The Battle of the Sexes Rages On

I am currently reading an amazing book by Riane Eisler entitled “The REAL Wealth Of Nations”. The title is a play on words derived from the early 20th century classic “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith on which much of current economic theory has been built. Riane Eisler tends to write about feminism and social change in most of her books and she takes her ideas and applies them to the world of economics. I am aware of the mainstream feminist issues and I thought I was pretty up to date but when Ms. Eisler takes a microscope to economics, and even our basic valuation of most things, she exposes a deep, dark, sinister paradigm that we all buy into.

Her basic premise is that we tend to value things that are decidedly masculine and undervalue things that are feminine. She argues that in order to sustain the world we need to value caring as much as we value domination. It is a very compelling argument. I realized that I had completely bought into the male way of seeing the world of money and value - I am amazed at how biased I was without realizing it.   

He-Man Woman Hater

I thought I was one of these enlightened, modern, progressive men of the new era, that saw the world without race, religion, sexual preference, or geopolitical separation.  I mean, I was born in the 60s when men were men and women were women and “traditional” roles were very well defined. In contrast to the attitudes of today, I was raised in an insane asylum. There were a lot of behaviours and attitudes prevalent in that time that were widely accepted as normal, yet would be ghastly today. It turns out that particular time in history was an odd blip in the fabric of time.

Two weird things happened:

1. The ideas that men were the bread winners and women stayed at home and didn’t work was not at all how the world had functioned for most of human history up until then. The TV show “Mad Men” is a perfect example of how things were back then. It may or may not be an exaggeration of the attitudes of men toward women but it looks pretty similar to what I saw growing up. This article I read recently sums up just how strange that time really was in the context of history and how some of the concepts we will be talking about were actually concealed in the social paradigm of the time.

2.  In the book “ No More Mr. Nice Guy” the author talks about the strange decades of the post war era where children were raised almost exclusively by women. This was a departure from time immemorial when children were raised by a village and at a certain age they were taken out of the safety of the tribe by the men and taught how to hunt and fight. It spawn many “coming of age” male rituals and ideas, but they are rooted in the ida that men should teach boys how to be men, not women, It created a generation of men that tend to be “women pleasers”.  They subconsciously believed that in order to please a woman (mom) they had to be a “good boy”. Strange, indeed.

The way it is Here, isn’t the way it is everywhere

I was mentioning that I had to do something for my wife on the way home from work one day and I flippantly said “If Mama ain’t happy, ain’t NOBODY happy” as I put on my jacket to leave. A coworker who had recently immigrated to Canada from a developing nation looked at me and said with a strange look on her face - “You know, that is only true in the Western world” Everywhere else, how “mama” feels doesn’t really matter at all. The man is the ruler of the household and all efforts must be made to keep HIM happy. 

I was taken aback by this. I thought our attitudes in the west were pretty universal but it turns out that there is still a lot of work to do. In fact, the western world still has a lot of work to do, in spite of the progress we think we have made.  The nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, an Norway) have mile ahead of us here in North America. I have posted a couple of articles about Finland here and here.

Jordan Peterson, in his book “The 12 Rules for Life” looks at feminism and tries to make the argument that feminism is only a good thing when it addresses the opportunities available to women, not the outcome of equality, as most women will naturally place themselves in traditionally feminine roles when given the chance. He also suggests that hierarchies occur naturally in nature (using studies of lobsters as an example) and that we should not consider hierarchy a bad thing as much as we should treat it as just a way that things occur. This is a rigid masculine sociological structure that is purposefully male and leads to such ideologies as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, two things that Mr Peterson vehemently opposes. Perhaps Riane Easier has discovered the real concept behind all of this mess. 

Riane Eisler talks about the concept of Domination/Partnership whereas I have always talked about Cooperation/Competition. It is the same continuum. She argues that many of the most terrible societies that have risen in the twentieth century were based on male domination ideas. Without giving too much away, she really frames the world through a feminist perspective and as uncomfortable as it is at first, I cannot help but agree with her most of the time. It is a little hard on the sense of self to realize that what you have been thinking about something your whole life is inherently misguided. 

She posits that Competition/Domination is a male oriented mindset and philosophy and Cooperation/Partnership is a female . Her ideas are decidedly feminist in nature and tends to view the world through that lens, but I can see her point. I have written about competition vs cooperation in my books and I have offered up ideas that are considered radical from our very masculine economic point of view. We see the word of money and economics through a masculine perspective and didn’t even realise there is another way. Economic theory is based on competition and domination. It is a hierarchical model that supports the survival of the fittest ideology and we never think to question it. 

There have been some great ideas presented in the world that were in alignment with the caring economy that Ms. Resler talks about in her book. Ubuntu Contributionism is one that conforms to a cooperation/partnership model. Universal Basic Income is another. These ideas seem so radical because they are based on a non-masculine paradigm. 

This book totally blew my mind because in spite of the fact I thought I put women on a pedestal and was all about gender equality, I didn’t even realize that I saw the world of economics through a masculine perspective that actually is unsustainable and cruel. The world needs a “caring economy” -  this means the things that sustain and nurture life are valued as highly as war and prisons. The US spend over 50% of their national budget on the military. Why is that valued so much? I am not sure the world is that dangerous. She offers a suggestion that if the US cut their military spending by 40 billion dollars and reallocated that money towards social programs and education and child care, they would change the entire economic system. I know that sounds crazy, but she makes a compelling argument for it.

What is Valuable?

There is no more important job in the world than making people. Studies show that children who are cared for in a nurturing and well thought out environment of support, education and encouragement statistically earn more, produce more, stay out of prison, are healthier which lowers the burden on the healthcare system, and generally contribute to society more than children who are raised in less nurturing environments. Poverty tends to produce people who are a drain on society because they were never given the chance to thrive. Education, in the form of reading writing and arithmetic are great, but teaching values such as cooperation and equality and critical thinking make the planet as a whole a better place. 

Included in this syllabus should be financial education as well, as the world will still need to run on money for the foreseeable future. Even a caring economy is still an economy and last time I checked, money is still the medium used to denote value. What we value may change, but it still needs to be represented by something. So if you understand money, and how to add value to the world then you will have a leg up. I know that sounds like a “Competitive/Dominating” statement and it is.. the world still runs in a masculine  system when it comes to economics and wealth. That is why those at the top of the pyramid have most of it. Yet, int he words of the great Eddie Van Halen,

“You have to know the rules before you can break them”

I believe that in my years of studying wealth and the habits of the rich, I have not only learned to play the game as it currently is, but to envision a future where we do it differently or, dare I say better… 

Riane Eisler has written a book that frames the new philosophy perfectly. If we all understood its perspective, we would see that perhaps there is a way for everyone to be prosperous, and taken care of. People shouldn’t have to struggle to survive in our modern world. We have the means and the knowledge to take care of everyone. If we truly valued caring then the economic policies and decisions by those in power would be very different. We would make taking care of people a priority and then we could reduce or even eliminate suffering. It is morally reprehensible that we believe that it is OK to let people who have no money suffer and die. Coming from a country where were have universal health care, for instance, it seems morally wrong to allow people to be sick and die because they can’t afford health care. I can even wrap my head around that. Yet that is how it is in many countries. The point is that we need to realize that we have bought into this mindset because that is the way is has always been, but we can do better.

Educate Yourself

Learn as much as you can about money and you can not only take care of yourself and your loved ones, but you can have the perspective that there might be a better way. Let's learn to value cooperation and partnership. Competition and hierarchy are not going away and may even be an important part of human society in the correct proportions or the right context, but they cannot be the primary structure of society. Masculine and feminine traits are awesome and we admire and are attracted to those traits in others, but they must be used in the correct way and with equal measure as we all will benefit from the output of each. The fact remains, as Ms. Eisler says so eloquently,  is that without both, we wouldn’t even be here. 

I am glad she opened my eyes to the fact I saw the world of money and power from a male perspective. I now realize that economics and power can be understood for what they actually are, and still have room to evolve for the betterment of everyone.