Feminism Answers-Summer-8-6-15-JJO
Feminism Answers – Perm – Intersectionality 2
Feminism Answers – Perm – Pragmatism 4
Feminism Answers – Link – War – Turn 5
Feminism Answers – Link – Debate Excludes Women 6
Feminism Answers – Impact – Squo Solves 7
Feminism Answers – Alternative – Separatism – Coopted 8
Feminism Answers – Alternative – Separatism – Turn – Intersectionality 10
Feminism Answers – Perm – Intersectionality
Perm – intersectional approach is key to combine analyses of particular identities and the scientific/legal
knowledge necessary to combat climate change – reducing climate change to a single factor is useless and
regresses into essentialism – leads to political backlash
Kaijser and Kronsell, Lund University, 13
(Anna and Annica, 11 October 2013, “Climate change through the lens of intersectionality,” accessed 4/23/15,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203, jjo)
The responsibility, vulnerability, and decision-making power of individuals and groups in relation to climate change can be attributed
to social structures based on characteristics such as gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, nationality, health, sexual orientation,
age, and place. Moreover, the impacts of climate change, as well as strategies for mitigation and adaptation, may reinforce or challenge such structures and categorisations. As social
dimensions are increasingly recognised in climate change research, more aspects of social relations are brought into the debate. For
instance, there is a growing body of literature on gender and climate change (Denton 2002, Röhr et al. 2008, Hemmati and Röhr 2009, Dankelman 2010,
Glazebrook 2011). Although studies and political initiatives that focus on one single variable (such as place, gender, or economic status) are valuable for illuminating
power relations in the face of climate change, they often fail to consider how this base 420 A. Kaijser and A. Kronsell Downloaded by [73.148.27.228] at 18:33 23 April 2015
for inequality is intertwined with and even reinforced by other structures of domination. There is also a tendency for
simplification. For instance, the gender aspect is often reduced to narrow man–woman binaries, in which women are depicted as
vulnerable, marginalised victims (as in Denton 2002, Demetriades and Esplen 2010, Oparaocha and Dutta 2011), or given the role of caretakers with some
special, almost divine, connection to nature (see Plant 1989, Shiva 1989, Gaard 1993). There is a risk here of reinforcing categorisations, and not
taking into account how differences are socially constructed and context-specific, and how they may shift in realities of climate
change. Apart from fixing difference and turning it into categories, it also excludes those who do not fit in these static categories and denies social
struggle, contestation, and the complexity and fluidity of identities (Alaimo 2009, pp. 30–33). To address these issues, Lykke (2009b) suggests that
intersectional analysis should be employed in relation to climate change. However, this has not yet been done to any significant extent. From an
intersectional understanding, how individuals relate to climate change depends on their positions in context-specific power
structures based on social categorisations. Tuana provides an illustrative example of how climate change is interconnected with power relations, erasing the imaginary
boundaries between ‘social’ and ‘natural’. In her study of hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans in 2005, she sheds light on how the hurricane was mediated through materialised and non-
materialised power structures. Arguing that ‘[t]he knowledge that is too often missing and is often desperately needed is at the intersection between things and people, between feats of
engineering and social structures, between experiences and bodies’, Tuana (2008, p. 189) places the devastation of New Orleans in relation to various intersecting forms of marginality.
Marginalised people were less likely to be able to evacuate and to afford to live somewhere else, and had poorer prospects if displaced. Katrina was in some respects a wake-up call to the
Western world, making visible how climate change impacts may interact with social structures. If, as another example, we look at individual emissions of greenhouse gases, income is the main
determining category for lifestyle and thereby levels of emissions. Simply put, higher income generally equals higher emissions, and we may hence conclude that high emissions are the result
of class-based differences in capitalist economic relations. This may be valid on a global scale, but in a micro perspective, the picture gets blurred. Disaggregated data on individual energy
consumption (Räty and Carlsson-Kanyama 2010) or CO2 emissions show that indeed the relations of production and class matter, but so does, for instance, gender and age. Such data are
interesting in many respects, not least by showing that an intersectional analysis is relevant for attaining an image of higher resolution of the factors
relevant to addressing power relations and injustices in climate-related issues. It is thus difficult, and quite pointless, to ascribe certain
aspects of dominance or marginalisation to one single factor, as they are all part of a greater pattern. Environmental Politics 421 Downloaded by
[73.148.27.228] at 18:33 23 April 2015 Yet, the aim of intersectionality is not simply to include as many analytical categories as possible, or list an – obviously not all-
encompassing – number of factors that may determine responsibility and vulnerability in relation to climate change, but to widen the perspective and reflect upon what
factors may be relevant in a particular setting. As a matter of research strategy, the individual researcher may need to select and prioritise the most interesting or relevant
intersections in the particular case, while keeping in mind the bigger picture. An intersectional analysis goes beyond identifying power patterns to
problematising the underlying social categorisations and see how these are reinforced or challenged in light of climate change.
Which identities are promoted and serve as grounds for political action? And which identities become invisible in such projects? We suggest that intersectional analyses should
address the question of which social categories are represented in, but also which are absent from, the case(s) under study. However, social
categorisations should not be regarded as fixed; they always need to be understood in their specific historical and spatial context and as embedded in power patterns. In a constructivist
approach, social categories are viewed as subject to continuous reproduction and alteration and this is central to our
understanding of intersectionality. We consider it crucial to always take into account how social categories are constructed and negotiated, and in what ways they could be
different. Thus, besides identifying and understanding power structures and their effects, an intersectional analysis can help explain constructions of individual
and group subjectivities, and how existing categorisations are mobilised in political projects. In an intersectional analysis of climate change, this can be
formulated thus: are there any observable explicit or implicit assumptions about social categories and about the relations between social categories to be found in the empirical material?
Feminist theorists like Hartsock (1985), Harding (1991), and Haraway (1991) have argued that subjects are situated, i.e. products of the power relations and the context that shape their
existence. A person’s situatedness, or location in the intersections of power as lived in specific circumstances, is also crucial for how he or she perceives and understands power relations. While
we can study the impact of the contextual position on a specific individual or group, we can also turn the analysis around and ask how particular positions both enable and delimit individual
agency. Situatedness gives rise to knowledge originating in specific circumstances of material and ideational experiences, sometimes
coming out of a struggle against dominant power practices. The power differences at work in a specific setting generate particular types of knowledge. We suggest that
it is useful to ask what type of knowledge is privileged in dealing with climate change? How is the understanding of what is legitimate knowledge related to social categories and to power
relations? Importantly, to speak about knowledge as situated does not imply that specific social groups possess fixed knowledge, as this
would take us right back to the debate about essentialism, as with the criticism of Shiva’s (1989) 422 A. Kaijser and A. Kronsell Downloaded by [73.148.27.228] at
18:33 23 April 2015 claim to a feminine principle, or the notion that women have common knowledge as women due to their giving birth (Rose 1983) and mothering (Ruddick 1989). To speak
in terms of situated knowledge rather means a questioning of universal claims of knowledge production; not all women give birth, and if they do, it is often only a fraction of their life
experience. The conditions of life vary so significantly between, for instance, a female subsistence farmer in a low income country and a Western female academic that the knowledge emerging
from those positions varies considerably, which means that one should be careful to talk about a particular female experience or perspective. Different knowledges are generated by differences
in economic resources, division of labour, and place. Situated knowledges (Haraway 1991, Harding 1991) can be highly valuable for addressing climate change issues. As an example, Agarwal
(2000) considers the specific and valuable knowledge generated by women who live in and use a forest area for their subsistence. These women, through their daily practices as seed-, fuel-, and
fodder collectors and as forest preservers, have acquired detailed insight into the many environmental resources of the forest (see also Agarwal 2010). Their knowledge is derived from their
position in society and the place in which they live. A major aim of intersectionality is to avoid the kind of simplification that would declare this position and the knowledge generated by these
women as a universal aspect of being female. As pointed out earlier, when relying on categorisations of people, there is a risk of falling into determinism and neglecting the complexity and
constant renegotiation of power relations. Identity politics – political projects promoting the interests of a certain social category – may be
motivated under certain circumstances to mobilise protest and resistance, but the fluidity and constructedness of categories should
always be kept in mind. Situatedness is a process of continuous change, most apparently across class, income, or profession, across time in the age cycle, and across geographical
places but also across gender, ethnicity, and sexuality. So, how can political projects for climate change mitigation and adaptation be designed that
achieve emancipation without essentialising categories or promoting certain identities while others remain invisible? Feminist theorists
have pointed to the need for creating alliances based not on fixed identities but on common interests and solidarity, and with recognition
of different positions (Haraway 1991, Mohanty 2003, Lykke 2005). These ideas may be employed in intersectional analyses that move beyond merely identifying power patterns in a
certain context, to questioning prevailing categorisations and looking for grounds for agency and engagement around common interests and objectives. Recognising that categories are not fixed
but dynamic, changeable, and interlinked (Lykke 2010), an intersectional framework must go beyond naming categories to an analysis of how they are related to broader power relations, to
politics and institutional practices and to norms and symbolic representations. This would be another step in the analytics of intersectionality. Such analysis relies on
theories developed in various disciplines. For research on climate Environmental Politics 423 Downloaded by [73.148.27.228] at 18:33 23 April 2015 issues, the
intersectional approach must be informed by a range of social theories as well as theories generated in research fields that look at the
relationship between society and nature.
Feminism Answers – Perm – Pragmatism
Feminists must reform law for pragmatic reasons –key to strong feminist jurisprudence
Samuels, University of Westminster, 14
(Harriet, February 2014, “Feminist Engagement with Law in the New Millennium,” accessed 4/23/15,
http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/14374/1/Harriet_SAMUELS_PhD_by_publication_2014_Commentary.pdftp://search.proquest.
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/213297606?pq-origsite=summon, jjo)
It appears to have a very clear message and poured a bucket of very cold water over second wave feminists’ enthusiasm for trying to use law for women. 70 This has led to a disjuncture
between feminist theorising and practice, which is regretted by many feminists.71 It is my disquiet about this call to turn away from law, and the belief that legal feminists, both
scholars and activists, have a responsibility to engage with law that underpins the thesis. Critique of law is insufficient. There is a need to
use law’s tools in traditional and imaginative ways not only to expose its gendered character but to find new ways of doing law. This
aligns the thesis alongside feminists who seek to reconstruct liberal values rather than reject them outright.72 Feminists have interrogated
liberalism and found it wanting. They have critiqued the individualistic and autonomous nature of the liberal subject, the dualism that liberalism presents in its divisions between the rational
versus the emotional, its formal view of equality, the vision of the neutral state and its separation of the public and the private realm. 73 Jaggar concludes that feminism has often
relied on liberal ideas and has many reasons to be grateful to liberalism, but that it is incapable of bringing about the changes desired. Nussbaum, on
the contrary, accepts much of the critique of liberalism, but she has famously mounted a spirited defence of its principles of ‘personhood, autonomy, rights dignity [and] self respect’. She has
pointed out the diversity of liberal thinking, and notes that it has attempted to respond to feminist criticisms. She tries to persuade the reader that, ‘[t]he deepest and most central ideas of the
liberal tradition are ideas of radical force and great theoretical and practical value’. Nussbaum’s own project, based on human capabilities, articulates a set of needs necessary for autonomy and
human flourishing. My concern that Smart’s exhortations to desist from legal engagement, are overly dismissive of law’s possibilities, are shared by other legal feminists and critical theorists.
Sandland criticizes Smart for creating a dichotomy between politics/philosophy and between deconstruction/reform thus closing down all political and legal options. 78 Being outside
the system as a form of resistance is, according to Sandland, a strategy of ‘no resistance’. He sees Smart as being overly pessimistic, by dismissing the
significance of cases such as R v R, where the judges removed the marital rape exemption, there is a danger of feminism ‘understating its own political and
jurisprudential purchase as a subversive force interrupting the “unmodified” liberal paradigm’. Feminism needs to use the tension between recognition
and denial of law to evaluate the merits of legal intervention on a case-by-case basis. Sandland sees there being value in finding the gaps in law that provide a space to struggle over law’s
meaning. Lacey appears sympathetic to Smart’s theoretical project, and to Smart’s insight that law’s belief that it is objective, true and impartial inflates its status so that it appear superior to
other forms of knowledge. This makes it harmful to women.81 But she also has reservations about Smart’s political strategy and argues that it would be unfortunate to give up attempts at legal
reform. She notes that it is unclear that other institutions such as the family, religion or politics are more susceptible to reconstruction than law.82 Writing just under ten years later Munro
argues that feminism should not relinquish its attempts to reconstruct law. She is not uncritical of liberal values, but given law’s resistance to competing discourses
she thinks there are pragmatic reasons for using law rather than remaining silenced by an oppositional stance.
Feminism Answers – Link – War – Turn
Equating warfare with patriarchy essentializes women and destroys critique
Tickner, University of Southern California, 2
(J. Ann, 2002, “Equating warfare with patriarchy essentializes women and destroys critique,” accessed 4/23/15,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1528-3577.t01-1-00098/pdf, jjo)
Given the massive sense of insecurity generated by the first foreign terrorist attack on American civilians at home, there is something reassuring about “our men” protecting us from “other
men.”21However, even though the war exceeded all expectations in its swift destruction of the Taliban and al Qaeda networks, and despite increased attention to homeland security, the U.S.
remains uncertain about its ability to deter future terrorist attacks. In light of these continued fears, the U.S. Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, legislation that allows the
Attorney General to detain aliens on mere suspicion and without a hearing. Prior to its passage, the U.S. had already detained more than 1,200 young men without charge; Arab
men have been subject to ethnic, as well as gender, profiling under the excuse that we are “at war.” These measures have received strong support from
across the political spectrum. Criticism is seen as unpatriotic.22Equally disturbing is a political climate, typical of countries at war, that fosters intolerance of
alternative points of view. Illustrations of this intolerance have been prevalent in media discussion as well as in political discourse. In an article in the New York Times, Edward
Rothstein ~2001! articulated his hope that the attacks of September 11 might challenge the intellectual and ethical perspectives of postmodernism and post colonialism thus leading to their
rejection. Chastising adherents to these modes of thought for their extreme cultural relativism and rejection of objectivity and universalism,
Rothstein expressed hope that, as it comes to be realized how closely the 9011 attacks came to undermining the political and military authority of the U.S., these ways of thinking will come to
be seen as “ethically perverse.” While the author did not mention feminism, feminists are frequently criticized on the same terms; women and feminists often
get blamed in times of political, economic, and social uncertainty. Kurth’s fear of feminists’ destruction of the social fabric of society is
one such example and the association of patriotism with “hegemonic” masculinity challenges women, minorities, and “aliens” to live up to
this standard. It is the case that post colonialists and feminists have questioned objectivity and universalism; but they do so because they claim these terms are frequently
associated with ways of knowing that are not objective but based only on the lives of ~usually privileged! men. Many feminists are sympathetic
with post colonialism, a body of knowledge that attempts to uncover the voices of those who have been colonized and oppressed. It is a form of knowledge-seeking that resonates with attempts
to recover knowledge about women. In a rather different piece, which acknowledged the recognition accorded to women of Afghanistan since 9011, Sarah Wildman ~2001! chastised American
feminists on the grounds of irrelevance. Claiming that feminists have an unprecedented public platform because of the attention focused on women in Afghanistan, Wildman accused them of
squandering their opportunity by refusing to support the war. Equating what she called “feminist dogma” with pacifism, Wild-man asserted that there is no logical reason
to believe that nonviolent means always promote feminist ends. Wildman has fallen into the essentialist trap of equating feminism with peace which I discussed earlier;
this has allowed her to dismiss feminist voices as irrelevant and unpatriotic. The feminists she selected to quote may have voiced reservations about the
war, but feminism encompasses a wide range of opinions many of which include fighting for justice, particularly gender justice. And feminist voices are not all Western as is often assumed. In
Afghanistan, women have been fighting a war that began well before September11, a war against women.
Feminism Answers – Link – Debate Excludes Women
You should refuse to tie the fact that women are excluded in debate to a win or a loss – it’s a fact and
obviously important to address, but addressing it through a competitive forum fails – forcing competition
over the claims of the 1AC is unproductive forces fissures within an otherwise comprehensive movement
Karlberg, Peace and Justice Studies Association, 03
(Michael, July 2003, “The Paradox of Protest in a Culture of Contest,” accessed 4/23/15,
http://myweb.wwu.edu/karlberg/articles/ParadoxOfProtest.pdf, jjo)
Granted, social activists do “win” occasional “battles” in these adversarial arenas, but the root causes of their concerns largely remain
unaddressed and the larger “wars” arguably are not going well. Consider the case of environmental activism. Countless environmental protests, lobbies, and
lawsuits have been mounted in recent generations throughout the Western world. Many small victories have been won. Yet environmental degradation continues to accelerate at
a rate that far outpaces the highly circumscribed advances made in these limited battles, and even the most committed environmentalists acknowledge that the overall war is not
going well.33 In addition, adversarial strategies of social change embody assumptions that have internal consequences for social
movements, such as internal factionalization. For instance, virtually all of the social projects of the “left” throughout the 20th century have suffered from recurrent internal
factionalization. The opening decades of the century were marked by political infighting among vanguard communist revolutionaries. The middle decades of the century were marked by
theoretical disputes among leftist intellectuals. The century’s closing decades have been marked by the fracturing of the “new left” under the centrifugal pressures of identity
politics. Underlying this pattern of infighting and factionalization is the tendency to interpret differences—of class, race, gender,
perspective, or strategy—as sources of antagonism and conflict.34 In this regard, the political “left” and “right” both define themselves in terms
of a common adversary—the “other”—defined by political differences. Not surprisingly, advocates of both the left and right frequently invoke the need for
internal unity in order to prevail over their adversaries on the other side of the alleged political spectrum. However, because the terms left and right are both artificial and reified categories that
do not reflect the complexity of actual social relations, values, or beliefs, there is no way to achieve lasting unity within either camp because there are no actual boundaries between them. In
reality, social relations, values, and beliefs are infinitely complex and variable. Yet once an adversarial posture is adopted by assuming that differences are
sources of conflict , initial distinctions between the left and the right inevitably are followed by subsequent distinctions within the
left and the right. Once this centrifugal process is set in motion, it is difficult , if not impossible, to restrain. For all of these reasons, adversarial
strategies have reached a point of diminishing returns. Even if such strategies were necessary and viable in the past, when human populations were less socially and
ecologically interdependent, those conditions no longer exist. Our reproductive and technological success as a species has led to conditions of unprecedented interdependence, and no group on
the planet is isolated any longer. Under these new conditions, new strategies not only are possible but are essential. Humanity has become a single interdependent social body. In order to
meet the complex social and environmental challenges now facing us, we must learn to coordinate our collective actions. Yet a
body cannot coordinate its actions as long as its “left” and its “right,” or its “north” and its “south,” or its “east” and its “west” are
locked in adversarial relationships.
Feminism Answers – Impact – Squo Solves
Networked resistance solves the hegemony of oppressive structures
Hardt, Federal Communications Law Journal, 1
(Michael, March – April 2002, “Porto Alegre: Today's Bandug?,” accessed 4/23/15, http://newleftreview.org/II/14/michael-hardt-
porto-alegre-today-s-bandung, jjo)
The Porto Alegre Forum was in this sense perhaps too happy, too celebratory and not conflictual enough. The most important political difference cutting across the entire Forum concerned the
role of national sovereignty. There are indeed two primary positions in the response to today’s dominant forces of globalization: either one can
work to reinforce the sovereignty of nation-states as a defensive barrier against the control of foreign and global capital, or one can
strive towards a non-national alternative to the present form of globalization that is equally global. The first poses neoliberalism as the primary
analytical category, viewing the enemy as unrestricted global capitalist activity with weak state controls; the second is more clearly posed against capital itself, whether state-regulated or not.
The first might rightly be called an anti-globalization position, in so far as national sovereignties, even if linked by international solidarity, serve to limit and regulate the forces of capitalist
globalization. National liberation thus remains for this position the ultimate goal, as it was for the old anticolonial and anti-imperialist struggles. The second, in contrast, opposes any national
solutions and seeks instead a democratic globalization. The first position occupied the most visible and dominant spaces of the Porto Alegre Forum; it was represented in the large plenary
sessions, repeated by the official spokespeople, and reported in the press. A key proponent of this position was the leadership of the Brazilian PT (Workers’ Party)—in effect the host of the
Forum, since it runs the city and regional government. It was obvious and inevitable that the PT would occupy a central space in the Forum and use the international prestige of the event as part
of its campaign strategy for the upcoming elections. The second dominant voice of national sovereignty was the French leadership of ATTAC, which laid the groundwork for the Forum in the
pages of Le Monde Diplomatique. The leadership of ATTAC is, in this regard, very close to many of the French politicians—most notably Jean-Pierre Chevènement—who advocate
strengthening national sovereignty as a solution to the ills of contemporary globalization. These, in any case, are the figures who dominated the representation of the Forum both internally and
in the press. The non-sovereign, alternative globalization position, in contrast, was minoritarian at the Forum—not in quantitative terms but in terms of representation; in fact, the majority of
the participants in the Forum may well have occupied this minoritarian position. First, the various movements that have conducted the protests from Seattle to Genoa are generally oriented
towards non-national solutions. Indeed, the centralized structure of state sovereignty itself runs counter to the horizontal network-form that the
movements have developed. Second, the Argentinian movements that have sprung up in response to the present financial crisis, organized in neighbourhood and city-wide delegate
assemblies, are similarly antagonistic to proposals of national sovereignty. Their slogans call for getting rid, not just of one politician, but all of them—que se vayan todos: the entire political
class. And finally, at the base of the various parties and organizations present at the Forum the sentiment is much more hostile to proposals of national sovereignty than at the top. This may be
particularly true of ATTAC, a hybrid organization whose head, especially in France, mingles with traditional politicians, whereas its feet are firmly grounded in the movements. The division
between the sovereignty, anti-globalization position and the non-sovereign, alternative globalization position is therefore not best understood in geographical terms. It does not map the
divisions between North and South or First World and Third. The conflict corresponds rather to two different forms of political organization. The traditional parties and centralized campaigns
generally occupy the national sovereignty pole, whereas the new movements organized in horizontal networks tend to cluster at the non-sovereign
pole. And furthermore, within traditional, centralized organizations, the top tends toward sovereignty and the base away. It is no surprise, perhaps, that those in positions of power would be
most interested in state sovereignty and those excluded least. This may help to explain, in any case, how the national sovereignty, anti-globalization position could dominate the representations
of the Forum even though the majority of the participants tend rather toward the perspective of a non-national alternative globalization. As a concrete illustration of this political and ideological
difference, one can imagine the responses to the current economic crisis in Argentina that logically follow from each of these positions. Indeed that crisis loomed over the entire Forum, like a
threatening premonition of a chain of economic disasters to come. The first position would point to the fact that the Argentinian debacle was caused by the forces of global capital and the
policies of the IMF, along with the other supranational institutions that undermine national sovereignty. The logical oppositional response should thus be to reinforce the national sovereignty of
Argentina (and other nation-states) against these destabilizing external forces. The second position would identify the same causes of the crisis, but insist that a national
solution is neither possible nor desirable. The alternative to the rule of global capital and its institutions will only be found at an
equally global level, by a global democratic movement. The practical experiments in democracy taking place today at neighbourhood and city levels in Argentina, for
example, pose a necessary continuity between the democratization of Argentina and the democratization of the global system. Of course, neither of these perspectives provides an adequate
recipe for an immediate solution to the crisis that would circumvent IMF prescriptions—and I am not convinced that such a solution exists. They rather present different political
strategies for action today which seek, in the course of time, to develop real alternatives to the current form of global rule. In a previous period we could
have staged an old-style ideological confrontation between the two positions. The first could accuse the second of playing into the hands of neoliberalism, undermining state sovereignty and
paving the way for further globalization. Politics, the one could continue, can only be effectively conducted on the national terrain and within the nation-state. And the second could reply that
national regimes and other forms of sovereignty, corrupt and oppressive as they are, are merely obstacles to the global democracy that we seek. This kind of confrontation, however, could not
take place at Porto Alegre—in part because of the dispersive nature of the event, which tended to displace conflicts, and in part because the sovereignty position so successfully occupied the
central representations that no contest was possible. But the more important reason for a lack of confrontation may have had to do with the organizational forms that correspond to the two
positions. The traditional parties and centralized organizations have spokespeople who represent them and conduct their battles, but no one speaks for a network. How do you
argue with a network? The movements organized within them do exert their power, but they do not proceed through oppositions. One of the basic characteristics of
the network form is that no two nodes face each other in contradiction; rather, they are always triangulated by a third, and then a
fourth, and then by an indefinite number of others in the web. This is one of the characteristics of the Seattle events that we have had the most trouble understanding:
groups which we thought in objective contradiction to one another—environmentalists and trade unions, church groups and anarchists—were
suddenly able to work together, in the context of the network of the multitude. The movements, to take a slightly different perspective,
function something like a public sphere , in the sense that they can allow full expression of differences within the common context
of open exchange. But that does not mean that networks are passive . They displace contradictions and operate instead a kind of
alchemy, or rather a sea change, the flow of the movements transforming the traditional fixed positions; networks impos ing their
force through a kind of irresistible undertow . Like the Forum itself, the multitude in the movements is always overflowing, excessive and unknowable. It is certainly
important then, on the one hand, to recognize the differences that divide the activists and politicians gathered at Porto Alegre. It would be a mistake, on the other hand, to try
to read the division according to the traditional model of ideological conflict between opposing sides. Political struggle in the age of
network movements no longer works that way. Despite the apparent strength of those who occupied centre stage and dominated the representations of the Forum, they may
ultimately prove to have lost the struggle. Perhaps the representatives of the traditional parties and centralized organizations at Porto Alegre are too much like the old national leaders gathered
at Bandung—imagine Lula of the PT in the position of Ahmed Sukarno as host, and Bernard Cassen of ATTAC France as Jawaharlal Nehru, the most honoured guest. The leaders can
certainly craft resolutions affirming national sovereignty around a conference table, but they can never grasp the democratic power of the movements. Eventually they too will be
swept up in the multitude, which is capable of transforming all fixed and centralized elements into so many more nodes in its
indefinitely expansive network.
Feminism Answers – Alternative – Separatism – Coopted
They will be coopted and shut down
Tate, associate vice president for Academic Affairs at Georgia Southwest State University, 5
(Helen, “The Ideological Effects of a Failed Constitutive Rhetoric: The Co-option of the Rhetoric of White Lesbian Feminism”,
accessed 4/23/15 Women's Studies in Communication28.1 (Spring 2005): 1-31, dml)
In response to the question "what is a lesbian?" the Radicalesbians positioned the lesbian at the site of political resistance to patriarchy: "A lesbian is the
rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion," they wrote. "She is the woman who, often beginning at an extremely early age, acts in accordance with her inner compulsion to be a
more complete and freer human being than her society - perhaps then, but certainly later cares to allow her" (81). In this sense, the lesbian is the first feminist, the woman
who recognizes and resists her oppression before all others. The group desexualized lesbianism by defining it as "a category of behavior possible only in a sexist society characterized by rigid
sex roles and dominated by male supremacy," and concluded that in "a society in which men do not oppress women, and sexual expression is allowed to follow feelings, the categories of
homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear" (81-82). Radicalesbians identified "lesbian" as a "scare" word "which keeps women within the confines of the feminine role, and . . . from
forming any primary attachments, groups, or associations among ourselves" (82). They asserted, "Only women can give to each other a new sense of self. That identity we have to develop with
reference to ourselves, and not in relation to men. This consciousness is the revolutionary force from which all else will follow, for ours is an organic revolution." The group called on
heterosexual women to join lesbians in their commitment to women: "Our energies must flow toward our sisters, not backward toward our oppressors. . . . It is the primacy of women relating to
women, of women creating a new consciousness of and with each other, which is at the heart of women's liberation, and the basis for the cultural revolution" (83-84). The Radicalesbians
repositioned lesbianism from a private matter of peripheral importance, the "lavender herring," to the center of a revolutionary feminism and
the ultimate challenge to a male-defined world. Lesbianism was no longer a deviancy, a sexual orientation, or private matter; it
was a revolutionary political stance. This reconstituted notion of lesbianism was adopted by other lesbian feminists who used
similar strategies to desexualize lesbianism and to reposition lesbian identity as the quintessential feminist stance. Rich wrote the
influential article "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" which, like "The Woman-Identified Woman," was highly anthologized. Rich resisted the "clinical and limiting ring" of
"lesbian" and offered the "lesbian continuum" as an alternative to expand "lesbianism" to include "many more forms of intensity between and among women" (192). She asserted, "I mean the
term lesbian continuum to include a range - through each woman's life and throughout history - of woman-identified experience; not simply the fact that a woman has had or consciously
desired genital sexual experience with another woman" (192). Rich explained, "as we delineate a lesbian continuum, we begin to discover the erotic in female terms: as that which is unconfined
to any single part of the body or solely to the body itself (193). Expanding on the idea of the woman-identified woman, Rich broadened the contours
of lesbianism to a continuum of experiences that might include such experiences as close friendships among young girls or women,
or even the mother/daughter bond. Synecdochically expanded, lesbianism came to represent for some women collective resistance
to class oppression. This connection, as the above passage from Rich illustrates, obscured sexuality as relevant to lesbianism. Even women who had
never had sexual relations with other women were '"lesbians' in the political sense" if they committed their lives to the women's movement (Atkinson 132).3 Rich's stance on heterosexuality
suggested that while some women may find good relationships in men, for women to act politically and collectively, they would have to eschew "compulsory heterosexuality" (201-202).The
Ideological Effects of the Constitutive Rhetoric of the "Woman-Identified Woman" Reducing women's oppression to heterosexuality and expanding the meaning of lesbian to the "woman-
identified woman" allowed lesbian feminists to articulate a feminist identity manifested in the three ideological effects of a constitutive rhetoric, collective subjectivity, a transhistorical subject,
and the illusion of freedom (Charland 139-141). Lesbian feminists provided a collective subjectivity to transcend differences between gay and straight women and created a transhistorical
subject from stories of historical lesbians. Finally, the illusion of freedom offered by the discourse told women they could create their own Utopia by refusing to participate in patriarchy. First,
because lesbian feminists located all forms of oppression in heterosexuality, they could posit the "political lesbian" or "woman-identified woman" as the collective subjectivity at the pinnacle
of feminist activism. Political lesbianism, the woman-identified woman, and the lesbian continuum provided the means for heterosexual
women to participate with lesbians at the center of feminist activism. As Atkinson explained, "There are women who have never had sexual relations with other
women, but who have made, and live, a total commitment to this movement. These women are 'lesbians' in the political sense" (132). She dramatically asserted, "I'm enormously less interested
in whom you sleep with than I am in with whom you are prepared to die" (138). Bunch argued that lesbian feminism "is a political critique of the institution and ideology of heterosexuality as a
cornerstone of male supremacy." She continued, lesbian feminism "is a commitment to women as a political group, which is the basis of a political/economic strategy leading to power for
women, not just an 'alternative community'" (175). Bunch asserted, "Lesbian-feminism is not a political analysis 'for lesbians.' It is a political perspective and fight against one of the major
institutions of our oppression - a fight which heterosexual women can engage in" (178). She concluded, "A woman-identified woman is a feminist who adopts a lesbian-feminist ideology and
enacts that understanding in her life, whether she is lesbian sexually or not" (198). The discourse of lesbian feminism not only redefined the terrain for
heterosexual women so they could claim "political lesbian" status, it redefined the terrain of lesbian identity. Bunch asserted that a
"lesbian is a woman whose sexual/affectional preference is for women," but she noted that this did not mean the lesbian necessarily embraced "a lesbian-feminist political analysis" (198). Rich,
too, maintained that the lesbian was not inherently feminist, but only so when she recognized the political nature of her sexual identity. "We can say that there is a nascent feminist political
content in the act of choosing a woman lover or life partner in the face of institutionalized heterosexuality," she wrote. "But for lesbian existence to realize this political content in an ultimately
liberating form, the erotic choice must deepen and expand into conscious woman-identification - into lesbian/feminism" (201). Thus, the political collectivity offered by
white lesbian feminist discourse reconfigured notions of both feminism and lesbianism into a politically conscious collective
subjectivity. Lesbian feminist analysis also posited the historical legacy of the lesbian as the transhistorical subjectivity of feminism. It offered a historic, transcendent notion of feminism
as lesbianism. Rich defined the "lesbian continuum" to include not only a range of experiences throughout each woman's life, but throughout the "history of woman-identified experience." She
argued that the suppression of lesbianism, the "destruction of records and memorabilia and letters documenting the realities of lesbian existence" was a means of "keeping heterosexuality
compulsory for women" (192). Rich drew on the stories of "woman-identified women" to illustrate her lesbian continuum such as the Beguines of the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, who built
a community of women, Sappho and her women's school in the seventh century B.C., and of African and Chinese women who resisted marriage. Rich concluded that a central fact of women's
history emerges from these stories, that is, "women have always resisted male tyranny" (195). She wrote, "A feminism of action, often, though not always, without a theory, has constantly
reemerged in every culture and in every period" (195). "The work that lies ahead, of unearthing and describing what I call here lesbian existence," asserted Rich, "is potentially liberating for all
women" (201). Lesbian feminists sought historical lesbians as the precursors of contemporary feminism. Bunch wrote, "Every land has its tales of women who masqueraded as men in their
search for a freer life. . . . They are a testament to woman's continual drive to escape her oppression. Many of these women were lesbians and a proud part of our history" (168-169). Myths of
lost matriarchies provided connections to powerful and mystical ancestors whose lives were taken over by men and whose histories were suppressed. "The Parable of the Mothers and
Daughters" by Florence Rush told the story of the subjugation of women to men, how the "breastless people" enslaved the "breast-people" (4-5). The "first crime," in its various mythical and
theoretical forms, provided the scene against which all women were to fight. The historicized lesbian, living independently of men, provided a feminist history of struggle against male
supremacy, and offered lesbianism as the model for the contemporary feminist activist. The third ideological effect of the constitutive rhetoric of the woman-identified woman was to provide
the illusion of freedom. This discourse of liberation stemmed from an understanding of heterosexuality as the primary means by which men oppress women and the first subjugation. The
"woman-identified woman" provided a site of resistance to male tyranny and a telos of women's collective freedom from that tyranny. Historical lesbians provided the model for contemporary
feminists who, if they rejected their feminine roles, could liberate themselves. The telos of the discourse invited an understanding of lesbianism as the path to women's liberation. As Abbott and
Love optimistically proclaimed, "It just may be that the Lesbian, far from being an odd kind of woman - tolerated, at best, by society - is a catalyst to a new culture. Far from being sick, she
may be extraordinary, even heroic" (238). The rhetoric of lesbian feminism rearticulated feminism and lesbianism, positioning lesbian feminists at the center of feminist identity. Lesbians were
defined as "natural" feminists by virtue of their rejection of patriarchy even before they recognized the political implications of their personal decisions, but they were not completely feminist
until they acknowledged the political implications of their natural state. Heterosexual feminists could claim this revolutionary identity by renouncing their "heterosexual privileges" and
devoting their energies to women's liberation (Bunch 188). Lesbian feminists were able to transform lesbian identity into the vanguard of radical feminism. If a feminist was the woman who
rejected her male-defined feminine role, then lesbians were the first feminists. As Abbott and Love explained it, "Lesbians came to understand that they were much more than a despised
minority to be heard, more than a troublesome problem in public relations, that Lesbian Feminists might actually be the spine of the movement" (136). They argued that "Lesbians already meet
the criteria that Women's Liberation has set up to describe the liberated woman, while many straight women - even some of those in the movement - do not." They hailed lesbian economic
independence, sexual self-determination, and daily defiance of sex roles as models of feminist living. "Lesbians live what Feminists theorize about; they embody Feminism," concluded Abbott
and Love. This repositioning of lesbianism within feminism meant lesbians did not need to "ask for acceptance in the Women's Liberation movement because they are its natural leaders" (136-
137). The constitutive rhetoric of lesbian feminists linked feminism and lesbianism, creating a radical political identity, but this was a highly contested rhetoric. Challenging the Rhetoric of
Political Lesbianism The discourse of lesbian separatism, like all constitutive rhetorics are, was a contested site of political identity. While many white lesbian feminists
felt affirmed in the liberatory vision of political lesbianism, most heterosexual feminists and lesbians of color did not. Charland
explains that "not all constitutive rhetorics succeed." To succeed, the rhetoric must interpellate audience members and "necessitate action in the material world" (141). For most
heterosexual women and lesbians of color, the discourse of political lesbianism did not allow them to "act freely in the social
world to affirm their subject position" as feminists (141). As a contested site of feminist identity many would eschew "lesbianism" as the political solution to sexism. Anne Koedt wrote, "a
radical feminist is not just one who tries to live the good non-sexist life at home, she is the one who is working politically in society to destroy the institution of sexism" (86). Koedt defined
radical feminism as "defying the sex role system" and argued that lesbianism "becomes radical only if it is then placed in the context of wanting to destroy the system as a whole, that is,
destroying the sex role system as opposed to just rejecting men" (86). Given that women have "historically been defined, on the basis of biology, as incomplete without a man" and feminists
reject this notion, Koedt concluded that feminists "must equally reject any new definition which offers a woman her identity by
virtue of the fact that she may love or sleep with other women" (88). Finally, Koedt rejected the teleological implications of lesbianism feminism: "I have seen
women being told they could not be trusted as feminists because they wore miniskirts, because they were married . . . or because they wanted to have children. This rejection of
women who are not living the 'liberated life' has predictably now come to include rejection on the basis of the 'unliberated' sex
life" (88). She wrote, "while it is true that there are political implications in everything a woman qua woman experiences, it is not therefore true that a woman's life is the political property of
the women's movement. And it seems to me to show a disrespect for another woman to presume that it is any group's (or individual's) prerogative to pass revolutionary judgment on the
progress of her life" (88). While Koedt and others accepted lesbianism as one possible political choice and considered it a feminist
concern, they rejected lesbian feminist identity as the pinnacle of radical feminism. The rhetoric of white lesbian feminism was
also contested by lesbians of color who understood their own oppression as much broader than sex oppression. In general, women of
color, both straight and lesbian, were uneasy about radical feminism's sweeping condemnation of men and separatist lesbians' specific rejection of them. Women of color recognized that their
oppression was not based solely in sex and so could not base their liberation solely in freedom from sex oppression. While at odds with men of color over sexism, they
were united with them in the struggle against racism. The Combahee River Collective, a group of black lesbian feminists, formed as a consciousness-raising group in
1974 and engaged in intense consciousness-raising for three years before articulating their own manifesto, a statement for black lesbian feminists which emphasized the "simultaneity" of
racism, sexism, heterosexism, and classism in their lives (232). Unlike white lesbians who developed a separatist ideology, the Combahee River Collective emphasized their connection to black
men. The group explained, "Although we are feminists and lesbians, we feel solidarity with progressive black men and do not advocate the fractionalization that white women who are
separatists demand." They continued, "Our situation as black people necessitates that we have solidarity around the fact of race, which white women of course do not need to have with white
men, unless it is their negative solidarity as racial oppressors" (233). The group asserted, "We struggle together with black men against racism, while we also struggle with black men about
sexism" (234). Other black feminists such as Mary Ann Weathers emphatically affirmed black feminists' solidarity with black men: "Let it be clearly
understood that black women's liberation is not antimale; any such sentiment or interpretation as such cannot be tolerated" (159). White women might be able to alienate white men, but women
of color - lesbian or straight - could not afford to neglect their communities where they traditionally gained support and sustenance in their struggles against racism. For a constitutive
rhetoric to succeed, its subjects must be interpellated into the rhetoric's narrative and so be positioned with political motive to
bring closure to the story (Charland 143). The issue of lesbianism was so divisive that between 1970 and 1972, "the movement was convulsed by the gay-straight split" (Echols
220). For some women, both lesbian and straight, the woman-identified woman offered them an affirming identity at the vanguard of their ideological beliefs. Flora Davis explained that being
a political lesbian gave some heterosexual women "the ultimate chance to burn their bridges and demonstrate the commitment they'd made to feminism" and for others, especially women
emerging from broken marriages, "an all-woman environment seemed to promise a refuge where they could find intimate relationships that were truly equal" (269). But for many heterosexual
women and lesbians of color the discourse of political lesbianism failed as a constitutive term of feminist identity. For refusing to make a complete commitment to
women, "heterosexual women were made to feel like the movement's backsliders." Their inability or refusal to make a 'primal commitment' to other
women made them suspect (Echols 239-240). Alice Echols explained "More than ever, how one lived one's life, not one's commitment to political struggle, became the salient factor" policing
the borders of feminist identity (240). Davis noted that "Many straight women felt they were being pressured to become lesbian or at least stop consorting with the enemy" (267). Ryan
explained the pressure many heterosexual feminists felt to conform to the expectations of political lesbianism: "It was common to be told that a
discussion of women's relations with men was not appropriate for a women's community. Married feminists were often made to feel that the problems they
had in their marriages were of their own choosing since they elected to stay in those relationships" (50-51). Lesbians of color who understood
their oppression in broader terms than sex oppression could not accept a separatist ideology and were forced to develop their own consciousness-raising groups in order to develop their own
rhetoric of liberation. Rather than creating a vision of women's liberation, the constitutive rhetoric of white lesbian feminism created
an irreconcilable rift within the movement. Ultimately, despite failing as a constitutive term of feminist identity, lesbian feminism profoundly changed the contours of the
women's movement. Echols argued that lesbian feminism supplanted radical feminism and gave way to cultural feminism.4 Though their goal had been to transcend
differences between heterosexual women and lesbian women in affirming lesbian identity as the pinnacle of feminist
radicalism, lesbian feminists drove most heterosexual women from the radical branch of feminism. Echols noted, "by 1975 the radical wing
of the movement was predominantly lesbian" (240). As cultural feminism eclipsed radical feminism as the dominant ideological tendency in women's liberation, the liberal feminism of NOW
became the recognized voice of the women's movement (Echols 243). Within NOW, lesbians gained acceptance and support for the right of women to define their sexuality, but they did not
endorse lesbianism as the model of feminist activism. Nonetheless, as the conservative backlash against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) campaign gained strength, the icon of the lesbian
feminist was co-opted and popularized in antifeminist discourse as the face of feminism.
Feminism Answers – Alternative – Separatism – Turn – Intersectionality
Lesbian separatism devastates intersectional identities – this re-instates white/male hierarchies of power
and undercuts alternative solvency
Colker, Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 95
(Ruth, “An Embodied Bisexual Perspective,” accessed 4/23/15, http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1137&context=yjlh, jjo)
Blasingame's discussion provides excellent insight into the bridges that must be crossed if people of color are to feel more welcome in the "gay" movement. Our bipolar orientation about
sexuality therefore contributes to a misleading understanding of how people actually experience sexuality in their lives while also making people in various ethnic communities feel separated
from the gay rights movement. When we can start talking about people who have sex with people of the same sex, without making any assumptions about whether they also have sex with
people of the opposite sex, then we may enter a more racially inclusive politics. If it is true that far more people have experienced a bisexual lifestyle than is commonly recognized, why is
bisexuality usually ignored?55 I would suggest that ignoring bisexuality allows society to perpetuate the myth that sexuality is rigidly dichotomous.
That myth seems to be a male and white myth to the extent that it especially hides women's and African-American men's sexual
experiences.56 John McNeill argues that this bipolar imagery creates a "narrow, impoverished, and dehumanizing self-image for both parties. 57 Additionally, the concept of bisexuality
may not be given effect because it might force us to define sexual orientation in a way that is not tied entirely to ongoing sexual experiences. A person's feelings rather than
choice of sexual partner would be most relevant. This point arises from the fact that many people identify themselves as bisexual at times when they are currently involved
with both a man and a woman. They may be involved with, for example, a man but recognize the possibility (in some cases based on their past experience) that they could, in the future, be
involved with a woman. A fully embodied understanding of sexuality, of course, understands that our sexuality is far more than our current sexual experiences. Thus, I would suggest that it is a
disembodied conception of sexuality that leads society to view sexuality narrowly, noncontextually, and rigidly. Another important consequence of a bisexual
perspective that might promote cross-racial dialogue is a rejection of separatism. Separatism requires people to identify with one
aspect of themselves-woman, black, gay, handicapped, and so on. An African American lesbian who is a separatist, for example, would have to separate herself into
three distinct categories, none of which would accord sufficient respect to her humanness. In addition, as we have seen, separatism in the women's movement has often
meant that this movement has operated only to strengthen the voices of middle- and upper-class white women, paying little
attention to racial and class issues. Bell hooks does an excellent job in describing the alienation that occurs within a "woman's only" feminist movement: Anti-male
sentiments alienated many poor and working class women, particularly non-white women, from the feminist movement. Their life
experiences had shown them that they have more in common with men of their race and/or class group than bourgeois white women. They know the sufferings and hardships women face in
their communities; they also know the sufferings and hardships men face and they have compassion for them.58 This antiseparatist perspective is related to the role of African American women
in the church. Hooks, for example, describes the role of African-American and white women within the cultural groups in their community. African-American women, she suggests, have
always played a prominent role in the church; white women have had a more submissive role within cultural organizations. Summarizing from this cultural difference, hooks says: "Without the
material input of black women, as participants and leaders, many male-dominated institutions in black communities would cease to exist; this is not the case in all white communities."59
Asking African-American women to be separatists is therefore asking them to break their important ties to the Black Church. This makes
no political sense and contributes to the law/morality dichotomy that I have criticized above. In sum, the disembodied nature of gay rights discourse remains a
problem both in society as a whole and in the gay rights community. In society-at-large, the assumption exists that the only legitimate religious perspective
on gay rights must be opposed to gay rights. Proponents of gay rights have ceded the moral high ground and have tried to insist that we keep morality separate from politics. A more holistic
view would argue for gay rights from the perspective that gay people deserve protection from persecution as persons, not because we should abstractly separate law and politics. Within the
gay community, a holistic perspective would also help us see across our differences-to recognize the full range of human sexuality that
can be expressed. It would help us move beyond the rigid dichotomies of gay and straight to recognize the bisexuality in many of us. Moreover, such a holistic dialogue
might cut across racial differences by not requiring us to identify with rigid categories that conflict with our cultural
experiences.
