguing is
the use oI satellite data by indigenous groups Ior mapping their customary land rights and documenting the role
oI the state and multinational corporations in ecological destruction."' Environmental advocacy groups and
indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, the Amazon, and the PaciIic Northwest are at-to their
traditional into modern scientiIic tempting integrate knowledge methodologies through the use oI satellite-
generated data and mapping soItware.62 These examples suggest that there is an alternative to viewing the earth as
alien Other, as an object oI knowledge and an object oI control. Evelyn Fox Keller's work provides one example oI the sort oI
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 Ior understanding. Keller likens dynamic objectivity to empathy, a way oI knowing others that draws
upon a commonality oI Ieelings and experience in order to enhance one's understanding oI another
individual.63But iI the other is to retain his integrity as other, then empathy must not degenerate into projection; the knower must
maintain an awareness oI her own subjective assumptions and experiences and a conception oI selI that is
distinct yet not disconnected. InIormed by a sense oI dynamic objectivity, Earth remote sensing could approach
nature with a sense oI empathy and respect, rather than as an object oI planetary management. The global
perspective aIIorded by satellites could honor local cultures and the needs oI those whose voices are not heard
in the current discourse oI global environmental management. Perhaps such an orientationwould make it possible Ior the earth to speak to us
through the satellites, "to declare its subjecthood.""64Might the view Irom space, along with Iourteen petabytes oI data and computer-simulated graphics, induce not
only a state oI awe-not so much oI the earth itselI but oI human scientiIic and technological prowess-but also something resembling the sense oI empathy that inIorms
Keller's notion oI dynamic Once the celebratory discourse surrounding satellite-based objectivity?65 monitoring oI the earth is seen Ior the masking mechanism that it
is, and once the alienating discourse oI the environment as a system to be managed is aban-doned, such a possibility might be realized. A more postmodern
Ieminist rehabilitation oI Earth-observing satellites is also possible. Keller's ideas, like those oI ecoIeminism,
are rooted in a gender psychology oI diIIerence, although they clearly recognize the social construction oI
gender and are thereIore less vulnerable to the charges oI essentialism that have ecoIeminism.66Kathleen notion oI and
Plagued Ferguson's "mobile subjectivities" oI Donna notion oI catch some oI the Haraway's "cyborgs" Iascinating ambiguity indigenous peoples and environmental
groups using satellite data to press their claims.67Here, there is no pure and unitary conception oI woman to counter patriarchal
modernity; nor is the line between humans and nature sharply drawn. Just as Christine Sylvester cites "the
imaginative reworkings oI seemingly Iixed identities" in the "elephant-artist,"68 so might Earth-remote sensing
promote such identities as "ecological technician" or "indigenous multispectral analyst."
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
132
AFF: Perm Solves
The use of space as a new frontier allows for alternative conceptions to emerge.
Modern criticism has long debated the Iunction(s) oI utopian Iantasies Ior the process oI cultural selI-Iashioning, pointing to the peculiar link between visions oI the
Iuture and reIerences to the present. "B|y examining people's ideas about the Iuture," Claudia Springer observes, "we can learn about
their responses to present-day issues, Ior contemporary cultural battles Iind expression in even the most shocking and improbable speculations about
the Iuture" (15). Conceived in this manner, the obsession oI contemporary science Iiction with images oI transgression can be
seen as a comment on the current dilemma concerning identity roles. The realm oI science Iiction abounds with
visions oI gender-neutral or matriarchal societies, oI sex-changes and miraculous bodily transIormations, oI
hypersexual, multisexual, and sometimes asexual creatures. In this essay, I will argue that the motiI oI identity subversion
is combined in American science Iiction with another key image most characteristic oI cultural selI-models: the
discovery and utilization oI new Irontiers. The merging oI gender issues with issues oI cultural selI-Iashioning is necessarily ambiguous, revealing
a model oI the Iuture that can be both aIIirmative and subversive. This model may reconstruct old Irontiers in the guise oI new ones,
but it may also open up truly alternative ways oI conceptualizing the world.

The alternative requires the plan to ground and center its contestation
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 perIect icon oI the
union oI all issues under environmentalism's rubric: the "whole earth," the lovely, cloud-wrapped, blue, planet
earth is simultaneously a kind oI Ietus Iloating in the amniotic cosmos and a mother to all its own inhabitants,
germ oI the Iuture, matrix oI the past and present. It is a perIect globe, joining the changeling matter oI mortal bodies and the
ideal eternal sphere oI the philosophers. This snapshot resolves the dilemma oI modernity, the separation oI
Subject and Object, Mind and Body. There is, however, a jarring note in all this, even for the most devout.
That particular image oI the earth, oI Nature, could only exist iI a camera on a satellite had taken the picture,
which is, oI course, precisely the case. Who speaks Ior 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 oI a complex collective entity, involving many circuits, delegations, and displacements oI competencies. Only in the context oI the space race
in the Iirst place, and the militarization and commodiIication oI the whole earth, does it make sense to relocate
that image as the special sign oI an anti-nuclear, anti-militaristic, earth-Iocused politics. The relocation does
not cancel its other resonances; it contests for their outcome. I read Environmental Action's "whole earth" as a sign oI an irreducible
artiIactual social nature, like the Gaia oI SF writer John Varley and biologist Lynn Margulis. Relocated on this particular T-shirt, the satellite's eye view oI
planet earth provokes an ironic version oI the question, who speaks Ior the earth (Ior the Ietus, the mother, the jaguar, the object
world oI nature, all those who must be represented)? For many oI us, the irony made it possible to participate-indeed, to
participate as Iully committed, iI semiotically unruly, eco- Ieminists. Not everybody in the Mother's and Others'
Day Action would agree; Ior 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-Ieminism and the non-violent direct action movement have been
based on struggles over diIIerences, not on identity. There is hardly a need Ior aIIinity groups and their endless process iI
sameness prevailed. AIIinity is precisely not identity; the sacred image oI 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 diIIraction, on the processing oI small but consequential diIIerences. The processing oI
diIIerences, semiotic action, is about ways oI liIe

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
133
AFF: Astronaut turn

AII @he f|gure of the astronaut can undo gender
7 The Iigure oI the astronaut stands at the center oI such Iantasies. Sci-Ii texts can either accentuate the spacewalker's national aIIiliation or point to his/her resistance to
any Iorm oI collective identity. The Iashioning oI "astronautic subjects," however, is not limited to the realm oI science Iiction, nor is it restricted to a certain terrain
within the cultural imagination. The "astronautic subject" is a quite real phenomenon oI postmodern social and cultural
practice. Since it ostentatiously conceals the protagonist's actual biological sex behind a thick uniIorm, the
concept oI astronautic subjectivity encourages us to question the validity oI any Iorm oI core identity. Moreover, by
highlighting the astronaut's desire to conquer new terrains, it intimates the possibility oI a Iar-reaching transIormation oI social patterns. 8 Hence, the astronaut
can be seen as a chronotope Ior the transcendence - and eventually subversion - oI (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, reIerring to the
pioneer status oI the astronaut in the 1960s. Like Jesus Christ, the astronaut is both a missionary and a martyr. The iconic Iunction oI the astronaut in em~You Only
Live Twice/em~ is underpinned by the Iact that the actor who plays Chris is not speciIied in the Iilm's credits which only reIer to Norman Jones and Paul Carson as the
actors playing the two astronauts on the Iirst spacecraIt. The images oI the Iirst spacewalker, Edward H. White, taken in June, 1965, can hardly be distinnational icons
attached to it and the helmet (which even hides Iacial Ieatures), we guished Irom the pictures oI Bruce McCandless, shot almost twenty years later. Time seems to be
meaningless Ior the spacewalker. In such illustrations, astronautic identity is portrayed as a surIace - consistent in its utter
appearance, but also inscrutable as Iar as the structure behind it is concerned. The lack oI mimic play and
outward gestures makes the astronaut a projection Iield oI our own ideas. Since the astronaut's appearance is marked mainly by the
spacesuitwith its are continuously looking Ior clues behind this cold Iaade - 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
26 Astronauts are oIten depicted in Western cultural imagery as postmodern migrants, independently traveling or rather Iloating towards new territories. While the motiI oI the nomad evokes a clear-cut and manageable range
or radius in which the individual operates, astronauts are Iaced with the task oI conquering, interconnecting, and traversing new galaxies. Astronauts are travelers not only in space but also in time. Instead oI remaining within
the geographical limits oI cultural aIIiliation, the astronaut is searching Ior "the Iinal Irontier," to quote the opening lines oI the original Star Trek series. The starship Enterprise, the narrator tells us, sets out to explore "strange
new worlds, to seek out new liIe and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone beIore." Since the 1960s, central parameters oI astrophysics have been integrated into the postmodern imagination. Galaxies - this is
a key thesis oI modern space research - are not singular or homogeneous objects, but agglomerations, complex structures with unstable limits and a heterogeneous distribution oI mass in relation to time and space. The
postmodern subject has recognized in the metaphor oI the "new Irontier" his and her own situation, which is equally marked by a multiplication and complication oI liIe worlds. Due to Iundamental
changes in the ideological and social Iabric oI society in the course oI the 20th century, the postmodern
individual learned to make adaptability part oI his and her body scheme. The result oI this development is, as Susan
Bordo has demonstrated, a type oI "postmodern body" that builds its selI-conception on a logic oI constant
transIormation and assimilation: "T|he postmodern body is the body oI the mythological Trickster, the shape-shiIter: oI
indeterminate sex and changeable gender | who continually alters her/his body, creates and recreates a personality | and| Iloats
across time, Irom period to period, place to place." ("Feminism" 467) 27 The image oI "Iloating across time, Irom period to period, place to
place," conjured up by Bordo, can equally be applied to the Iigure oI the astronaut. In the image oI the independent
spacewalker, the components oI spatial and temporal boundary crossing are represented in a condensed Iorm. Like
hardly any other mythological Iigure, the astronaut stands Ior the ideals oI exploration and conquest oI new territories. Comparable only to the courageous settler in the early phases oI the westward movement, the space
pioneer epitomizes the aspirations and yearnings oI the American quest. Western cultural imagination has Iound the ideal expression Ior this belieI in Neil Armstrong's Iamous words, articulated aIter he Iirst set his Ioot on the
moon: "That's one small step Ior man - one giant leap Ior mankind." The astronaut in this imagery is not only a rugged individualist. Moreover, his masculinity is a model Ior humanity itselI. Such gendered ascriptions were
conIirmed in the Sixties and Seventies with the medial presence oI spacemen such as Neil Armstrong und John Glenn. It was not until the Eighties that, with Iemale astronauts like Sally Ride and Judy Resnik, a more
diversiIied image was established. In the past twenty years, the Iigure oI the astronaut has not only Ieminized visibly, it also
become more "androgynous." The term "androgyny" is explicitly used by NASA experts to signiIy a need Ior
balance and harmony during space expeditions. A recent study published on the oIIicial homepage oI NASA, titled appropriately "Living AloIt:
Human Requirements Ior Extended SpaceIlight," contains the Iollowing statement: "A|ndrogyny appears highly desirable Ior astronauts, Ior 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 selI concepts and the ability to develop satisIying interpersonal relations. By "androgynous personalities," the
scientists deIine individuals oI either biological sex who are capable oI perIorming diIIerent social roles in
everyday practice in space. "Androgynous crewmembers," the scientists claim, "may have the value oI increasing social variety within a crew" (ibid).
The question oI a transIormability oI traditional gender roles raised in the NASA report touches upon a number
oI issues situated in the nexus oI social and cultural practice. To the extent that the boundary lines within our imagination are altered, the Iigure oI the
mythological boundary crosser, too, becomes multi-layered.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
134
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
35 The genre oI science Iiction oIIers consumers an ambivalent image oI identity. Whereas some texts are exaggerated or comical, others
make a genuine attempt to re-Iashion the ideological patterns oI Western thinking. In any case, there is more than just one Iunction to this diverse genre: Neither is it
meant Ior entertainment purposes alone, nor is its single goal selI-empowerment, or even subversion. Even the more "progressive" science-Iiction texts are oIten based
on an ambiguous premise: While pointing to the possibility oI Iundamental changes in society, they are also loaded with concessions to hegemonic culture, oIten
culminating in a hidden aIIirmation oI existing structures. This applies in particular to the processes oI gendering, disgendering and regendering in utopian Iiction. It is
leIt up to the audiences who consume these texts iI the search Ior a gender-Iree space can continue on a more pragmatic level or iI it remains an illusion. As Treut's Iilm
Gendernauts, among others, has suggested, there are numerous structural analogies between utopian Iiction and social
reality - analogies which can be instrumentalized and "acted out" by citizens and consumers (no matter oI transsexual,
multisexual, or metrosexual) every day. The postmodern individual is especially inclined to make use oI such connections
in order to break out oI the perceived ghetto oI social constraints and Iind selI-aIIirmation. In the age oI expressive
individualism8|WinIried Fluck uses this term to describe the Iundamental transIormations in values that occurred in postmodern societies between the mid 60s and the
late 70s. "The culture oI expressive individualism," Fluck explains, "is not primarily concerned with a social rise to respectability but with the possibility oI selI-
realization" ("Cultures" 216). Marked by the desire to Iind gratiIication and selI-empowerment at almost any cost, expressive individualism implies components oI
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 oI expressive individualism, participating in a virtual contest over the
most innovative and most satisIying modes oI selI-IulIillment., such attempts have to be radical and
uncompromising in nature. The aIIinity oI authorship and utopianism is at the heart oI such creative operations. Marge Piercy's science-Iiction novel He,
She, and It (1991) oIIers a remarkable vision oI a collective boundary subversion in the near Iuture. Set in the mid-21
st
century in a place called Norika (actually
the Iormer North America - now a contaminated wasteland permeated by huge environmental domes), the novel encourages us to make use oI existing
structures oI thought and organization to Iundamentally change the path oI progress. In the Iinal passages oI her tale, Piercy
draws a connection between the act oI creating science Iiction and the manuIacturing oI cyborgs described in the book: Both the author herselI and the characters
participate in a "strange and instructive journey" (446), the outcome being not clear yet. 38 The astronaut is a crucial Iigure Ior a discussion oI
postmodern subjectivity. Like the cyborg, he/she seems to resist stable inscriptions, being endowed with a sense
oI autonomy that detaches his/her body Irom patterns bound to a certain time or location. The astronaut is clearly marked as
a creature oI Iuture times, an inhabitant oI 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 oI new terrains; moreover, he/she is
a composite creature, meandering between both genders and traveling between the realms oI social practice and
utopia. Most importantly, the concept evokes a Iiguration oI overcoming the traditional dualisms oI mind and space.
As astronautic subjects, we are courageous enough to enter new spheres and independent enough to develop
alternative Iorms oI thinking - even at the risk oI sometimes losing our sense oI orientation.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
135
AII 8ut|er Counterk
@he search for a un|versa| structure of patr|archy to cha||enge den|es the mu|t|p||c|ty of women's |dent|ty
Butler 99 (Judith, Ph.D Yale, Maxine Elliott proIessor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley, Gender Trouble`, p. 6-7)
Apart Irom the Ioundationalist Iictions that support the notion oI the subject, however, there is the political problem that Ieminism
encounters in the assumption that the term women denotes a common identity. Rather than a stable signiIier that commands the
assent oI those whom it purports to describe and represent, women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term, a site oI
contest, a cause Ior anxiety. As Denise Riley`s title suggests, Am I That Name? is a question produced by the very possibility oI the name`s multiple
signiIications.3 II one 'is a woman, that is surely not all one is; the term Iails to be exhaustive, not because a pregendered
'person transcends the speciIic paraphernalia oI its gender, but because gender is not always constituted coherently or consistently
in diIIerent historical contexts, and because gender inter- sects with racial, class, ethnic, sexual, and regional
modalities oI discursively constituted identities. As a result, it becomes impossible to separate out 'gender Irom
the political and cultural intersections in which it is invariably produced and maintained. The political
assumption that there must be a universal basis Ior Ieminism, one which must be Iound in an identity assumed to exist cross-culturally,
oIten accompanies the notion that the oppression oI women has some singular Iorm discernible in the universal or
hegemonic structure oI patriarchy or masculine domination. The notion oI a universal patriarchy has been widely criticized in recent
years Ior its Iailure to account Ior the workings oI gender oppression in the concrete cultural contexts in which it exists. Where those various contexts have been
consulted within such theories, it has been to Iind 'examples or 'illustrations oI a universal principle that is assumed Irom the start. That Iorm oI Ieminist theorizing
has come under criticism Ior its eIIorts to colonize and appropriate non-Western cultures to support highly Western notions oI oppression, but because they tend as well
to construct a 'Third World or even an 'Orient in which gender oppression is subtly explained as symptomatic oI an essential, non-Western barbarism. The
urgency oI Ieminism to establish a universal status Ior patriarchy in order to strengthen the appearance oI
Ieminism`s own claims to be representative has occasionally motivated the shortcut to a categorical or Iictive
universality oI the structure oI domination, held to produce women`s common subjugated experience.

Masculine/Feminine binaries, and viewing women as a homogenous group creates refusal to accept
feminist thought.
Although the claim oI universal patriarchy no longer enjoys the kind oI credibility it once did, the notion oI a generally shared conception oI 'women, the corollary to
that Iramework, has been much more diIIicult to displace. Certainly, there have been plenty oI debates: Is there some commonality among
'women that preexists their oppression, or do 'women have a bond by virtue oI their oppression alone? Is there a speciIicity to women`s cultures that is
independent oI their subordination by hegemonic, masculinist cultures? Are the speciIicity and integrity oI women`s cultural or
linguistic practices always speciIied against and, hence, within the terms oI some more dominant cultural
Iormation? II there is a region oI the 'speciIically Ieminine, one that is both diIIerentiated Irom the masculine as such and recognizable in its diIIerence by an
unmarked and, hence, presumed universality oI 'women? The masculine/Ieminine binary constitutes not only the exclusive
Iramework in which that speciIicity can be recognized, but in every other way the 'speciIicity oI the Ieminine
is once again Iully decontextualized and separated oII analytically and politically Irom the constitution oI class,
race, ethnicity, and other axes oI power relations that both constitute 'identity and make the singular notion oI
identity a misnomer. My suggestion is that the presumed universality and unity oI the subject oI Ieminism is eIIectively
undermined by the constraints oI the representational discourse in which it Iunctions. Indeed, the premature
insistence on a stable subject oI Ieminism, understood as a seamless category oI women, inevitably generates multiple reIusals
to accept the category. These domains oI exclusion reveal the coercive and regulatory consequences oI that construction, even when the construction has
been elaborated Ior emancipatory purposes. Indeed, the Iragmentation within Ieminism and the paradoxical opposition to Ieminism Irom 'women whom Ieminism
claims to represent suggest the necessary limits oI identity politics. The suggestion that Ieminism can seek wider representation Ior a subject that it itselI constructs has
the ironic consequence that Ieminist goals risk Iailure by reIusing to take account oI the constitutive powers oI their own representational claims. This problem
is not ameliorated through an appeal to the category oI women Ior merely 'strategic purposes, Ior strategies always
have meanings that exceed the purposes Ior which they are intended. In this case, exclusion itselI might qualiIy as such an unintended yet
consequential meaning. By conIorming to a requirement oI representational politics that Ieminism articulate a stable subject, Ieminism thus opens itselI to
charges oI gross misrepresentation.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
136
AII 8ut|er Counterk
We need to reject current preconceptions of gender, and view women as equals as a prerequisite to
change.
Perhaps there is an opportunity at this juncture oI cultural politics, a period that some would call 'postIeminist, to reIlect Irom
within a Ieminist perspective on the injunction to construct a subject oI Ieminism. Within Ieminist political practice, a
radical rethinking oI the ontological constructions oI identity appears to be necessary in order to Iormulate a representational
politics that might revive Ieminism on other grounds. On the other hand, it may be time to entertain a radical critique that seeks to Iree
Ieminist theory Irom the necessity oI 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 Ieminist theory in a notion oI 'women as subject paradoxically undercut Ieminist goals to
extend its claims to 'representation? Perhaps the problem is even more serious. Is the construction oI the category oI women
as a coherent and stable subject an unwitting regulation and reiIication oI gender relations? And is not such a reiIica- tion
precisely contrary to Ieminist aims? To what extent does the category oI women achieve stability and coherence only in the context oI the heterosexual matrix? II a
stable notion oI gender no longer proves to be the Ioundational premise oI Ieminist politics, perhaps a new sort
oI Ieminist politics is now desirable to contest the very reiIications oI gender and identity, one that will take the
variable construction oI identity as both a methodological and normative prerequisite, iI not a political goal.

Un|form fem|n|st |dent|ty unnecessary for change
The Ioundationalist reasoning oI identity politics tends to assume that an identity must Iirst be in place in order
Ior 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 oI the selI as constituted through its acts, Ior the existential theory maintains a prediscursive structure Ior both the selI and its acts. It is precisely the
discursively variable construction oI each in and through the other that has interested me here. The question oI locating 'agency is usually
associated with the viability oI the 'subject, where the 'subject is understood to have some stable existence prior to the cultural Iield that it
negotiates. Or, iI the subject is culturally constructed, it is nevertheless vested with an agency, usually Iigured as the capacity Ior reIlexive mediation, that remains intact
regardless oI its cultural embeddedness. On such a model, 'culture and 'discourse mire the subject, but do not constitute
that subject. This move to qualiIy and enmire the preexisting subject has appeared necessary to establish a point oI agency that is not Iully determined by that
culture and discourse. And yet, this kind oI reasoning Ialsely presumes (a) agency can only be established through recourse
to a prediscursive 'I, even iI that 'I is Iound in the midst oI a discursive convergence, and (b) that to be
constituted by discourse is to be determined by discourse, where determination Iorecloses the possibility oI agency. Even within the
theories that maintain a highly qualiIied or situated subject, the subject still encounters its discursively constituted environment in an oppositional epistemological
Irame. The culturally enmired subject negotiates its constructions, even when those constructions are the very predicates oI its own identity. In Beauvoir, Ior 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 oI agency never Iully identiIiable with its gender. That cogito is never Iully oI the cultural world that it
negotiates, no matter the narrowness oI the ontological distance that separates that subject Irom its cultural predicates. The theories oI Ieminist identity that elaborate
predicates oI color, sexuality, ethnicity, class, and able-bodiedness invariably close with an embarrassed 'etc. at the end oI the list. Through this horizontal trajectory oI
adjectives, these positions strive to encompass a situated subject, but invariably Iail to be complete. This Iailure, however, is instructive: what political impetus is to be
derived Irom the exasperat- ed 'etc. that so oIten occurs at the end oI such lines? This is a sign oI exhaustion as well as oI the illimitable process oI signiIication itselI.
It is the supplement, the excess that necessarily accompanies any eIIort to posit identity once and Ior all. This illimitable et cetera, however, oIIers itselI as a new
departure Ior Ieminist political theorizing.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
137
AFF: Butler Counter-K
Gender binaries hurt the feminist cause, and should be contested
Practices oI parody can serve to reengage and reconsolidate the very distinction between a privileged and naturalized gender conIiguration and one that appears as
derived, phantasmatic, and mimetica Iailed copy, as it were. And surely parody has been used to Iurther a politics oI despair, one which aIIirms a seemingly inevitable
exclusion oI marginal genders Irom the territory oI the natural and the real. And yet this Iailure to become 'real and to embody 'the natural is, I would argue, a
constitutive Iailure oI all gender enactments Ior the very reason that these ontological locales are Iundamentally uninhabitable. Hence, there is a subversive laughter in
the pastiche-eIIect oI parodic practices in which the original, the authentic, and the real are themselves constituted as eIIects. The loss oI gender norms
would have the eIIect oI proliIerating gender conIigurations, destabilizing substantive identity, and depriving
the naturalizing narratives oI compulsory heterosexuality oI their central protagonists: 'man and 'woman. The
parodic repetition oI gender exposes as well the illusion oI gender identity as an intractable depth and inner substance. As the eIIects oI a subtle and
politically enIorced perIormativity, gender is an 'act, as it were, that is open to splittings, selI-parody, selI-
criticism, and those hyperbolic exhibitions oI 'the natural that, in their very exaggeration, reveal its
Iundamentally phantasmatic status. I have tried to suggest that the identity categories oIten presumed to be Ioundational
to Ieminist politics, that is, deemed necessary in order to mobilize Ieminism as an identity politics, simultaneously work to limit and
constrain in advance the very cultural possibilities that Ieminism is supposed to open up. The tacit constraints
that produce culturally intelligible 'sex ought to be understood as generative political structures rather than
naturalized Ioundations. Paradoxically, the reconceptualization oI identity as an eIIect, that is, as produced or generated, opens up possibilities oI 'agency
that are insidiously Iore- closed by positions that take identity categories as Ioundational and Iixed. For an identity to be an eIIect means that it is neither Iatally
determined nor Iully artiIicial and arbitrary. That the constituted status oI identity is misconstrued along these two conIlicting
lines suggests the ways in which the Ieminist discourse on cultural construction remains trapped within the
unnecessary binarism oI Iree will and determinism. Construction is not opposed to agency; it is the necessary scene oI agency, the very terms
in which agency is articulated and becomes culturally intelligible. The critical task Ior Ieminism is not to establish a point oI view outside oI constructed identities; that
conceit is the construction oI an epistemological model that would disavow its own cultural location and, hence, promote itselI as a global subject, a position that
deploys precisely the imperialist strategies that Ieminism thought to criticize. The critical task is, rather, to locate strategies oI subversive
repetition enabled by those constructions, to aIIirm the local possibilities oI intervention through participating in
precisely those practices oI repetition that constitute identity and, thereIore, present the immanent possibility oI
contesting them.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
138
AII Space @urn

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 Ieminization oI American space policy, April 12,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/130/1|

Throughout the 1990s, the old language and symbolism oI space policy continued to erode. NASA began to justiIy 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 problemswhat Lord and Jamieson have called
'Ieminine issues. It became commonplace Ior NASA and aerospace company oIIicials 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 oI the International Space
Station in terms oI its ability to contribute to research on health problems oI the aging such as osteoporosis and Alzheimer`s
disease. In the 1980s political junkets by congressmen were justiIied in terms oI Congress` oversight duties, but when John Glenn Ilew aboard a space shuttle in 1998 he
justiIied it in terms oI conducting research on human aging. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin regularly decried the Iact that so
much oI the agency workIorce was 'male, pale and stale. These changes in the rhetoric oI the space program
mirrored larger American society, where a Iocus on health care became the major debate oI the early-to-mid 1990s and where 'soccer moms became a
major voting demographic. There was a Iringe oI the American space community where the more traditional, masculine imagery and language survived, however. That
Iringe was the Mars Society, led by its zealous spokesman Robert Zubrin. Zubrin makes no eIIort to be politically correct with his language and Irequently talks oI the
conquest and colonization oI Mars. He uses language and imagery about America`s western Irontier that is at odds with current scholarship about this subject and that
even some members oI his own organization have Iound oIIensive. His language would have been unnoticeable in 1967, but seems anachronistic today. A clash oI
visions and language Instead oI 'conquest or 'leadership, or 'science, the goal has become 'exploration. In Iact, in his
speech Bush mentioned the word exploration eleven times. He mentioned the word science only once, and then in
terms oI the role that Iuture space exploration can play in inspiring children to pursue careers in sciencethe
traditional Ieminine language oI the modern space program. President Bush`s 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 oI the Cold War. A program oI returning Americans to the moon and eventually sending them to
Mars has traditionally been justiIied in terms oI 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 itselI has embraced the word exploration to deIine its goals without
clearly describing the relationship between science and exploration. And in speeches by the NASA Administrator and the agency`s literature, the goal oI inspiring
children is oIt-repeated as a reason Ior conducting space exploration. Clearly over the years the goals oI the civilian space program have evolved and changed in
response to the larger political environment. It is not simply politics, however, that aIIects the space program. It is the larger social context that molds politics as well.
There is probably no returning to the masculine rhetoric oI space exploration oI days past, even iI space policy
has adopted more ambitious and challenging goals. Politicians and bureaucrats will try to develop new language
and descriptions to broaden the appeal oI these plans.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
139
Aff araway Ind|ct

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 oI Social and Political Sciences, Faculty oI Arts, University oI Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 'The dystopia oI technoscience: An ecoIeminist
critique oI postmodern reason, Futures Volume 41, Issue 4, May 2009, Pages 201-209|

US theorist Donna Haraway, one oI the most creative representatives oI the postmodern tendency, is not unsympathetic to the idea oI an ecoIeminism. And her most
Iamous book Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, does touch base with the word Irom time to time 7| and 8|. Haraway also seeks a usable doctrine oI
objectivity, although in line with her immaculate social constructionism, she is reluctant to agree to any epistemology inscribed in
the daily experience oI women and men. However, her rejection oI embodied Ieminist standpoints as naive
empiricism` seems to cancel her own celebration oI permeable` discursive boundaries between the materialisms oI biota`,
technologies` and texts`. SigniIicantly, Haraway actually cites with approval Evelyn Fox Keller's radical Ieminist 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 oIten imply 9|?3 Again with ecoIeminists, Haraway talks about new and possibly utopian Iorms oI
political subjectivity resisting metaphysical closure`. But in her own account, this implies a poststructuralist
death oI the subject` and even oI the organism`. She commends sociobiologist Dawkins` postmodern sensibility, citing his image oI the
body as a strategic assemblage` oI genes. Likewise, she endorses Heidegger, Gadamer and systems theorists Maturana, Winograd and Flores, who contribute a
doctrine oI interdependence` oI knowing and known entities 11|.4 Yet grassroots Ieminist thought drawing on women's embodied awareness, whether in the Anglo or
French traditions, has always breached the boundaries oI subject and object 12|. EcoIeminists take this transgression Iurther by contesting the traditional Eurocentric
nature/culture dualism; Ior many, a daily avoidance oI meat eating carries that politics into practice. However, Haraway's cyborg philosophy`
eschews ecoIeminist re-identiIication with nature, preIerring instead, the re-invention` oI nature blended with
man-made machine. As she writes: Perhaps, ironically, we can learn Irom our Iusions with animals and machines how not to be Man 13|. To ecoIeminists,
this concession to technoscience, is a contradiction in terms. Since Western men have deIined themselves
precisely by the technological project oI re-Iashioning nature, why should women accept that kind oI arrogance
as a path to emancipation? Haraway's social constructionism is unusual, in that it blends what is Iundamentally an hermeneutic method with trappings oI
the positivist epistemology oI 1950s science, and even scientiIic socialism. Rehabilitating the Iamous hierarchy oI the sciences, she argues: There is no
Iundamental, ontological separation in our Iormal knowledge oI machine and organism, oI technical and
organic 14|. But by this ostensibly neutralist logic, iI machines are simply extensions oI 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 diIIerence, and so began the struggle oI some minds to gain an advantage over
others. This is a Iragment oI strategic narrative, oedipal narrative, and modern technological narrative, where survival - possible Iutures - is at stake in a techno-Ietal
world oI almost minds` Children, AI computer programs, and nonhuman primates 15|. The remote voice oI Haraway's text seems to be
intended to convey both non-judgemental reportage and Ieminist irony. Her Iocus as ever, remains with the
synchronicities oI discourse, and its all but a priori status.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
140
Aff araway Ind|ct

Alt doesn`t 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 oI Social and Political Sciences, Faculty oI Arts, University oI Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 'The dystopia oI technoscience: An ecoIeminist
critique oI postmodern reason, Futures Volume 41, Issue 4, May 2009, Pages 201-209|

The struggle oI capitalist patriarchal men against their naturalised others` women, natives, earth has brought
biotechnology to the cutting edge oI 21st century neo-colonialism. Bryld and Lykke note that Iollowing the Bruntland Commission's
deIinition oI space and oceans as global commons, the United Nations as panopticon` began monitoring the new bio-political` order authoritatively Irom outer space.
Simultaneously, UN agencies got down to the nitty-gritty oI pollution, deIorestation, global warming, and population control. In some quarters, there was an assumption
that in order to maintain the militarised deIence` oI Western masculine goals, extra terrestrial resourcing oI mineral deposits would be necessary. It was assumed that
terraIorming` or the domestication oI other planets would help protect planet earth Ior the enjoyment oI tourists, at least. Haraway's technoscience is
tacitly wedded to this high consumption growth paradigm, and seemingly unselIconscious about its own
situatedness` in the USA. There may be moments oI irony in what she writes, but the medium oI her message surely carries the day. In reIerence to eco-
destruction, Haraway invokes the contemporary scientiIic Iantasy oI a selI-rescuing Gaia. However, according to Indian
ecoIeminist Vandana Shiva, a trenchant critic oI mal-development, the world does not necessarily resist` reduction. This is well illustrated by
the decimation oI Indian Iarming by the Green Revolution and related technology transIers Irom the North. But the happy consciousness oI
Haraway's high tech move Irom reproduction` to genetic replication`, loses an opportunity to discuss the
deeply Ilawed and misogynist Ioundations oI Western science in its corporatist phase.12 Moreover Haraway puts aside
Merchant's ecoIeminist historical research into the systematic witch hunting oI women's knowledge oI natural processes; a purge that made possible the capitalist
patriarchal Enlightenment and its peculiar model oI science. As iI continuing this same tradition, Haraway's postmodern technoscience strives
Ior a complete break with organicism`, and with utopian visions that draw on Amer-Indian or AIro-American ways oI 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 oI selI-loathing is this, that perpetuates the patriarchal value hierarchy oI discourse over
materiality`, culture over nature? Should it be demeaning to say that women Iight Ior peace as mothers`, when it is not demeaning to say that they Iight Ior the
environment as Iarmers` or citizens`? Women's mothering labour does denote speciIic structural relationships, and as Iar as the utopian dream oI a universal
democracy goes, these Iamilial relations will very likely be the last to unravel. In the meantime, the postmodern indictment oI maternalism` is
abusive to the greater majority oI women world wide, whose labours are encumbered with needy dependants.
EcoIeminists can agree with the postmodern Ieminist program to reclaim despised identities`. But the identity oI the mother would have to be the most universally
maligned political category oI all and too much postmodern Ieminist writing is complicit in that.13 Many women in the economic North have traded oII bio-cultural`
realisation, in exchange Ior highly salaried proIessional identities. But in the process, they leave behind quite a bit oI emotional debris to be absorbed by Ieminist theory.
The problematic` image oI the mother is a direct expression oI this status consciousness within North Atlantic Ieminism. To recall Adrienne Rich's words in OI Woman
Born: The body has been made so problematic Ior women that it has oIten seemed easier to shrug it oII and travel as a disembodied spirit 50|. Does this explain
Haraway's Ilight Ior reIuge in an utopia oI cyborgs halI-humanhalI-machine, post gender, post-nuke. But what practical sense does the cyborg
icon make to women activists whose Iarmland 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-scientiIic tales about nature that idealise women ` 51|. But whose interest does this judgement serve?
From an ecoIeminist perspective, it is irresponsible` not to attend to the spontaneous politics by which women have begun
to assume leadership Ior liIe on earth. An historically based re-evaluation oI women's materially embodied
labour and related expertise should never be conIused with idealisation.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
141
AII A@ @hreat Con
Cur |mpacts are not constructed @rad|t|ona||y we underreact to threats G|ve more we|ght to our
|mpact c|a|ms
Schweller 04 (Randal, associate ProIessor in the Department oI 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 oI this type of Iolly, where threatened countries have Iailed 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 ~underbalancing, 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 oI 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
War and as Prussia defeated Austria in 1866, and then France in 1871, establishing German hegemony over Europe. Bismarck then deaed
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 Bismarck`s successor, Leo von Caprivi, refused to renew the 1887
Reinsurance Treaty with Russia for domestic political reasons and despite the czar`s 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 dubious decision of the new German chancellor combined with the
kaiser`s soaring ambitions and truculent diplomacy. Likewise, during the 1930s, none oI the great powers (i.e., Britain, France, the United
States, the Soviet Union, Italy, and 1apan) balanced with any sense oI urgency against Nazi Germany. Instead, they
bandwagoned, buck-passed, appeased, or adopted ineIIective halI 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.1. 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 oI this pattern, no peer competitor has yet emerged more than a decade aIter the end oI U.S.-
Soviet bipolarity to balance against the United States. Contrary to realist predictions, unipolarity has not
provoked global alarm to restore a balance oI power.
A|ternat|ve can't so|ve states must act to que|| threats now
Schweller 04 (Randal, associate ProIessor in the Department oI Political Science at The Ohio State University,
Unanswered Threats`, International Security, Volume 29, Number 2, p.163-164)
From the policymaker`s 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 oI the political
process; as such, they are the product oI competition and consensus building among elites with diIIering ideas about the political-military world and divergent views on
the nation`s 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 oI mass politics, the decision to check unbalanced power by means oI arms and alliesand to go to war iI these deterrent measures Iailis
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 available to them (e.g.,
inaction, appeasement, buck-passing, bandwagoning, etc.) and the expected external beneats oI a restored balance oI power. Structural imperatives rarely, iI ever,
compel leaders to adopt one policy over another; decision makers are not sleepwalkers buIIeted about by inexorable Iorces beyond 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 oI policy elites, who must reach consensus within an oIten decentralized and competitive political process.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
142
All AlL can'L solve

@he patr|archa| |deas the negat|ve kr|t|ks w||| cont|nue to man|fest regard|ess of our attempts to
change our m|ndset @he negat|ve a|ternat|ve cannot so|ve for ma|e dom|nance s|mp|y because |t |s
mascu||ne nature
Coldberg 9, (Steven, Nov , foimei piesiuent of the sociology uepaitment at City College of New Yoik,
ls Potriorcby lnevitoble? Hen rule not becouse tbey ore tolJ to, but becouse it is tbeir noture to Jo so
National Review

In five bundred years tbe world, in all likelihoou, will have become bomogenized. Tbe tbousands of varied
societies anu theii uiamatically uiffeiing methous of socialization, cohesion, family, ieligion, economy, anu politics will bave given way to a
universal culture. Foitunately, cultuial anthiopologists have pieseiveu much of oui piesent uiveisity, which may keep oui uescenuants fiom too
hastily allowing theii natuial human ego- anu ethno-centiicity to concluue that theiis is the only way to manage a society Bowevei, the anthiopological swoiu
is two-eugeu While uiveisity is ceitainly appaient fiom anthiopological investigations, it is also clear tbat tbere are realities wbicb
manifest tbemselves no matter wbat tbe varied forms of tbe aforementioned institutions. Because these
univeisal iealities cut acioss cultuial lines, they aie ciucial to oui unueistanuing of what society by its noture is anu, peihaps, of what human beings aie It is
impoitant, then, that we ask why, when societies uiffei as much as uo those of the Ituii Pygmy, the }ivaio, the Ameiican, the }apanese, anu a thousanu otheis,
some institutions aie univeisal It is always tbe case tbat tbe universal institution serves some need rooted in
tbe deepest nature of buman beings. In some cases the explanation of univeisality is obvious (eg, why eveiy society has methous of
foou gatheiing But tbere are othei universalities wbicb are apparent, though witbout any obvious explanation.
0f the thousanus of societies on which we have any eviuence stiongei than myth (a foim of eviuence that woulu have us believe in Cyclopes, tbere is no
evidence tbat tbere bas ever been a society failing to exbibit thiee institutions: Piimaiy hieiaichies always filleu
piimaiily by men A Queen victoiia oi a uolua Neii is always an exception anu is always suiiounueu by a goveinment of men Inueeu, the con- stiaints of ioyal
lineage may piouuce moie female societal leaueis than uoes uemociacytheie weie moie female heaus of state in the fiist two- thiius of the sixteenth
centuiy than theie weie in the fiist two-thiius of the twentieth The highest status ioles aie male Theie aie societies in which the women uo most of the
impoitant economic woik anu ieai the chiluien, while the men seem mostly to hang loose But, in such societies, hanging loose is given highei status than any
non-mateinal iole piimaiily seiveu by women No uoubt this is paitly uue to tbe fact tbat tbe males bold tbe positions of power
Bowevei, it is also likely that high-status ioles aie male not piimaiily because they aie male (uitch-uigging is male anu low status, but because they aie high
status Tbe bigb status roles aie male because they possessfoi whatevei socially ueteimineu ieason in whichevei specific societyhigh status
This high status exerts a more powerful influence on males tban it does on females. As a result, males
are more willing to sacrifice lifes otber rewards for status dominance tban are females. In theii Not in
0ui uenes, Richaiu Lewontin, Leon Kamin, anu Stephen Rosewho, along with Stephen }ay uoulu aie the best-known uefenueis of the view that emphasizes
the iole of enviionment anu ue-emphasizes that of heieuityattempt to finu fault with my woik by pointing out that most family uoctois in the Soviet 0nion
aie women Bovievei, they acknowleuge that in the Soviet 0nion family uoctoiing |hauj lowei status than in the 0niteu States Which is piecisely the point
No one uoubts that women can be uoctois The question is why uoctois (oi weaveis, oi loau beaieis, etc aie piimaiily women only when being a uoctoi is
given lowei status than aie ceitain ioles playeu mostly by menanu fuitheimoie, why, even when this is the case (as in Russia the uppei hieiaichical
positions ielevant to that specific aiea aie helu by men Dominance in male-female relationsbips is always associated
witb males. Male dominance refers to tbe feeling, of botb men and women, tbat tbe male is
dominant and tbat tbe woman must get around tbe male to attain power. Social attituues may be concoiuant oi
uiscoiuant with the ieality of male uominance In oui own society theie was a time when the mans taking the leau was positively valueu by most women (as
s movies attest touay such a view is puipoiteuly uetesteu by many But attituues towaiu male-uominance behavioi aie causally unimpoitant to the ieality
they juugeanu aie not much moie likely to eliminate the ieality than woulu a social uislike of mens being tallei be able to eliminate mens being tallei

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
143
AII -o mascu||ne Space rogram -ow
@he space program has become more and more fem|n|ne and |ess dependent on |eadersh|p
Day 04 (Dwayne, Day works Ior the Space Studies Board oI the National Research Council/National Academy
oI Sciences.. He received a doctorate degree in political science Irom The George Washington University.He
specialized in space policy. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/130/1 'The Ieminization oI American Space
Policy)
Early discussions oI space exploration were Iilled with masculine language and imagery, oIten connected to militant
imagery. Books and magazine articles in the1950s regularly touted 'the conquest oI space or the heavens, and were dominated by discussions oI competition and
national security. The Apollo program was discussed as a 'race and a Time magazine cover even Ieatured two space-suited Iigures sprinting Ior the moon. Because oI
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 oIIicers worked Ior 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 oI Apollo also coincided with major developments in the world, such as
the Vietnam War and the overthrow oI many colonial governments in AIrica, Asia and elsewhere. Discussions oI conquest and 'colonizing the
moon or other planets now seemed oIIensive to larger numbers oI people. This language even prompted debates within pro-space
activist groups such as the L-5 Society. More liberal members were oIIended by what they viewed as the language oI oppression. Activists began talking oI
space 'settlements rather than space 'colonies. Discussions oI conquest and 'colonizing the moon or other
planets now seemed oIIensive to larger numbers oI people. Activists began talking oI 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 Iirst major civilian space project aIter Apollo, the space shuttle, was still justiIied in masculine terms. The goal oI 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 itselI that contributed to the Ieminization oI language, policy and symbolism. In 1978 NASA Iinally
admitted women to its hallowed corps oI astronauts. The shuttle`s alleged utility as a research station also expanded the justiIications Ior a
civil space program to include things like new medical breakthroughs. By the mid-1980s NASA had selected its Iirst 'citizen in space
candidate, Irom what is widely regarded as a Ieminine proIession in American society, elementary education. Christa
McAuliIIe was scheduled to conduct a 'classroom in space when she was tragically lost along with the other six
members oI the crew oI the space shuttle Challenger in January 1986. The introduction oI women into the largely male
conIines oI the civilian space program required some changes in the language used to describe that program. For instance,
the term 'manned spaceIlight was banned, although it persisted Ior many years. It also led to attempts to diversiIy the
NASA workIorce and public image. This gradual transIormation oI the language and symbology was still constrained by
world politics, however. President Ronald Reagan approved the civilian space station program in 1983 because oI a
concern that the Soviet Union had a space station and the United States did not. America`s NATO allies were included in
the project in part because oI the symbolism oI a western alliance leading the world in a high technology eIIort. AIter the
Challenger disaster there was much public hand-wringing about the Iuture direction oI the civil space program, but there
was little challenge to the view that maintaining 'leadership was the ultimate goal.
Amer|can po||cy espec|a||y on the top|c of space has rap|d|y become fem|n|zed |n the past few
decades
Day 04 (Dwayne, Day works Ior the Space Studies Board oI the National Research Council/National Academy oI Sciences.. He received a doctorate degree in
political science Irom The George Washington University.He specialized in space policy. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/130/1 'The Ieminization oI American
Space Policy)
Carnes Lord, a proIessor at the Naval War College and author oI 'The Modern Prince: What Leaders Need to Know Now, argues that America over the past
Iew decades has seen a 'Ieminization oI politics, where virtually all policies are justiIied in terms oI 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 oI leadership has become problematic Ior democracies. Leadership
includes some element oI 'traditionally manly qualities as competitiveness, aggression, or Ior 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. ReIlecting a
change that has happened in other areas oI American politics, 'masculine language and imagery have been replaced by 'Ieminine
language and imagery in the civilian space program. Lord was not the Iirst 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 EIIeminate Style. When women Iirst began to enter into politics, they learned that iI they argued as boldly as
their male opponents they were oIten labeled 'shrill. So they adopted a diIIerent 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 beIore the end oI the Cold War made it possible Ior leaders to downplay national security issues and talk more about
social concerns. Clearly American rhetoric and symbolism was changing somewhat independent oI the national security environment.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
144
AII atr|archy doesn't ex|st
Women are not a un|form group and ne|ther are men atr|archa| cr|t|ques of the state are not
|nc|us|ve of a|| men
Rhode `94 (Deborah L, ProIessor oI Law, StanIord University , Symposium: changing images of the state:
feminism anu the state', p -
This account is also pioblematic on many levels 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." n Nor are they exclusively victims. Patriarchy cannot account adequately for the
mutual dependencies and complex power dynamics that characterize male-female relations
Neithei can the state be unueistoou solely as an instiument of mens inteiests As a thiesholu mattei, what constitutes those inteiests is not self-eviuent, as
NacKinnons own illustiations suggest If, foi example, policies liberalizing abortion serve male objectives by enhancing
access to female sexuality, policies curtailing abortion presumably also serve male objectives by reducing
female autonomy n In effect, patriarchal frameworks verge on tautology Almost any genuei-ielateu policy can be seen
as eithei uiiectly seiving mens immeuiate inteiests, oi as compiomising shoit-teim conceins in the seivice of bioauei, long-teim goals, such as noimalizing
the system anu stabilizing powei ielations A fiamewoik that can chaiacteiize all state inteiventions as uiiectly oi inuiiectly patiiaichal offeis little piactical
guiuance in challenging the conuitions it conuemns Anu if women are not a homogenous group with unitary concerns,
surely the same is true of men. Noieovei, if the state is best unueistoou as a netwoik of institutions with complex, sometimes competing
agenuas, then the patiiaichal mouel of single-minueu instiumentalism seems highly implausible It is uifficult to uismiss all the anti-uisciimination initiatives
of the last quaitei centuiy as puiely countei-ievolutionaiy stiategies Anu it is piecisely these initiatives, with theii appeal to male noims of objectivity anu
the impeisonality of pioceuuie, that |have cieateuj |*8j leveiage foi the iepiesentation of womens inteiests 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 n While the tyiannies of public anu piivate uepenuence aie plainly ielateu, many
feminists challenge the claim that they aie the same As Caiole Pateman notes, women uo not live with the state anu aie bettei able to make collective stiuggle
against institutions than inuiviuuals To auvance that stiuggle, 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 What seems necessaiy is a contextual appioach that can account foi gieatei complexities in womens ielationships with goveining institutions
Yet uespite theii limitations, patiiaichal theoiies unueiscoie an insight that geneially infoims feminist theoiizing As Pait II ieflects, goveinmental institutions
aie implicateu in the most funuamental stiuctuies of sex-baseu inequality anu in the stiategies necessaiy to auuiess it
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
145
AII A|t no So|vo
Lven |f women ga|n more power noth|ng w||| change
Rhode `94 (Deborah L, ProIessor oI Law, StanIord University , Symposium: changing images of the state:
feminism anu the state', p -
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 Iar stronger than the diIIerences. n128 Although women voters have exhibited somewhat greater support
than men Ior *1207| environmental and welIare measures, as well as greater opposition to the use oI military Iorce, women have also been more conservative on
some Ieminist 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 signiIicant 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 aIIiliation has been more critical than gender in determining votes on social service expenditures, even on matters such as childcare. n133
Although it is oIten assumed that Iemale politicians need to reach higher positions or a greater critical mass beIore broader changes are possible, the evidence to date
casts doubt on this assumption. For example, some state legislatures that have the highest percentages oI women provide the least support Ior Iamily services. n134
Among world leaders, none oI 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.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
146
AII V|ct|m @urn
@Uk- Iem|n|st theory assumes women are a|ways the v|ct|ms |gnor|ng other poss|b|||t|es and thus
perpetuat|ng gender stereotypes
The need to Iit scholarship on gender into the axiological mold oI Ieminist theory not only has kept nonIeminists out, but also has
aIIected both the substance oI 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 liIe chances oI "people called men" in diIIerent contexts or aIIects political outcomes more
generally. A reading oI 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 oI Tickner's
substantive summary but oI the linguistic and philosophical structure oI the Ieminist subIield. 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 Ior about 90 percent oI
war casualties, the majority oI whom are women and children" (p. 6) is a gendered construction oI the "civilian"
that Ilies in the Iace oI, among other things, reIugee statistics and the widespread targeting oI civilian men and boys
Ior massacre in armed conIlicts 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,
"Iemininities" have been greatly undertheorized, oIten dropping out oI 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 Iact that, as Tickner writes, "Ieminists have been reluctant to
take on the question oI paid domestic service ... since it is women who usually employ, and oIten exploit, other women" suggests the
quandary that Ieminists encounter as simultaneously normative and explanatory researchers. Writing with a declared agenda Ior
promoting the interests oI 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
Iamily," Ior example (p. 123), have important implications not just Ior husband/wiIe relations, but also Ior the license women may take
with their children. ThereIore, it may not follow that understanding gender and overcoming the hierarchies it
generates may always coincide with promoting the liberties of women or the "satisIaction oI women's needs"
in every context.8

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
147
AII Cede @he o||t|ca|
The alternative cedes the political to elites - means extinction
Boggs 1997 Carl, National University, Los Angeles, Theory and Society, 'The great retreat: Decline oI the
public sphere in late twentieth-century America|
The decline oI the public sphere in late twentieth-century America poses a series oI great dilemmas and challenges. Many ideological currents
scrutinized here localism, metaphysics, spontaneism, post-modernism, Deep Ecology intersect with and reinIorce each other.
While these currents have deep origins in popular movements oI the 1960s and 1970s, they remain very much alive in the 1990s. Despite their diIIerent outlooks and
trajectories, they all share one thing in common: a depoliticized expression oI struggles to combat and overcome
alienation. The false sense oI empowerment that comes with such mesmerizing impulses is accompanied by a
loss oI public engagement, an erosion oI citizenship and a depleted capacity oI individuals in large groups to
work Ior social change. As this ideological quagmire worsens, urgent problems that are destroying the
Iabric oI American society will go unsolved perhaps even unrecognized only to Iester more ominously in the Iuture.
And such problems (ecological crisis, poverty, urban decay, spread oI inIectious diseases, technological displacement oI
workers) cannot be understood outside the larger social and global context oI internationalized markets, Iinance, and
communications. Paradoxically, the widespread retreat Irom politics, oIten 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 oI citizenship today, Wolin reIers to the increasing sublimation and dilution oI politics, as larger numbers oI people turn away Irom public
concerns toward private ones. By diluting the liIe oI common involvements, we negate the very idea oI politics as a source oI 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 oI anti-politics
becomes more compelling and even Iashionable in the United States, it is the vagaries oI political power that will
continue to decide the Iate oI human societies. This last point demands Iurther elaboration. The shrinkage oI politics hardly
means that corporate colonization will be less oI a reality, that social hierarchies will somehow disappear, or
that gigantic state and military structures will lose their hold over people`s lives. Far Irom it: the space
abdicated by a broad citizenry, well-inIormed and ready to participate at many levels, can in Iact be Iilled by
authoritarian and reactionary elites an already Iamiliar dynamic in many lesser-developed countries. The Iragmentation and chaos oI
a Hobbesian world, not very Iar removed Irom the rampant individualism, social Darwinism, and civic violence that have been so much a part oI the American
landscape, could be the prelude to a powerIul Leviathan designed to impose order in the Iace oI disunity and
atomized retreat. In this way the eclipse oI politics might set the stage Ior a reassertion oI politics in more
virulent guise or it might help Iurther rationalize the existing power structure. In either case, the state would likely become
what Hobbes anticipated: the embodiment oI those universal, collective interests that had vanished Irom civil society. 75

AFF Predictions Good
Debates about dystopian imagery solve extinction
Kurasawa 2004 ProIessor oI Sociology, York University oI Toronto Fuyuki, 'Cautionary Tales: The Global
Culture oI Prevention and the Work oI Foresight, onstellations 11.4, December, ebsco|
In recent years, the rise oI a dystopian imaginary has accompanied damning assessments and widespread recognition
oI the international community`s repeated Iailures to adequately intervene in a number oI largely preventable
disasters (Irom the genocides in the ex-Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and East Timor to climate change and the spiraling AIDS
pandemics in parts oI sub-Saharan AIrica and Asia). Social movements, NGOs, diasporic groups, and concerned citizens are not
mincing words in their criticisms oI the United Nations system and its member-states, and thus beginning to shiIt the discursive
and moral terrain in world aIIairs. As a result, the callousness implicit in disregarding the Iuture has been
exposed as a threat to the survival of humanity and its natural surroundings. The Realpolitik oI national selI-
interest and the neoliberal logic oI the market will undoubtedly continue to assert themselves, yet demands Ior
Iarsightedness are increasingly reining them in. Though governments, multilateral institutions, and transnational corporations will probably
never completely modiIy the presentist assumptions underlying their modes oI operation, they are, at the very least, Iinding themselves compelled to account Ior
egregious instances oI short-sightedness and rhetorically commit themselves to taking corrective steps. What may seem like a modest
development at Iirst glance would have been unimaginable even a Iew decades ago, indicating the extent to
which we have moved toward a culture oI prevention. A new imperative has come into being, that oI preventive
Ioresight.
UTNIF 2011 Gender K
148
AII A@ keps 1st
Elevating representations above reality replaces political engagement with abstract musing

Taft-Kaufman 1995 Jill, ProIessor at the Department oI Speech Communication And Dramatic Arts at Central
Michigan University, Southern Communication Journal, Spring|

In its elevation oI language to the primary analysis oI social liIe and its relegation oI the de-centered subject to a set oI language positions, postmodernism
ignores the way real people make their way in the world. While the notion oI decentering does much to remedy the idea oI an essential,
unchanging selI, it also presents problems. According to Clarke (1991): Having established the material quality oI ideology, everything
else we had hitherto thought oI as material has disappeared. There is nothing outside oI ideology (or discourse). Where
Althusser was concerned with ideology as the imaginary relations oI subjects to the real relations oI their existence, the connective
quality oI this view oI ideology has been dissolved because it lays claim to an outside, a real, an extra-discursive Ior which there exists no epistemological warrant
without lapsing back into the bad old ways oI empiricism or metaphysics. (pp. 25-26) Clarke explains how the same disconnection between the discursive and the extra-
discursive has been perIormed in semiological analysis: Where it used to contain a relation between the signiIier (the representation) and the signiIied (the reIerent),
antiempiricism has taken the Iormal arbitrariness oI the connection between the signiIier and signiIied and replaced it with the abolition oI the signiIied (there can be no
real objects out there, because there is no out there Ior 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 oI the reIerent to the point that "the real
oIten disappears Irom consideration" (p. 159). Real individuals become abstractions. Subject positions rather than subjects are the
Iocus. The emphasis on subject positions or construction oI the discursive selI engenders an accompanying critical sense oI 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 "playIulness that produces emotional and/or political disinvestment: a refusal to be engaged" (p. 103). The
luxury oI being able to muse about what constitutes the selI is a posture in keeping with a critical venue that
divorces language Irom material objects and bodily subjects.

AFF: AT: NVTL
Securing life is a prerequisite to determining value

Schwartz, 2002 Lisa, Medical Ethics, http://www.Ileshandbones.com/readingroom/pdI/399.pdI|

The second assertion made by supporters oI the quality oI liIe as a criterion Ior decision- making is closely related to the Iirst, but with an added dimension. This
assertion suggests that the determination oI the value oI the quality oI a given liIe is a subjective determination to be
made by the person experiencing that liIe. 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 Ior herselI based on a comparison between two stages oI her liIe. So did James Brady. Without this element, decisions based on quality oI liIe criteria lack
salient inIormation and the patients concerned cannot give inIormed consent. Patients must be given the opportunity to decide Ior
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 Ireedom to decide Ior themselves on the basis oI relevant inIorma- tion
about their Iuture, and comparative consideration oI 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 oI a liIe ought to be made only by the person concerned and not by others.

UTNIF 2011 Gender K
149
AII A@ Lp|stemo|ogy
Epistemology does not come first - defer to rational policymaking
Owen 2002 David, Reader oI Political Theory at the Univ. oI Southampton, Millennium, Vol 31, No 3|
Commenting on the philosophical turn` in IR, Wver remarks that a| Irenzy Ior words like 'epistemology and 'ontology oIten
signals this philosophical turn`, although he goes on to comment that these terms are oIten 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
Ieature oI the social sciences that periods oI disciplinary disorientation involve recourse to reIlection on the philosophical commitments oI diIIerent theoretical
approaches, and there is no doubt that such reIlection 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 brieIly mention three beIore turning to consider a conIusion that
has, I will suggest, helped to promote the IR theory wars by motivating this philosophical turn. The Iirst danger with the philosophical turn is
that it has an inbuilt tendency to prioritise issues oI ontology and epistemology over explanatory and/or
interpretive power as iI the latter two were merely a simple Iunction oI the Iormer. But while the explanatory
and/or interpretive power oI a theoretical account is not wholly independent oI its ontological and/or
epistemological commitments (otherwise criticism oI these Ieatures 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, Ior example, one need not be sympathetic to rational
choice theory to recognise that it can provide powerIul accounts oI certain kinds oI problems, such as the tragedy oI the commons in which dilemmas oI collective
action are Ioregrounded. It may, oI course, be the case that the advocates oI rational choice theory cannot give a good
account oI why this type oI theory is powerIul in accounting Ior this class oI problems (i.e., how it is that the relevant actors
come to exhibit Ieatures in these circumstances that approximate the assumptions oI rational choice theory) and, iI this is the case, it is a philosophical
weaknessbut this does not undermine the point that, Ior a certain class oI problems, rational choice theory may
provide the best account available to us. In other words, while the critical judgement oI theoretical accounts in
terms oI their ontological and/or epistemological sophistication is one kind oI 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 oI
ontology and epistemology promotes theory-construction Irom philosophical Iirst 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 oI possible true descriptions oI a given action, event or phenomenon, the challenge is to
decide which is the most apt in terms oI getting a perspicuous grip on the action, event or phenomenon in question given the purposes oI the inquiry; yet, Irom this
standpoint, theory-driven work is part oI a reductionist program` in that it dictates always opting Ior the description that calls Ior the explanation that Ilows Irom the
preIerred model or theory`.5 The justiIication oIIered Ior this strategy rests on the mistaken belieI that it is necessary Ior social science because general explanations are
required to characterise the classes oI phenomena studied in similar terms. However, as Shapiro points out, this is to misunderstand the enterprise oI
science since whether there are general explanations Ior classes oI phenomena is a question Ior social-scientiIic
inquiry, not to be prejudged beIore conducting that inquiry`.6 Moreover, this strategy easily slips into the
promotion oI the pursuit of generality over that oI empirical validity. The third danger is that the preceding two combine to
encourage the Iormation oI a particular image oI disciplinary debate in IRwhat might be called (only slightly tongue in cheek) the Highlander view`namely, an
image oI warring theoretical approaches with each, despite occasional temporary tactical alliances, dedicated to the strategic achievement oI sovereignty over the
disciplinary Iield. It encourages this view because the turn to, and prioritisation oI, 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 Ieeds back into IR exacerbating the Iirst and second dangers, and
so a potentially vicious circle arises.

UTNIF 2011 Gender Kritik

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UTNIF 2011 Gender Kritik

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UTNIF 2011 Gender K

Você também pode gostar