Motion: THW Send Women Ambassadors to Countries that Oppress Women Definitions: When are women oppressed?

They are oppressed when there is wide education gap between males and females, when females are subject to significant cases of abuse and violence, or when females are given less rights and even less opportunities for work. Context (where is the debate set?) The debate was set in patriarchal societies, with the European Union being the sender of the ambassadors. Problem (what is the problem? elaborate it.) The problem is that in these patriarchal societies, there is little attention given to the causes of women. In these societies, women have been dismissed by men and have been given less opportunities to forward their own concerns, issues, and rights. Whats more is that even the government has been negligent in addressing such womens issues. The problem, therefore, is how womens issues could be forwarded more effectively not only to the people on the ground but moreover to the very government that has been neglectful such causes. GOVERNMENT Stand: Womens causes will be better forwarded if we send female ambassadors. Mechanisms (number of mechanisms may vary) 1. Send female ambassadors to countries that oppress women to talk with government officials.

Argument 1: a.) Label: [being female is a] Legitimate qualifier that will enable them to better serve their purpose b.) Background: Ambassadors have the role of reporting the state of a countryof how, for example, there are people who have been victims of calamities or who have been stricken with poverty. The reports of such ambassadors can become the basis on how their home countries would deal with their host countries, for example, in terms of how much developmental aid the home country would give to the host country. It is also the role of the ambassador to reach out to the people for the ambassador to see the situation of the country on the ground. Female ambassadors could better assess the issue and concerns of these women. c.) Explanation/Analysis: (the argument should be analyzed in several levels) The abuse, for example, that women endure in these countries are personal issues. These are abuses that have been caused by their very own males. You cannot expect

these women to give their trust or to be comfortable to open up with men because these are the very species that inflicted harm on them. The fact that majority of womens rights groups are headed by women illustrates that the affinity that they share makes them more likely to run into other women as well, especially if it is a woman who is in a seat of power. With oppressed women comfortable with raising their issues to other women makes a female ambassador a more effective person to assess the situation.

Banking also on the role of ambassadors as decision-makers in terms of inter-country relations, the government that has long failed to address womens issues will be forced to tackle the issue that women ambassadors would bring up. Even if there is little respect for women, since her position gives her political power and political influence, a female ambassador would be able to make government officials address and to give tangible action regarding the issues that she would support.

d.) Example/Evidence: The fact that majority of womens rights groups are headed by women illustrates that the affinity that they share makes them more likely to run into other women as well, especially if it is a woman who is in a seat of power.

e.) Conclusion(s): A female ambassador can gain the trust and confidence of the oppressed party and can command the attention and respect of government officials. Therefore, she would be effective in assessing and forwarding womens issues and concerns.

Argument 2: a.) Label: Effective role models in changing the mindsets of the women b.) Background: When state officials have to enact policies or support certain causes or interests, most likely, they get interviewed by the media. Even more, state officials get quoted by these media. The media allows such messages or causes or policies forwarded by these officials to be known to the common people without having these officials necessarily have personal interactions with the people. c.) Explanation/Analysis: (the argument should be analyzed in several levels)

In Bangladesh for example only a few women are given political power. It is necessarily because it has been a part of their history, a thing that has been appended in their very culture. When a female ambassador gets interviewed by the media or when her support for womens causes gets televised, for example, she is able to reach to the women on the ground. If she is to be seen as having active

participation in politics and law-making, she sends a notion that women can deal with men. The female ambassador gets the notion across women on the ground that they can be on equal terms with men, making them able to deal or to discourse with them. Although this change in mindset may be slow, there is a possibility of a certain kind of evolution because of the power of suggestion. d.) Example/Evidence: US experiment in the Middle East showed that majority of women expressed that they do not like abuses but deem them as normal. After six months of exposure to Western television that showed women being on equal playing fields with men, the women eventually learned to fight back.

e.) Conclusion(s): The ambassadress could be a living and a tangible example of how women are not really inferior to men and that women can deal and can be dealt with by meneven of men of power. This suggestion, over time, can cause a change in the mindset of these oppressed women.

OPPOSITION Stand: It is not necessary to send a female ambassador to forward womens causes. Male ambassadors would be even more effective. Mechanisms (number of mechanisms may vary)

1. We will send male ambassadors to countries that oppress women.

2. We can send female counselors but not necessarily female ambassadors. 3. There are more effective ways like, for example, NGOs.

Argument 1: a.) Label: Social Change through Acceptable Medium b.) Background:

In these patriarchal societies, women are regarded as second-class citizens. This inferiority of women has even become their values system. Women are not seen as equals of men and this is evident in their non-participation in government, lawmaking, etcera. They cannot command the respect of their men, much more the respect of men in government seats.

c.) Explanation/Analysis: (the argument should be analyzed in several levels)

A more strategic approach would be to adjust to the culture of this patriarchal society. An ambassador necessarily a foreigner, a visitor in this country and should

be flexible to adapt to and to cater to the culture of the state. Given that women are not seen as equal to men, it would be more effective to send a male ambassador. The male could command the respect of his colleagues not only because of his political power but because he is seen as an equal, a colleague instead of a subordinate. A male ambassador would be seen as being credible and thus would have higher chances of convincing government officials to support womens causes. There is a barrier already to supporting womens causes. Sending a female only gives an unwanted risk, making negotiations possibly less likely and more unstable. Saying that a female ambassador can command respect because she is backed by her powerful government instigates that the respect was commanded by the fact of the governments power and not because of her, being female (Opposition Whip). It is more probable that they would listen to an equal rather to a visual representation of something that they deem is inferior and not credible.

d.) Example/Evidence: e.) Conclusion(s): In countries characterized as having stringent values system, it is more strategic to communicate causes through a medium that is acceptable for themthrough a male that would be deemed as credible, whose opinions count. By that, we make them listen and our causes are head and that is when the rally for womens issues might amount to something.

Argument 2: a.) Label: Tempering social backlash with realistic expectations b.) Background: Primarily, an ambassadors role is to make sure that the interests of his/her own home country and his/her own citizens are upheld at the end of the day in the host country. When an ambassador wants to forward certain interests or wants to intercede for his/her own citizens or home country, negotiations are made and concessions are inevitable. These are necessary so as to strike a balance between local traditions, foreign standards and their own interests. It is best to keep diplomatic ties by not hurting the host country as well. c.) Explanation/Analysis: (the argument should be analyzed in several levels)

There are other and more effective ways to promote womens rights without sending in a seemingly meddlesome ambassador. NGOs and other womens groups would be more effective in such a way that they do not have their own interests to protect and that they do not have to maintain good political relations with the state. Their agenda is clear-cut; they are for the lobbying of womens rights. Having an ambassador to meddle with such issuesomething that had stemmed from their own culture and valuesonly shakes the position of that embassy because they are now rooting for a drastic change in social perceptionsomething that would be deemed as suspicious. One cannot really expect an ambassador to lobby for womens rights all the way; it ahs to stop at a certain point if their own interests would be harmed. That is reality.

d.) Example/Evidence: e.) Conclusion(s): There are other effective ways to forward social change without harming the interests of an embassy. NGOs would be more effective because ambassadors have to make certain arrangements that would serve both his/her home and host country. Lobbying for a drastic social change would only hurt good political relations between the two countries.

leyson37@gmail.com