Jump to content
vmanAA738

Neg strat against hydrofem?

Recommended Posts

Why? It seems very strategic, assuming the neg wins Social Death 

That's like...all the links to K aff's?

(Edit, my point is directed at BobbyS)

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? It seems very strategic, assuming the neg wins Social Death 

 

 

That's like...all the links to K aff's?

(Edit, my point is directed at BobbyS)

Social death theory is VERY different than saying that "blacks can't have fluid identity, so neither can women."

 

If you want to go for antiblackness here are some links that are much better:

Footnoting - the only mention of race is within a single card and it is unhighlighted.

White fem/white antiracist - one of the debaters is white, which Tamara Nopper would argue tanks their project.

Flesh vs. body - this is what most of you are trying to argue for; it's not so much that "black people don't get this, so it's antiblack for this unrelated group to get it" but that there is a fundamental and ontological distinction between the two forms of violence, in that while women are seen as human bodies, blacks are seen as simply flesh. They are feminized in that blacks face the same sort of violence women do, and more because they experience it on an ontological level. Check out page 313 of Red, White, and Black for a better explanation of this.

Advocacy - if you're having troubles like I am pinpointing exactly what they advocate, that's because I don't either. This is probably the weakest link, but it's still a link. The pure fluidity (no pun intended), vagueness, and all out lack of an advocacy statement is in itself whiteness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distinction you're making is fundamentally one of labels. Whether you call it something related to fluid identity or a difference between experiential and gratuitous violence, it still comes down to civil society overdetermining blackness as an ontological prior category to more fluid identities such as gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distinction you're making is fundamentally one of labels. Whether you call it something related to fluid identity or a difference between experiential and gratuitous violence, it still comes down to civil society overdetermining blackness as an ontological prior category to more fluid identities such as gender.

I agree, that however is not the link they were making.

Let's look at the posts for a minute:

"not everyone has that fluidity"

"directly contradictory to the static idea of the Slave"

While the latter is nicely worded, they both echo the same idea: "Black flesh is not fluid, so why do you get to talk about how women have a fluid identity?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, that however is not the link they were making.

Let's look at the posts for a minute:

"not everyone has that fluidity"

"directly contradictory to the static idea of the Slave"

While the latter is nicely worded, they both echo the same idea: "Black flesh is not fluid, so why do you get to talk about how women have a fluid identity?"

I think his argument was more along the lines of "your focus on fluid ontology ignores how identity is material and mapped onto certain bodies", it's not that you can't have discussions of fluidity, but that there is a material reality certain people face. It isn't so much a critique of the idea women may/may not have fluid ontologies, but claiming fluidity as a universal strategy isn't possible for some. This is also the argument many authors (I.E. Wilderson, Sexton, etc.) make against Deleuze("No line of flight for the slave")/Queer theory in general, whether or not I agree is secondary, but it is a common argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a common argument. 

Never did I disagree, I think it's a stupid argument is all.

your focus on fluid ontology ignores how identity is material and mapped onto certain bodies

Bad argument for two reasons:

a) Not mutually exclusive: the arguments centering around Deleuze's notion of identity are not like "change your identity black people" but moreso a recognition that the very basis of identity is always tied to this sort of problem of overdetermining.

B) This aff is not fluid ontology. The aff embraces ontology in two distinct ways. The first is the discussion of ontology of domination between Man and women, and Man and nature. The second is the very materiality of water that is a "fluid ontology."

 

I'll touch the "No line of flight for the slave" later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never did I disagree, I think it's a stupid argument is all.

Bad argument for two reasons:

a) Not mutually exclusive: the arguments centering around Deleuze's notion of identity are not like "change your identity black people" but moreso a recognition that the very basis of identity is always tied to this sort of problem of overdetermining. I get that, I'm just outlining the argument. 

B) This aff is not fluid ontology. The aff embraces ontology in two distinct ways. The first is the discussion of ontology of domination between Man and women, and Man and nature. The second is the very materiality of water that is a "fluid ontology." I'm not really sure about the particularity of the aff, just attempting to clarify the fluidity stuff in the context of how the argument is frequently deployed. 

 

I'll touch the "No line of flight for the slave" later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was the alt card for a specific aff. It probably applies.

 

Our alternative is to reject the symbolic value of the womb as center for reproduction – this is a prerequisite to transforming the social – their “reaffirmation of the life-giving power of their own wombs” is the same discursive ploy utilized by dominant masculine culture to sacrifice women for reproduction while mystifying women’s bodies as the receptacle for male desire

Jennings 07 [Associate Professor of English and Director of Women's Studies at Wright State University, Summer, “Dystopian Matriarchies: Deconstructing the Womb in Angela Carter’s Heroes and Villains and The Passion of New Eve,” http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/dystopian-matriarchies-deconstructing-the-womb-in-angela.pdf?c=mfsfront;idno=ark5583.0021.104]

Thereproductive functionderives much of its power from the cultural myths or religious texts that elevate motherhood, or the womb, to a sacred status, which illogically is used to justify the subjugation of women: They are viewed as sacred because they possess the womb, yet thatis why they are treated so badly for nothing can defile the sacred” (SW: 109). In other words, women’s assigned place in the symbolic order is this maternal role. To deviate from the “norm,” for a woman to play with or reject the reproductive positioning in which she has been situated, is to transgress the paternal law, requiring punishment and repression of her desires. If women are notnatural-born mothers,” and if the womb is merely “an organ like any other organ,” relatively useful but not much use at all if one does “not wish to utilize its sole function, that of bearing children” (SW: 109), then the rationale behind a patriarchal order begins to crumble. Thus, when a feminist discourse continues to rely on theimaginary constructof a mother goddess as the first and last refuge of female identity, this further mystifies women’s bodies as the receptacle and repository for phallocentric desires (SW: 110). For Carter, matriarchal myths are more often than not equally as oppressive as their patriarchal counterparts, since those feminisms that express a desire for the maternal as a source of inherent female power do not so much grant women freedom from phallocentric parameters but, in fact, help keep them in place. Overall, Carter challenges the ways in which women’s reproductive status has been used to define and oppress them through deconstructive tactics and subversive irony. Her dystopian texts invest women with power precisely because they are in possession of a womb, yet the very thing that grants them potency also makes them slaves to a patriarchal ideology, subjects only in relation to their reproductive roles. This is not to say, however, that when Carter insists on refuting maternal myths or archetypes she is calling for the rejection of motherhood, or denying the significance of the mother’s role in the process of subject identification. Carter forces us to question the values that have been invested in motherhood; instead of it being only one of many possible identifications, the female subject rarely has been permitted any other role in the symbolic order. Luce Irigaray claims this is due to the fact that in a patriarchal society women’s bodies function as objects of exchange, and so children become their sole form of currencyin exchange for a market status for themselves,” ultimately revealing that thevalue underpinning our societies for thousands of years has been procreation” (1993: 84–6). Although Irigaray acknowledges how women have been able to undermine patriarchy through persistently challenging and subverting the maternal function, she remains wary of a tendency in feminist discourses toward nostalgia when returning to the old myths, stories, and sacred texts surrounding mother figures or goddesses (ibid). The inherent discursive danger is located in those feminist narratives that invoke maternal archetypes without retaining a critical distance from them, which is necessary to achieving a transformation of the social order or founding a new sexual ethics of identity (ibid). Or rather, as Carter argues, a feminist critique of women’s reproductive positioning in a patriarchal order is at risk of undermining itself when it continues to rely nostalgically onthe invocation of hypothetical great goddesses” (SW: 5), as if this might automatically confer upon women a means of socio-political empowerment. This form of feminist nostalgia engages in a fantasy that evades a confrontation with women’s present-day, lived realities, which have not been entirely emancipated from a patriarchal order (irrespective of those who claim we now live in a “post-feminist” age).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Switch side debate mitigates any offense about how framework excludes important arguments, because they can be read on the neg.  It is a defensive argument, not an offensive one.  Truth testing is just the argument that we need a limited topic of discussion in order to be be able to valuably contest the aff, and that if we aren't able to do so then the judge can never really be sure that the aff is correct about anything.

I disagree---there's case to be made (and some ev to back it up) that K affs ruin SSD (because they never have to defend the law/state) which means you can get deliberation/dogmatism args out of it

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...