Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[33]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[31]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[33]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-29 23:19:06.961
	1	+2016-11-29 23:19:06.0

Caselist.CitesClass[31]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,37 @@
	1	+Part A is the links-
	2	+1st- the Legal system inherently locks Masculinity in a hierarchal relationship above femininity.
	3	+Charlesworth and Chinkin 2000 - *Hilary, **Christine Professors of Law at University of Adelaide and University of South Hampton, The boundaries of international law: a feminist analysis, 2000, p. 40-1)
	4	+
	5	+The hypothesis drawn by some feminist lawyers from Gilligan's research is that, just as traditional psychological theories have privileged a male perspective and marginalized women's voices, so too law privileges a male view of the universe and that law is part of the structure of male domination. The hierarchical organization of law, its adversarial format and its aim of the abstract resolution of competing rights, make the law an intensely patriarchal institution. Law, thus represents a very limited aspect of human experience. The language and imagery of the law underscores is maleness: it lays claim to rationality, objectivity and abstractness, characteristics traditionally associated with men, and is defined in contrast to emotion, subjectivity and contextualized thinking - the province of women.
	6	+
	7	+2nd Your attempt to change a legal standard of ‘clearly established’ into an objective metric supercharges this link- you prioritize the structure of male domination even more through your specific advocacy
	8	+Lindsey de Stefan, JD Candidate, Seton Hall University School of Law, “No Man is Above the Law and No Man is Below It: How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct,” Seton Hall Law Student Scholarship, 2017.
	9	+But perhaps somewhat ironically, the concept of a “clearly” established right is in and of itself less than clear, and a great deal of confusion exists over what rights fall within this vague classification. 83 In essence, approximately 50 percent of the time, a court’s decision to grant immunity to an official is based on a muddled and uncertain legal precept. In order to qualify as clearly established, “a right must be sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” 84 There are few unambiguous bright-line rules in modern constitutional jurisprudence, and most doctrines are instead articulated as relatively vague standards or balancing tests.85 In addition, because there are considerable distinctions in terms of the structure, aim, and available alternative remedies of various constitutional rights, the general-purpose nature of qualified immunity is problematic.86 Defining a clearly established law is straightforward when the right is laid out in a stable and fairly specific doctrine, but when the rule changes, the new law only becomes clearly established when a clarifying court decision is handed down.87 When such constitutional rights are violated, qualified immunity allows officials to avoid liability because of a failure to anticipate developments in the law. 88 And although the Court held in 2002 that there need not be a case on point in order to find clearly established law,89 it has nevertheless continued to grant qualified immunity in the absence of similar precedent.90 Unsurprisingly, lower courts struggle with the question of whether a right is clearly established, and the circuits have developed markedly varying approaches to the inquiry.91 Finally, year after year, despite attempts to clarify the doctrine, it seems that the Supreme Court has only further added to the confusion of lower courts. Indeed, almost without fail, Supreme Court cases since Pearson have apparently further expanded the qualified immunity doctrine by upholding its application in all manner of diverse situations—seemingly in every set of circumstances with which it has been presented.
	10	+3rd The state locks in gender binaries
	11	+Chenoy 2000 – Professor of International Studies @ Nehru University. (Anuradha, Professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, 2000, p.19)
	12	+
	13	+Though patriarchal customs preceded state formation, masculinist and class systems got institutionalized as states were structured. Gender and class relations were backed by the coercive power of the state and the reproduction of this hierarchy was ensured through a complex of legitimizing ideologies. The 'individual household unit rendered women vulnerable to and dependent on fathers/brothers/husbands and weakened their access to countervailing power and support from larger kin networks. The role of women in the domestic/household sphere was regulated by the state. With new inheritance claims, sexuality and reproduction too were regulated by the state. For instance, women's adultery became a crime against the state and was punished publicly. The state became the main organizer of power relations of gender. It engaged in the mystification of its patriarchal base by constructing and manipulating the ideology that drew a distinction between public and private life.
	14	+
	15	+4th- another state link- The state formalizes gender oppression-as long as the aff allows the police to exist oppression is inevitable.
	16	+Chenoy 2000 – Professor of International Studies @ Nehru University. (Anuradha, Professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, 2000, p.19)
	17	+
	18	+According to feminist scholars, the state further formalized gender power relations by retaining male domination of the top personnel within it. Gender differentiation became evident, thanks to disproportionate number of men in the coercive structures of the state (army, police, etc.), and women in the service sectors (teaching, health, clerical support, etc.). In fact, women were "protected" from the so-called "tough professions" in order to keep them out and to prevent them from getting equal rights. Men became eligible for better jobs and better pay in the liberal societies while women had to struggle hard for these privileges.
	19	+5th- reformism links- Legal reforms are counterproductive- even liberal rights: independently no solves and contests your method.
	20	+Koskenniemi 1995 Martti Koskenniemi, University of Helsinki, January, , The American Journal International Law, 89 A.J.I.L. 227, p. 227
	21	+Traditional feminism, in law as elsewhere, sought to "put women on the agenda" ~-~- for example, to make violence against women a violation of international human rights. While first-wave feminism concentrated on legal reform, the second wave has lost faith. Reform has often been ineffectual or led to transformation, rather than eradication, of male dominance. Sometimes, "using" law may have seemed to be a fatal concession. For the law and legal method may themselves, with their adversarial style and obsession with authority and rationality, be bastions of stereotypical masculinity-hence, of male domination. This applies also to the rhetoric of liberal rights ("men's rights," Shelley Wright, p. 120). While "rights," like reformism, may have played a beneficial role in early feminist struggles, they have also proved counterproductive. They oversimplify complex power relations (within the family, for instance); they are individualistic, indeterminate, conflictual and easily appropriated to enhance domination (as the right of free speech is used to defend pornography).
	22	+Part 2 is the impact-
	23	+patriarchy is bad
	24	+Part 3 is the alt-
	25	+The alternative is feminist anarchy- an intersectional approach to combatting the neoliberal order and normative legal structures of the aff.
	26	+http://struggle.ws/wsm/ws/2004/79/thinking.html, Anarcha-Feminism Thinking about Anarchism, by Deirdre Hogan, jan 2004
	27	+An important principle of anarchism and one that more than any other differentiates it from other types of socialism is its emphasis on freedom and non-hierarchical social relations. Central to anarchism is the rejection of society without an end to all existing structures of domination and exploitation, including naturally the oppression of women. As anarchists we believe that the means determines the end. This means that we do not wait for some future revolution to tackle the problems of sexism any power hierarchy between men and women. Anarchists believe that the liberty of one is based on the liberty of all and so there can be no true anarchist but instead see that it is important to struggle against it in the here and now. As anarchists we strive to ensure that both our own organisations and also those campaigns we are involved in are free from sexism and power-hierarchies and that all members have equal decision-making power. We recognise that the full participation of women within the anarchist movement and social struggles of today is very important. In order to shape the future society women must be involved in its creation and, of course, without the participation of half of the population there will be no social revolution. Just as we believe the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class themselves, we also see that, essentially, women’s development, freedom and independence must come from themselves. Becoming involved in political struggle is in itself an act of empowerment. Many women in today’s society do not believe that they could have a role in fundamentally changing things. However by getting involved, by assuming our place — agitating, educating and organising — we begin to take control of our own lives in the process of actively fighting to change the unjust society in which we live. Only in an anarchist society will the basis for the oppression of women cease to exist. This is because women, due to their reproductive role, will always be more vulnerable than men in capitalist society which is based on the need to maximise profit. Abortion rights, paid maternity leave, crèche and childcare facilities etc., in short everything that would be necessary to ensure the economic equality of women under capitalism, will always be especially relevant to women. Because of this, women are generally viewed as being less economical than men to employ and are more susceptible to attacks on gains such as crèche facilities etc. Also, women cannot be free until they have full control over their own bodies. Yet under capitalism, abortion rights are never guaranteed. Even if gains are made in this area they can be attacked, as happens with abortion rights in the USA. The oppression of women under capitalism has thus an economic and sexual basis. From these root causes of women’s oppression, stem other forms of oppression like, for example, the ideological oppression of women, violence against women etc. That is not to say that sexist ideas will just disappear with the end of capitalism, but rather only with the end of capitalism can we rid society of an institutional bias that continues to propagate and encourage sexism. As an anarchist society will not be driven by profit, there, for example, will be no economic penalty for having children or wanting to spend more time with them. Childcare, housework etc., can be seen as the responsibility of the whole of society and thus give women and men more options in general. Anarchism/Anarcha-feminism 1 joins the fight against class exploitation and that against women’s oppression together. True freedom, both for women and men, can only come about in a classless society, where workplaces are self-managed, private property is abolished and the people who make decisions are those affected by them. Clearly the struggle for women’s freedom requires a class struggle by the workers. And in turn, the class struggle can only be successful if it is at the same time a struggle against women’s oppression.
	28	+
	29	+
	30	+Part 4 is framing
	31	+Judge is an educator?
	32	+The epistemological underpinnings of the school and the affs methods must be flipped on its head, key to accessing agency and preventing hierarchal violence. Thus the Roll of the judge is to develop feminist standpoint epistemology
	33	+Pandey 6(Anupam, thesis submitted to faculty of graduate studies and research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctorate of philosophy department of political science Carleton university, forging bonds with women, nature and the third world: an ecofeminist critique of international relations, 103-105 Proj Muse KD)
	34	+
	35	+Both traditional IR theory and its positivist basis have been soundly criticized for their shortcomings by post-positivist approaches such as feminist, post-modern, poststructuralist and critical approaches. This research aims to extend and deepen the existing critique by developing an ecofeminist perspective. A short summation of the post- positivist critique of the neo-realist agenda in this regard lies in the fact that the problem is inherent in the epistemological premises of the school itself. The subject-object dichotomy is responsible for the divorce of ethics from theory. That theorizing helps to construct the reality and the need for epistemological self-consciousness cannot be emphasized enough. “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are” (Ken Booth quoting Anais, 1995: 334). As discussed earlier, the most critical aspect with respect to epistemology and methodology is the hidden element of power associated with it. Robert Cox’s famous statement that theory is always to benefit someone or for some purpose (1986: 207) is equally true for epistemology. The adoption of a particular epistemological choice (which we discussed leads to serious ontological consequences for the discipline which in turn, in constitutive of reality) cannot be an innocent exercise. Thus, the fundamental question that arises is just whose perspective is reflected in the choice of method or even epistemology or quite simply, who is the “knower”? The answer to this question with respect to International Relations and its scientific methods and positivistic methodology is that the subject is clearly the male who represents the White, western, Bourgeois masculinity. Alternately, an ecofeminist epistemology is reflective of the subjectivity or perspective of the epistemology of the voiceless, the dispossessed and the marginalized, specifically, women and nature and it explores the relationship between the two. As discussed in detail in chapter 2, in this regard, much of what an ecofeminist critique promises is already covered by a feminist standpoint epistemology. Not only does the latter help to reveal the element of power in the construction of knowledge by specifying exactly who stands to benefit from such knowledge but it also helps to reverse the hierarchical order by developing an epistemology from the standpoint of the oppressed, namely, women. However, an ecofeminist perspective serves to expand the existing body of knowledge by shifting the focus away not only from androcentricism but even anthropocentricism. This shift in focus is the key to understanding hierarchization, inegalitarianism and exploitation in relationships between humans.
	36	+Dis comes first-
	37	+1 reps first- don’t even try to weigh case fam

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-29 23:19:09.427

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Wendy Schauben

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Pembrook Pines WW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+33

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Crowley Reed Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3- Fem K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Cypress baeeee