College Policy Debate Forums
July 15, 2018, 05:05:43 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: 'Ello friends, I need some help finding sexism impacts  (Read 3025 times)
ThetimestheyareachanginLD
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« on: July 20, 2012, 11:27:02 AM »

Hello everyone,
I'm a lone LD'er from a public school in Nevada. I don't really have access to any internet databases, and I've struggled to find solid impacts for gender discrimination on standard search engines. I'm trying to get a one-up on the debate season this year, and I would really appreciate any help thrown my way.
Thanks! =D

PS, impacts and statistics anywhere in the world will be relevant to my argument
Also, I'm looking at impacts more in the terms of violence caused, deaths that have occurred, economic disadvantages, and severe drama from a global, or even historical, perspective
Logged
ThetimestheyareachanginLD
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2012, 11:30:49 AM »

*trauma. I'd rather we didn't look at sexism in a theatrical light...
Logged
JonZ
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2012, 11:47:02 AM »

You should check out the Wiki at opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com, that's got a lot of evidence and citations which you can search through to find specific evidence.  In addition, if you go to Wake's old opensource page at http://deaconsource.wikispaces.com/Wake+Forest+2011-2012, you can download the full text of cards we read in rounds.  A lot of our teams read the fem K this year, and after looking around for a few minutes, I found this for you:


Gender Hierarchies are not inevitable—failure to solve guarantees extinction
Clark 4
Mary E., PhD and professor of biological studies @ Berkeley, "RHETORIC, PATRIARCHY & WAR: EXPLAINING THE DANGERS OF "LEADERSHIP" IN MASS CULTURE", http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4005307/Rhetoric-patriarchy-war-explaining-the.html

I begin by questioning the notion that patriarchy is a "natural" or "inevitable" form of human society. By "patriarchy" I do not mean a community or society where males hold political positions as spokespersons for the whole and often are adjudicators of local disputes. This "male function" is common in tribal and indigenous societies. But men's power over others is severely limited and generally held only at the pleasure of the entire group, especially the elder women. (4) Patriarchies, rather, are those much larger societies where not only is there gender dominance; they also are highly class-structured, with a small, powerful elite controlling the rest of society, A short history of these entities is necessary to understand today's dilemma. Rigidly controlled patriarchies have evolved and disintegrated at many times and in many places in the past few millennia of human existence-which, being the era of written history, is the condition of humankind most familiar to us. But, as I have argued elsewhere (5) this was an unknown political condition throughout earlier human existence, when small, egalitarian, highly dialogic communities prevailed. Even today, small remnants of such societies still exist in comers of the planet that escaped the socially destructive impact of Western colonization. Modern Western "democracies" are, in fact, patriarchal in structure, evolving out of the old, male-dominated aristocracies of late-Medieval Europe. Those historic class/caste hierarchies were legitimized by embedded religious dogma and inherited royal authority. Together, church and monarch held a monopoly of physical and economic power, creating politically stable, albeit unjust, societies. During the gradual development of the religious Reformation, coupled with the Enlightenment's concept of the "individual citizen," emerging egalitarian ideas threatened to destabilize the social coherence of patriarchal regimes. At the same time, principalities and dukedoms were fusing into kingdoms; kingdoms, in turn, were joining together as giant nation states. The United Kingdom was formed of England, Wales and Scotland-each a fusion of local earlier dukedoms. City States of Italy fused rather later. Bismarck created the "Second Reich" out of diverse German-speaking princedoms in the 1870s. And, adding to this growth in the sheer size of patriarchies there was a doubling of populations every couple of generations. Nation-states emerged as "mass cultures," with literally millions of persons under the control of a single, powerful government. The centralized physical power possessed by most of these several industrializing European nations matched or exceeded that of ancient Rome. To achieve coherence of such societies demanded a new legitimating force to create a broad base of support among giant, diverse populations. The erosion of the belief that classes were a god-given, "natural" state of affairs was hastened by the introduction of low-cost printing and rapidly growing levels of literacy (both necessary to underpin the new Industrial Age). These politically equalizing forces unleashed a host of social discontents that had to be controlled. The old religious threats of damnation or excommunication were fast losing their force, and new legal systems circumscribed the absolute powers of monarchs to control social behavior. This very cacaphony of voices threatened the stability of the new giant states. The "solution," of course, was to take control of the public dialogue, to define the legitimate "topics of conversation." This is the primary role of political "leadership" in today's mass societies, and that leadership uses two major tools to wield its influence: rhetoric and the mass media. I suggest, then, that the high potential for internal instability in giant patriarchal states is a primary factor in setting the stage for today's global insecurity and the extreme militaristic rhetoric that exists both within and between nations. Before continuing this discussion of patriarchy's dangers, I would note that, although in modern Western patriarchies the domination of women by men is less evident as women have gained increasing political and economic status, women with such status tend to assume the "shoulder pads" and "language" of men when it comes to political and economic institutions. Women like Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, Golda Melt, Israeli Prime Minister; Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Reagan's Ambassador to the United Nations; Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State; Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Prime Minister; and Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Security Advisor, come readily to mind. (Thatcher cites the following terms the media applied to her: Iron Lady, Battling Maggie, and Attila the Hen. (6)) The glass ceiling in the corporate world has proved harder to crack, however, so fewer well-known examples exist there of powerful females. (Katherine Graham, who became publisher of the Washington Post after the death of her husband, was one of the few powerful women who to her credit, did not adopt the patriarchal mode.) Hence, I regard the Western nations' politico-economic world view as very much in accordance with that of historical patriarchies, with perhaps one or two Scandinavian exceptions. I thus conclude that the language of international politics today is "gendered" by the political insecurity experienced by leaders of earlier patriarchies, and that the presence of women in such governments has little effect on the framework of public dialogue. (I recall hearing Geraldine Ferraro, when running for Vice-President in 1984, assure an interviewer that she would not hesitate to push the "nuclear button" if necessary.) Hence, it is not our X and Y chromosomes that are at issue here; it is the gendered world view that underpins our institutions and frames our behaviors. As long as those in power "think" in this patriarchal box, we will live in a globally-armed camp, where war-leading even to the annihilation of our species-is a constant, real possibility.
Logged
ThetimestheyareachanginLD
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2012, 01:21:49 PM »

Thanks a ton! This card looks fantastic (although I'll have to be careful how I word the impact given influential women "tend to assume the "shoulder pads" and "language" of men when it comes to political and economic institutions" making the status quo a little harder to change), and the site is a definite boost to my resources.
Thanks, cheers
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.0.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!