I meant to post my reply weeks ago and forgot…until he emailed me tonight. So I’ll post this reply before getting on with our future correspondences.
Hi Dad,
You said I am kidding myself if I think corporations can ever be something other than ethically detached, which is exactly why I’m pretty well set at becoming anti-corporate. Assuming that corporations exist just as they do and can never be overhauled or radically modified to ensure ethical concerns are taken into account, then yes, I am firmly anti-corporate. But I continue to hold out hope that there is some way, some day, to alter them to better serve the public good.
I recently watched a youtube video of a man named David Rothkopf summarizing and discussing his new book “The Superclass.” He was giving this speech at Middlebury College and has written other books, such as “Running The World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power” that I have ordered on half.com. He brought up some interesting points, like how the systems we have in place are not designed to serve the public good, or general good of all involved, and while that may not be such a bad thing in itself, it does suggest the question of just what is supposed to be serving the public good. The government? It can’t really since it’s currently catering to big business, which is catering to its shareholders, many of whom work for and/or are affiliated with the big businesses in question. He also discusses how we have a tendency toward concentration, with elites being a natural occurrence within just about everything. You can watch it here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LHtNFZ6K0pE
On the issue of the “haves” and “have nots,” I disagree that the problem lies in perception alone. While the “have nots” in this country certainly have experienced an increase in their standard of living, it’s not proportional to those at the top by a long shot. And when considering economic distribution on the global scale, the inequalities are severe and the standards of living are unacceptable for tremendous portions of the population. Especially now that the technology and knowledge exists to improve conditions. Since these are the days of a globalized market, these “have nots” absolutely must be factored into the equation. It was one thing when we kept our markets largely within our borders, but now that we’re spilling out onto every inch of the globe, it’s not just about us as Americans anymore. When taken from a global perspective, the disproportionate economic distribution is breath-taking, with a very small group of individuals controlling most of the wealth worldwide.
One of my concerns is what they’re doing with that wealth. Certainly it isn’t trickling down as Reagan assumed it would. Not much of it is going into improving conditions here or abroad. That wealth seems to be used primarily as a vehicle to accumulate even more wealth. And with wealth obviously comes power. What is that power being used for? To further the agendas of the wealthy few mostly, at the expense of the majority of people living on this planet. This isn’t right and I don’t have to be a liberal to say that. In fact, it’s pretty messed up when we can clearly see how it plays out to the detriment of most people.
So, again, if big businesses aren’t there to serve the public interest, what is? Since governments have proven ineffective in regulating big business and in many cases have a vested interest in the success of these corporations, where does that leave the rest of humanity? I don’t know, hence why I’m studying all of this.
Government is supposed to ultimately be decided by the voters, but it never seems to go that way for long. Issues pertaining to the electoral colleges aside, our government has become so convoluted and corrupt that the people largely feel powerless. Now, granted, it started with the people, and I too wish people weren’t such sheep when it came to politics. If people are thrown a bone, they’ll vote in that direction because we’re a self-interested bunch. I’m not so naive to believe I can impact human nature at its core, but wouldn’t it be helpful to perhaps educate our people on how government works and their responsibilities as voters and citizens from a young age? Had we brought them up with an understanding of the importance of their involvement, perhaps we could achieve a more balanced, equitable system. Now it appears too late for much of anything to change what we are currently facing.
The issues you brought up about the disparity in women’s wages are issues delegated to the realm of liberal mainstream feminism and is not really my primary concern as my focus is on the prevalence of sexual violence, limiting reproductive choice, big business/government entanglements, and economic distribution on the macro level. Like I said, this is about feminism as a philosophy and is not centered on only the rights and benefits of women, but on improving conditions for humans as an aggregate, regardless of race, gender, or other irrelevant biological variants. The special attention is focused on the female collective because nowhere in this world do we lay claim to power on the scale that men do. Individually perhaps, but not collectively. And this has been true for thousands of years with the only explanation given being that men are somehow naturally superior to women and therefore deference is expected. That bothers me as collectively there appears to be little intellectual distinction between the genders. The disparity seems to actually lie in brute strength that men (again collectively) lay biological claim to, but now that technology has improved that playing field can and should be leveled.
Which brings me to another question I’ve been pondering lately. Why is it that so many women of the liberal persuasion are anti-gun? One would think they could see the utility in possessing a firearm as a way to ward off potential attacks. With the United States now claiming the #1 slot as the most violent first-world nation, I would think more women would be into guns as a means of self-protection. And yet, they’re not. Guns are the ultimate equalizer, giving a smaller woman a fighting chance to protect herself against a stronger man. What keeps getting confused in that topic is the gun being viewed as violent in and of itself, when really it is merely a tool that can (and oftentimes is) used to create violence. But that doesn’t mean it can’t serve the inverse utility as a means to stop potential unwarranted violence. It’s all in what you make of it, just like any other tool, product, or object. A steak knife can be just as effective for creating violence if used for that purpose. I wish people didn’t confuse the tool with the user. Blame the user’s inappropriate use, not the tool. I wish more women were open to the usefulness of owning and learning to confidently handle a firearm.
But anyway…on changing gender roles. Yep, this is a time of enormous confusion when it comes to the treatment of those deviating from the established norms, but it goes way beyond whether women choose to work outside or inside the home. It creates a great deal of hostility toward those deviating depending how far and in what ways they deviate. The transgendered face tons of discrimination and mistreatment. As do gay and lesbian folks, particularly those who reside in communities that uphold traditional values and mores (as in the south). Women face a slew of problems when they buck feminine conventions and blur the gender line, as when joining male-dominated professions such as police work or in expressing sexual assertiveness considered unbecoming for women but perfectly acceptable among men. Men also face problems when they deviate and do things like choose to be caregivers, stay-at-home dads, or work in female-dominated professions (like nursing) or when they don’t live up to the standards assigned to them by being non-combative, non-assertive, non-competitive, and openly emotional.
One reason women are up in arms about wages is that single-parent households are on the rise with women typically being the one to care for the children. Men these days seem to have figured out that they stand to benefit from divorce where as women are hindered depending on the number of children they’re left to raise (and that hindrance increases as the number of children increases). Her chances of remarrying is lessened by the number of kids she has where as his are unaffected. Conflicts of this sort between genders speak to more than changing gender roles, with men becoming more detached from the home setting, both physically and financially. It can go both ways, but overwhelmingly it goes one way and that causes a lot of tension. It doesn’t help that single mothers continue to be stigmatized though single fathers generally are not.
While it may have been “easier” for more people when gender roles were clearly-defined, it also stifled a significant number of people, keeping them from living a life compatible with who they truly are inside. A lesbian living within a society with clearly defined gender roles has few options for expressing her true needs and wants without inviting harsh criticism, ostracism, or outright violence. And that’s really the problem here; with all of these changes and the majority clinging to the status quo for whatever reasons, the minority factions may be legally free to live as they choose but they are not free from violence and mistreatment, even when their choices pose no real threat to anyone else. It comes back to this sense of control that permeates our society, with Christian teachings providing the basis for much of the discrimination.
The gender roles of yesterday served the interests of a few with everyone else simply falling in line for fear of persecution. People haven’t changed much since then, we’re just more outspoken now. These changes took centuries to come to fruition, with individual efforts leading to larger collectives and later larger movements that called for, say, the right to vote and eventually won out. And these changes have been met with resistance every step of the way. It’s amazing how resistant to change humans are. These growing pains will be a part of human existence probably til the end of time, and we’ll be dragging our feet every inch of the way. In the past 50 years a tremendous amount of change has occurred, with gender roles influx and technology advancing quicker than we can keep up, making it an exciting but scary time to be alive. I can only imagine what life these days must look like through the lens of someone my grandparents’ age or older. The changes are happening too fast but they appear to be unstoppable.
The rapid growth and expansion of big business to global markets is what really terrifies me more than anything. It is essentially leaving no place or country untainted, which is bad news for those who do not agree with its scope and greed because there’s nowhere to run to. No way to escape its impact. No way to preserve cultures from western influence. No place free from the potential threat of invasion and indoctrination, if not by big business itself then by missionaries spreading westernization along with the bible’s teachings. Ugh. Dammit. And this is the problem once again: this drive for global domination and control. This isn’t a problem unique to the U.S. but it will be our downfall.
People are less optimistic than ever before probably because they have access to more information and knowledge these days. That’s the tricky thing about knowledge, it opens your mind to so many new possibilities but it also brings reality into clearer focus, which is depressing for many if not most. Or at least that’s my take on it. That along with living in overdrive these past few decades with economic disparities increasing, not decreasing. It’s harder to earn a living wage for those near or at the bottom while those at the top have private jets and more money than most small nations. Our prosperity blinds us to the conditions faced elsewhere, but are we really blind when we jealously protect that prosperity? As in the case of immigrants coming up from Mexico and “stealing” American jobs.
So to wrap this up for the night, all of the things mentioned above can and do fall under feminism as a philosophy. It is humanitarianism with special interest given to the concerns of women because collectively they have less power and less of a say worldwide. Many advancements have been made in the U.S. in terms of women’s rights and freedom, but those advancements have only taken place over the last 120 years or so. Seems like a long time, but it’s really not in the big scheme, and we continue to experience growing pains as a result.
That aside, I’m thoroughly disenchanted with the power structure as it stands, particularly how it favors those at the top by design. If demolished and restructured the system would likely swing in favor of the elites once again, as it has always done. I’m not sure how to confront such a huge issue with history having a tendency to repeat itself and most people being sheep and slaves to any system constructed. The more thought given to these matters, the more driven to separatism I become. But again, how is that an option in a global economy? I don’t know but I’ll continue to think on it. Now I need some sleep.
After this last email is when we had our “disagreement” at his house, after my friend’s wedding, having not spoken since until he emailed me this evening. I’ll read it and likely post it later, but right now I need a drink.
Newsvine
