Tag Archives: feminism

New Style Spainards (Barnettian 4GW)

Blow to machismo as Spain forces men to do housework,” by Giles Tremlett, The Guardian, 8 April 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1454802,00.html (from Democratic Underground).

The March 11th Terrorist Attacks were one of the most significiant in modern history. If September 11 was deeply ambiguous, March 11 was an unqualified success. al Qaeda removed a Coalition government from power, removed a Coalition partner from Iraq, and now…

Spanish men will have to learn to change nappies and don washing-up gloves under the terms of a new law designed to strike a blow at centuries of Latin machismo.

The law, due to be passed this month, is likely to provoke a revolution in family affairs in a country where 40% of men reportedly do no housework at all. It will oblige men to “share domestic responsibilities and the care and attention” of children and elderly family members, according to the draft approved by the Spanish parliament’s justice commission.

This will become part of the marriage contract at civil wedding ceremonies later this year.

Why is this important?

al Qaeda is a Lenninst organization. It has to alienate European Muslims from society to succeed in that continent. There’s a Barnettian and 4GW reason for this

  • In Pentagon’s New Map (PNM) theory, connectivity is the key to success. We — the United States, the West, the Functioning Core — win when we build a web of connectivity. Information Connectivity converts the youth of other cultures to our ways of thinking. People Connectivity allows relocation of labor. Security Connectivity allows the state to protect the rights of individuals. al Qaeda is against this connectivity. It wants to unplug Europe’s Muslim from globalization’s grid.
  • In Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW), connectivity can be challenged. The three general stages of 4GW are

    1. Terrorize Government while building a base
    2. Contest Territory
    3. Seize the Country

    al Qaeda is clearly in 4GWS1 throughout Europe — cells and plots have been detected in many countries. al Qaeda trying to move to 4GWS2 in Europe. Territory won’t be contested conventionally — it will be tested through connectivity. al Qaeda needs neighorhoods of Muslims to be alienated from society and not to trust the state. al Qaeda, an extremist religious organization, needs an extremist secular government to achieve this. 4GWS3 may be a generation off, but the creation of “Muslim safe havens” is achievable within a generation if al Qaeda is lucky.

al Qaeda needs European Muslims to think the government is “messing with their women.” They need the desires of the state to be incompatible with conservative Islam. They need the government to do something stupid and alienating, like replace horizontal control in families with vertical controls. al Qaeda’s creature, the socialist government of Spain, is doing exactly that.

Women’s Work

Desperate to be housewives: young women yearn for 1950s role as stay-at-home mums,” by Maxine Frith, The Independent, 10 March 2005, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=618472.

Why Rce Can’t be President,” by Tom Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog, 13 March 2005, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/001635.html.

In Britain, hostility to the women’s work of today increases

They are the generation of women who grew up expecting to have it all. No longer forced to choose between children and a career, they were set to embrace superwomanhood by doing both – while holding down a perfect relationship and keeping a spotless home in their spare time.

But modern woman has taken a reality check. The average 29-year-old now hankers for a return to the lifestyle of a 1950s housewife. The daughters of the “Cosmo” generation of feminists want nothing more than a happy marriage and domestic bliss in the countryside, according to a survey.

Research into the attitudes of 1,500 women with an average age of 29 found that 61 per cent believe “domestic goddess” role models who juggle top jobs with motherhood and jet-set social lives are “unhelpful” and “irritating”. More than two-thirds agree that the man should be the main provider in a family, while 70 per cent do not want to work as hard as their mother’s generation. On average, the women questioned want to “settle down” with their partner by 30 and have their first child a year later.

Vicki Shotbolt, deputy chief executive of the National Family and Parenting Institute, said: “This is the generation of young women who have seen the ‘have it all’ ethos up close and personal, and they have realised that it doesn’t work.

While Democrat, ACLU member, cultural left-of-centrist Tom Barnett writes

But here’s the biggest reason why [Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice] can’t be elected president: she’s single and she’s never been married. Americans simply won’t elect that person in this day and age, and they’re right not to. Voters want to see that personal connection to spouse and kids. They trust that. It says powerful things about who the person is and how they can be expected to think about the larger world and act within it. It’s not just image, but the soul of the person that’s reflected in family. Rice is as alone as alone can be, and Americans don’t get that, don’t like that, don’t trust that.

Ask yourself: would you really trust someone who’s married to his or her career to be president? Someone who’s never be exposed to any of the things all must learn in marriage and parenthood? Someone that single-minded? That uncompromising? That self-defined?

Personally, I don’t see things I trust in that sort of life, not when I’m considering the presidency. Frankly, I see things I’ve always feared about myself–expressed to the n-th degree. And I think, deep down, so will the vast majority of Americans. They simply won’t recognize themselves in this person, no matter the qualifications on paper.

Yes, Rice is very talented and yes, she’s had an amazing career, and yes, her stint as SECSTATE is going well. But no, she is not a serious candidate for anything in her current incarnation. She is not the anti-Hillary, she is the anti-candidate.

Neither the article nor the post is perfect. The world of the 1950s was an aberration, borne of a world in chaos. “Housewife” in the 1950s-sense was a concept without roots. Women in farms or pre-modern cities “worked,” but in a different way than men.

Likewise, Barnett doesn’t acknowledge that Rice’s fault (singlehood) hits her much more as a women than it would a man. He maintains gender-neutrality and (apparently) assumes Americans view single men and single women the same.

But the large point is: the false ways of the 20th century are crumbling. When cultures or societies leave the old paths it creates misery and alienation. The marvels of the 20th century gave hope to those who would create a New Style Society, a New Style Man, and a New Style Woman because so many new styles were successful (New Style Carriages, New Style Factories, etc). The humans and their cultures are not mechanical processes and they cannot be long changed.

Feminists Against Sex[es|ism]

Women’s Law Journal changes name,” by
Naomi Schoenbaum and Katie Wiik, The Record, http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2005/02/17/News/Letter.To.The.Editor.Womens.Law.Journal.Changes.Name-869065.shtml, 17 February 2005 (from The Volokh Conspiracy).

This is a landmark year for our Journal. After publishing for twenty-seven years as the Harvard Women’s Law Journal, we have now become the Harvard Journal of Law & Gender. Our new name does not signal a change in our Journal’s content. Rather, it reflects our long-standing commitment to publishing diverse feminist scholarship that approaches gender as an axis of power within law and throughout society.

Choosing the Harvard Journal of Law & Gender as our new name indicates our unwillingness to rely upon essentialist arguments based on biological sex or to demarcate any set of issues within the legal terrain as exclusive to women. At the same time, problems that disproportionately affect women are gendered issues, and as such, they will continue to be the central focus of our Journal. Our new name also more broadly encompasses our concerns with other mechanisms of power — such as race, class, and sexuality — that intersect with gender in rich and complicated ways.

Ah… academia… where I shall soon be returning…