Fuck is a term used to exhibit patriarchial control

over womenit is used to dominate and control

women viewed as too emotional by society
Johnson 05
Allan G. Johnson, The Gender Knot, 2005
accessed at:
(http://books.google.com/books?
id=3nnxlqbN-
IEC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%22fuck
%22+%22patriarchal
%22&source=web&ots=EhfXrw7QS2&sig=
S1_2JUr7Gc2R7ErnRitmDe6HQU0&hl=en
&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=res
ult#PPR7,M1)
In other words, the Wild Man represents what is most difficult for humans to control, which from a patriarchal
perspective looks more female than male. The most uncontrollable force in human life is nature, which
patriarchal culture routinely characterizes as female. Women are regarded
as irrational beings ruled by emotion, intuition, and the rhythms, needs,
and desires of the body. In patriarchal culture, truly dangerous wildness is
female, for it is female wildness that threatens male privilege . This is why so much
energy is expended trying to control girls and women. It is why sexually active girls are more likely to be
institutionalized as incorrigible than are sexually active boys. Its why openly sexual women are often regarded
by men as asking for men to assert control by raping them. Its why the Wild Woman is so often portrayed as a
nymphomaniac whose wildness isnt true wildness at all, but a compulsion that winds up primarily serving mens

Its why a good fuck is the standard patriarchal cure for

sexual fantasies.

women whose condition is the wildness of female autonomy and power

and a hairy, carnal juiciness that defies male control.

The impact is the endless devaluation of women until they are symbolically
annihilated
Kleinman 02
Kleinman 2 Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina - (Sherryl, Why Sexist Language Matters,
Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 25, No. 2, Summer 2002,
http://uncadvocatesformdphdwomeninscience.web.unc.edu/files/2014/03/Kleinman_QualitativeSociology_2002.p
df)//sb
We know from history that making a group invisible makes it easier for the powerful to do what

they want with members of that group. Perhaps thats why linguists use
 the strong language of symbolic
annihilation to refer to the
disappearance of women into
male-based terms . And we know, from too many past and current

too many men are doing

studies, that far

what they want with women . Most of us

mens sexual
can see a link between callingwomen sluts and whores and

violence against women. We need

to recognize that making women
linguistically a subset of man/men
through terms like mankind and
guys also makes women into objects. If we, as women, arent worthy of such true
generics as first-year, chair, or you all, then how can we expect to be paid a mans wage, be respected
as people rather than objects (sexual or otherwise) on the job and at home, be treated as equals rather than
servers or caretakers of others, be considered responsible enough to make our own decisions about reproduction,
and define who and what we want as sexual beings? If we arent even deserving of our place in humanity in
language, why should we expect to be treated as decent human beings otherwise?

Their use of the f word is an independent reason to vote neg using this term
naturalizes the gendered system. This crushes aff solvency.
Schwyzer, 09 Hugo Schqyzer, community college history and gender studies professor, Berkley
and#34;Penetrateand#34; v. and#34;Engulfand#34; and the multiple meanings of the and#34;fand#34; word: a
note on feminist language, 4 November 2009, http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-
multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/

long before kids

Theres a pause at this point. Heres the problem: most in our

become sexually active, the

culture

most common slang word in the American idiom

has knit together sex and two things in their consciousness:

rage. If fucking is the most

common slang term for
intercourse, and fuck you or
fuck off the most common
 terms to express contempt or
rage, whats the end result? A
culture that has difficulty distinguishing
sex from violence. a In a world where

heartbreakingly high percentage

of women will be victims of rape , its

the language itself

not implausible to suggest that at least in part,

normalizes sexual violence. I

challenge students my . I dont ask them to give up all the satisfactions

to think about words

of profanity; rather I challenge them

like fuck or screw and then make a

commit to confine the use ofment

those words to either a

description of sex ) or to (We fucked last night

express anger or extreme

exasperation (Im so fucking furious with you right now!) but not, not,

not, both. Rage and lust are both

normal human experiences; we will get angry and we will be sexual (or want to be) over and over

But we have a
again over the course of our lives.

responsibility to make a , I think, clear and

bright line between the language

of sexual desire and the language
of contempt and indignation. Pick one arena of
human experience where that most flexible term in the English vernacular will be used, and confine it there.

Words matter , I tell my students. Were told over and over again that a picture is
 we forget that words have
worth a thousand words but

the power to paint pictures in our minds

of how the world is and how it ought to
be. The language we use for
sexuality , the words we use for rage and longing these words

construct images in our heads, in

our culture, and in our lives. We
have an obligation to rethink how we
speak as part of building a more
pleasurable, safe, just and
egalitarian world.
Disease
Capitalism solves disease
Norberg, Fellow at Timbro and CATO, 03
[Johan, In Defense of Global Capitalism, pg. 186, TCT]
One common objection to the market economy is that it causes people and
enterprises to produce for profit, not for needs. This means, for example,
pharmaceutical companies devoting huge resources to research and
medicines to do with obesity, baldness, and depression, things that westerners
can afford to worry about and pay for, whereas only a fraction is devoted to
attempting to cure tropical diseases afflicting the poorest of the world's inhabitants, such
as malaria and tuberculosis. This criticism is understandable. The unfairness exists, but
capitalism is not to blame for it. Without capitalism and the lure of profit, we
shouldn't imagine that everyone would have obtained cures for their
illnesses. In fact, far fewer would do so than is now the case. If wealthy
people in the West demand help for their problems, their resources can be
used to research and eventually solve those problems, which are not necessarily
trivial to the people afflicted with them. Capitalism give3\s companies economic
incentives to help us by developing medicines and vaccines. That westerners
spend money this way does not make things worse for anyone. This is not money that
would otherwise have gone to researching tropical diseasesthe pharmaceutical
companies simply would not have had these resources otherwise. And, as free trade
and the market economy promote greater prosperity in poorer countries,
their needs and desires will play a larger role in dictating the purposes of
research and production.
Democracy
Capitalism is key to democracy its collapse allows for autocracy to make a
comeback
Mises, leader of the Austrian School of economic thought, 62
[Ludwig Von, January, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, The Elite under Capitalism,
http://mises.org/daily/5338/The-Elite-under-Capitalism, 6/29/11, JT]
In the precapitalistic society the superior men knew no other method of utilizing their own
superiority than to subdue the masses of inferior people. But under capitalism the more
able and more gifted men can profit from their superiority only by serving to the best of
their abilities the wishes and wants of the majority of less gifted men. "Precisely
because they are producing for profit, the businessmen are producing for the use of the
consumers." In the market economy, the consumers are supreme. Consumers
determine, by their buying or abstention from buying, what should be produced, by
whom and how, of what quality and in what quantity. The entrepreneurs, capitalists, and
landowners who fail to satisfy in the best possible and cheapest way the most urgent of
the not-yet-satisfied wishes of the consumers are forced to go out of business and forfeit
their preferred position. In business offices and in laboratories the keenest minds are
busy fructifying the most complex achievements of scientific research for the production
of ever better implements and gadgets for people who have no inkling of the scientific
theories that make the fabrication of such things possible. The bigger an enterprise is,
the more it is forced to adjust its production activities to the changing whims and fancies
of the masses, its masters. The fundamental principle of capitalism is mass production to
supply the masses. It is the patronage of the masses that makes enterprises grow into
bigness. The common man is supreme in the market economy. He is the customer "who
is always right." In the political sphere representative government is the corollary of the
supremacy of the consumers in the market. The officeholders depend on the voters in a
way similar to that in which the entrepreneurs and investors depend on the consumers.
The same historical process that substituted the capitalistic mode of production for
precapitalistic methods substituted popular government democracy for royal
absolutism and other forms of government by the few. And wherever the market
economy is superseded by socialism, autocracy makes a comeback. It does not matter
whether the socialist or communist despotism is camouflaged by the use of aliases such
as "dictatorship of the proletariat" or "people's democracy" or "Fhrer (leader) principle."
It always amounts to a subjection of the many to the few. It is hardly possible to
misconstrue more improperly the state of affairs prevailing in the capitalistic society than
by dubbing the capitalists and entrepreneurs a "ruling" class intent upon "exploiting" the
masses of decent men. We do not have to raise the question as to how the men who
under capitalism are businessmen would have tried to take advantage of their superior
talents in any other thinkable organization of production activities. Under capitalism they
are vying with one another in serving the masses of less gifted men. All their thoughts
aim at perfecting the methods of supplying the consumers. Every year, every month,
every week, something unheard of before appears on the market and is very soon made
accessible to the many. Precisely because they are producing for profit, the
businessmen are producing for the use of the consumers.