http://www.wloe.org/Uprooting-the-Patriarchy.435.0.html
"This is the primary social base for the male monopolization of culture, by which men re-enforced their privileges of leisure, the superior prestige of their activities and the inferiority of the activities associated with women," Reuther writes in an essay, "Ecofeminism," reprinted extensively on the Internet.
By coming up with concept of nature, in contrast to culture, man also degraded the force of this power. "It defines nature as a reality below and separated from 'man', rather than one nexus in which humanity itself is inseparably embedded," Reuther adds.
A critical historical development was the creation of plow agriculture in which men yoked animals and forced them to work. Man’s next related step was to wage war, killing the men and taking the women and children as slaves. Subsequent civilizations further developed this entrenchment of both nature and women not as autonomous living entities, but as things to be "conquered, owned and eventually destroyed." The result has been the burning of women at the stake as witches, imperialism, population explosion, pollution and the depletion of natural resources. The solution, Reuther writes, is to reassert the superiority of nature.
***
From http://www.zerowaste.ca/articles/column196.html, 'The Corporation As Psychopath':
"The chairman of the board may sincerely believe that his every waking moment is dedicated to serving human needs. Were he to act on these delusions instead of pursuing profit and market share, he would no longer be chairman of the board." (Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, Pluto Press, 1991, p.19)***
The dominant institution in our society is the corporation. It determines what we eat, what we wear, where we work, what we read, what we listen to, what we watch, and what we do.
There’s just one problem with the corporation as Noam Chomsky points out in the above quotation – its legally defined mandate is to pursue its self-interest regardless of who or what suffers as a result of its actions.
That callous approach means the corporation – already considered in law as a “person” – can be defined as a psychopath says Joel Bakan, a University of BC law professor and author of The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.
From The Hathor Legacy (http://thehathorlegacy.com/toxic-men-in-fight-club/), Toxic Men in Fight Club, which I believe was a movie and/or TV show in the late 80s?
Anyway, a quote from a commenter on the article, which discusses the origins of self-esteem, among other things (I think the main thrust is intended to be how men suffer from the absence of strong, loving, male role models.)
Oh, and, PS? I'd like to just point out, if we're competing for 'who's suffered most', here: Women *particularly* suffer from this, even more than men do, seeing as how it's a patriarchy we live in, here, and not a matriarchy - all power, or any of real significance, as in, power to change and influence others? still, largely, accrues mainly to men. Women, if we're *extremely* lucky, may get such crumbs as land on the floor below men's table. What I'm saying is: Women need these strong, loving, supportive men in our lives even more than men do, because we lack the social network of support that men get from the entire rest of the culture. And yes, I realize not *all* men benefit from that support - some fall through the cracks, just as women do - but, as a percentage? By and large, it's women, and children, who suffer the most.
And I dont want to argue about it.
Back to the previous point:
I do want to take issue with one thing, though. I don’t think what is needed is self-esteem. Rather, I think it is self-respect. The reason that I think it is worth making the distinction is because what you are talking about (recognizing oneself as intrinsically valuable, as being flawed but being ok with that) describes respect rather than esteem. Esteem is about valuing one’s developed character traits and achievements. It is an extrinsic way of valuing one’s self (where you value yourself for what you have done and who you have become).
I think self-esteem is a problematic concept to use because we can nurture self-esteem by focusing on only superficial traits. For example, many of those neck-tie wearing corporate yes-men probably have esteem for themselves because of the position that they have achieved. But to respect one’s self requires a deeper kind of valuing.
Laurence Thomas does a good job of describing the difference in the 13th Chapter of Dignity, Character and Self-Respect. Thomas ties self-respect to parental love and also to justice in a way that I find rather convincing.
No comments:
Post a Comment