Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Patrimonial? Or patriarchal? And why isn't matrimony the antonym of patrimony, as matriarchal is of patriarchal?

Enquiring minds, etc.

Sort of on topic, when you talk about the men who run the states that globalisation has not quite been able to touch yet not wanting to embrace it because it will mess with their women what do you mean by that I saw you mention this briefly on a video I just watched on youtube of a I think it was a 2004 lecture.

enquiring? or inquiring? ;-)

because word usage departs from its etymology. you see it's closer when you consider matrimony originally refers to the state of being a mother or becoming a mother

R: Tom means that globalization connects and empowers everyone, and disproportionately women in traditional societies. so if the men 'let' globalization come, in the traditional roles of their women, which they cherish and even boast of protecting, will change mightily. the men won't have their privileged positions anymore, their virtual servants, their dreams of virgins in heaven.

when globalization comes in, women start to go to work, they start to get educated, they bear fewer children...

The Core, yesterday and today, treats the Gap in exactly the same way that men in traditional societies treat their women -- "protecting" them, "training" them, "punishing" them and causing them (the nations and people of the Gap) to be the virtual servants of the Core. This is the fundamental flaw in today's strategic thinking regarding globalization and the Gap. Time to properly consider and address this critical problem.

My apologies in advance, Sean, this is gonna run long.

Bill, is the problem with "Protecting", "Training", etc as such, or with the ideas and assumptions behind those actions?

For example, no one would argue with the notion that parents and society have a responsibility to protect and train children. No one argues with this because the responsibility comes with the assumption that children will grow up and leave, by which time they'll have been trained to protect themselves. When parents or society insist on making this protection permanent (without a good reason like mental illness), people rightly get upset.

To apply this to core-gap relations, if the protection we offer to gap countries is a temporary measure while we train them to protect themselves, then there's no trouble. Likewise if the punishment is selective for specific, appropriately serious offenses (sheltering Al Qaeda comes readily to mind) or the servitude is a temporary means to support them until they can become their own masters, then there's no big issue. But if the protection or servitude is permanent, or the training isn't aimed at making them self-sufficient, or the punishment is capricious, then yeah: there's a big problem needing solved.

No offense Bill, but you need to update your thinking on women in advanced societies.

Your equation rings very hollow, and very out of date. Start climbing Maslow's hierarchy and your appreciation of change will follow.

Tom:

I do not understand. I made no reference to women in advanced societes -- -- only to how men treat women in "traditional societies." To be more correct, I probably should have said "... in certain traditional societies." But I believe that this comparison re: the Core's treatment of the Gap and men's treatment of women in certain traditional societies (in both cases: as property) is a good one -- and one which helps illustrate a key problem in today's strategic thinking regarding the Gap. Please see my comment to Michael below.

Michael:

I suggest that the Gap, yesterday and today, are not children, no more than adult slaves and adult women are children. Therefore, I say that the Core has no such "adult" authority over the Gap. The Gap is not our property. Accordingly, the Core must learn to treat the Gap as an equal -- in much the same way that we have learned to treat women and slaves as equals. This is the basis for true progress. Your arguments refering to the Gap as "children" ring very similar to old, outdated arguments made back-in-the-day by those who wished to continue to dominate and exploit slaves and women. Thus your arguments, I believe, help make my point.