The affirmative’s push for patriarchal scientific development causes ecological and nuclear destruction. The patriarchy that underpins the aff is the root cause of genocide, nuclear conflict, war, poverty, ecological destruction and all violence
Jytte Nhanenge – Master of the Arts at the University of South Africa, 2011,“Ecofeminism – Towards Integrating the Concerns of Women, Poor People, and Nature into Development.”
“More, further, quicker, richer, and there is no alternative” are the watch-words in modern hi-tech society, according to Schumacher. It is a forward stampede: if there is crime, the solution is more police, better equipped. If there are environmental problems, the prescription is faster economic growth to pay for anti-pollution techniques. If there is lack of natural resources, we turn to synthetics. If fossil fuels run out, we change to nuclear energy. There is no problem technology cannot solve. However, for Schumacher there is one problem and that is the underlying values: technology is destined to control and conquer the world. Scientific and technological solutions that poison nature, degrade social structures, and generate war, are inherently violent. They make the rich richer, while they create poverty, and destroy life. Bigger technology means bigger concentration of economic power, which exerts greater violence against society and nature. (Schumacher 1993.) Technology can dominate or enhance societies. Hence, science and technology could have developed in a different direction. However, due to patriarchal values, which infiltrated science, the technology it develops dominates, oppresses, exploits, and kills. One reason is that patriarchal societies identify masculinity with conquest. Thus, anytechnical innovation will continue to be a tool for more effective oppression and exploitation. Hence, modern society seems to prioritize technology that destroys life. That is because masculine institutions and patriarchal ideologies dominate modern societies. Their technologies prevailed in Auschwitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in many other parts of the world. Patriarchal power has brought us acid rain, global warming, polluted waters, dictatorships, military states, poverty, and countless cases of human suffering. We have seen men whose power has caused them to lose all sense of reality, decency, and imagination, and we must fear such power. The ultimate result of unchecked patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe and a nuclear holocaust. Such actions are denial of wisdom. It is working against natural harmony, destroying the basis of existence. Thus, as long as people leave questions of technology to the “experts” the forward stampede will continue.
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.
Anne Sisson Runyanand Spike Peterson professor of political science at the University of Arizona, and associate professor of political science at SUNY-Potsdam 1993Global Gender Issues, p 36
Gender issues surface now because new questions have been raised that cannot be addressed within traditional frameworks. The amassing of global data reveals the extent and pattern of gender inequality: Women everywhere have less access to political power and economic resources and less control over processes that reproduce this systemic inequality. Moreover, our knowledge of the world of men and the politics they create is incomplete and inaccurate without knowing how men's activities, including their politics, are related to, even dependent upon, what women are doing-and why.Additionally, our recognizing the power of gender forces us to reevaluate traditional explanations, to ask how they are biased and hence render inaccurate accounts, As in other disciplines, the study of world politics is enriched by acknowledging and systematically examining how gender shapes categories and frameworks that we take for granted. This is necessary for answering the new questions raised and for generating fresh insights-about the world as we currently "know" it and how it might be otherwise.Finally, gender-sensitive studies improve our understanding of global crises, their interaction, and possibilities of moving beyond them. These include crises of political legitimacy and security as states are increasingly unable to protect their citizens against nuclear, economic, or ecological threats; crises of maldevelopment as the dynamics of our global economic system enrich a few and impoverish most; and crises of environmental degradation as the exploitation of natural resources continues in nonsustainable fashion.These global crises cannot be understood or addressed without acknowledging the structural inequalities of the current world system. These inequalities extend well beyond gender issues: They are embodied in interacting hierarchies of race, class, ethnicity, nationality, and religious identification. Examining gender, as this text does, permits us to see how this particular structural inequality works in the world: how it is institutionalized, legitimated, and reproduced. We also begin to see how gender hierarchy interacts with other structural inequalities. Gender shapes, and is shaped b)" all of us. We daily reproduce its dynamics-and suffer its costs-in multiple ways. By learning how gender works, we learn a great deal about structures of inequality and how they are intentionally and unintentionally reproduced. We can then use this knowledge in our struggles to transform not only global gender inequality but also other oppressive hierarchies at work in the world.
The alternative is to reject the affirmative and adopt an ecofeminist perspective.
Only ecofeminism solves- it’s a prerequisite for a respectful relationship to the diversity of all life, nature, and culture. This shift away from flawed policies to a holistic understanding solves the root cause of environmental degradation and domination of the feminine.
Mies and Shiva 1993 (Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva, sociologist and author for the Women’s and Environmental movements in Germany. Phycisits, philosopher and feminist, director of the research foundation for science, technology and natural resource policy. Book: Ecofeminism. 1993. p.6)
An ecofeminist perspective propounds the need for a new cosmology and a new anthropology which recognizes that life in nature (which includes human beings) is maintained by means of cooperation, and mutual care and love. Only in this way can we be enabled to respect and preserve the diversity of all life forms, including their cultural expressions, as true sources of our well-being and happiness. To this end ecofeminists use metaphors like 'reweaving the world', 'healing the wounds', and re-connecting and interconnecting the 'web'.'2 This effort to create a holistic, all life embracing cosmology and anthropology, must necessarily imply a concept of freedom different from that used since the Enlightenment. Freedom versus emancipation This involves rejecting the notion that Man's freedom and happiness depend on an ongoing process of emancipation from nature, on independence from, and dominance over natural processes by the power of reason and rationality. Socialist Utopias were also informed by a concept of freedom that saw man's destiny in hi historic march from the 'realm of necessity' (the realm of nature), to the 'realm of freedom' — the 'real' human realm — which entailed transforming nature and natural forces into what was called a 'second nature', or culture. According to scientific socialism, the limits of both nature and society are dialectically transcended in this process. Most feminists also shared this concept of freedom and emancipation, until the beginning of the ecology movement. But then more people began to reflect upon and question why the application of modem science and technology, which has been celebrated as humanity's great liberators, had succeeded only in procuring increasing ecological degradation, the more acutely aware they became of the contradiction between the enlightenment logic of emancipation and the eco-logic of preserving and nurturing natural cycles of regeneration. In 1987, at the congress 'Women and Ecology' in Cologne (Germany), Angelika Birk and Irene Stoehr spelt out this contradiction, particularly as it applied to the women's movement which, like many other movements inspired by the Enlightenment ideas, had fastened its hopes on the progress of science and technology, particularly in the area of reproduction, but also of house- and other work. Irene Stoehr pointed out that this concept of emancipation necessarily implied dominance over nature, including human, female nature; and, that ultimately, this dominance relationship was responsible for the ecological destruction we now face. How, then, could women hope to reach both their own and nature's 'emancipation' by way of the same logic?