Yesterday (November 7, 2011) 43 Senior Citizens, some as old as 100, were cited by the CPD for disorderly conduct, after being joined by Occupy Chicago, in a protest over the threat to life long earned miniscule benefits of Social Security and medicare/medicade and HUD programs. These are not angry young men rebelling without a cause. It does give one pause to what is rising in the USA today. For that, I turn back to my own research from 2007/2008.
From Wealth, Women and War (c) 2008
Right now, we are somewhere in the middle of this process. We are already seeing articles written telling people to lower their expectations. We are already seeing women authors coming out with highly detailed warnings about the dual income “trap.” The business community is responding to the cost of super-sized monthly mortgage payments by proposing 50 year mortgages. This sounds good in the short term but clouds the reality of lowered incomes against the higher cost of housing. The standard measure for income status was at one time that the cost of housing was one quarter of one’s monthly income. Today it can be fifty percent or more of one’s monthly income. While these mortgages look good on paper with an “affordable” monthly payment, it is only to secure the bank’s ownership of the property for a longer period of time. This of course allows the corporations to resell the property after the mortgagee’s loss of it.
Women in the United States are opting, with or without a mate, to take on the role of acquiring the primary economic resources. Thus far, in spite of the warnings, they have been relatively successful. Additionally, those who are on the upward climb hold the belief that through a little more effort they will be successful. They have lowered their expectations, they are willing to work within the framework of a 50 year mortgage, they will tolerate prejudice in the workplace, so long as they can keep within the rules of the current society. They are willing to take on short term losses for perceived long term gains. As long as she can chase the illusionary reward, the woman will not directly confront the mismanagement of the corporation. Moreover, she will not endorse anyone else directly confronting the corporations, either.
The concept that the corporation is responsible for providing sustainable income within a community has been successfully hushed. This has been accomplished primarily by the hue and cry of “individual responsibility.” This has been aided with neo-Calvinist rhetoric emitting from various religious institutions within the United States. The message is that faith and loyalty to Jesus, hard work, and thrift will deliver the socioeconomic status sought in conjunction with the expectations of the current era. The definition of status is constantly being driven home by the media telling us all what we need in life to be happy. Happiness, as defined by the corporate media, is the ultimate goal in life. What one has is never sufficient, one must consume more.
The mandate of individual responsibility, work, thrift, and consumption can carry a society only so far. It doesn’t take long for the opposing goals to be come apparent. Work is only available at the whim or need of the corporation. Thrift and consumption are polar opposites of the economic spectrum. Individual responsibility is only as valid as the visible responsible actions of those who control the corporation. The predatory activities of corporations are vast.[1]
The current situation will probably hold until the next presidential term recession cycle. At that time the liberated women will alter their perception of the current capitalistic system. They will concede that no amount of effort on their part, or their sidelined mates – if the men are still in the picture -- will bring about the economic security needed to survive in the capitalistic system.
Capitalism is amoral. While it has a dark side, it also holds the promise of success. It will not be dumped. It will be altered. Even with a lowering of expectations, and an awakened sense of savvy concerning the aims of the corporations, what defines middle class individualism will be a migration towards some form of collective civilization within the framework of capitalism. Social change will be demanded.
Women political leaders are defined as socially acceptable within the construct of the middle class social contract. John Gray, Ph.D. in Men, Women and Relationships explains it thusly:
As her awareness expands out into the future, a woman is naturally concerned for what potentially could happen. She is motivated to prepare for the future. On the other hand, focused awareness makes men more concerned with efficiently achieving their goals. While the men are worried about getting to their destinations, the women are more concerned about what will happen when they get there.[2]
In preparing … however, the [women] tend to be late in arriving, or the may feel the journey is too risky and let their fears hold them back. It is much easier to be courageous when you are unaware of the possible consequences of an action.[3]
Men drool for the opportunity to use socially acceptable means, legal or not, to make the right things happen for themselves and their mates. Based on what is available on the web, in the bookstores, and in the underground press, men are ready for a change, they are just waiting on the go ahead from the women.
To define the typical U.S. approach, the words of General George S. Patton come to mind. "No bastard,” he said, “ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."[4]
Adjusting the capitalist system to be humane and responsive to the citizens within it may not be equal to war, but the General’s principle is still applicable. The corporations will become responsive to the people, or they will cease to exist.
Note: Excerpts from Wealth, Women and War are not from the edited copy, they are from the second draft; there are still errors within. I just thought I should clarify that.
[1] Mokhiber , Russell . Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the Decade. Ed. Russell Mokhiber . 22 Jan. 2008
[2] Gray, J. (1993). Men, Women and Relationships: Making Peace with the Opposite Sex. New York: HarperCollins, p. 84.
[3] Gray, J. (1993). Men, Women and Relationships: Making Peace with the Opposite Sex. New York: HarperCollins, p. 85.
[4] General George S. Patton Quotes (2008). Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.military-quotes.com/Patton.htm
It's unfortunate, but women today hold less than 1% of the world's property. That's a place where there is definitely room for improvement!
ReplyDelete