posted July 01, 2009 06:41 PM         

Excellently written.

Also, the reason for encouraging the dual-income household was to have another avenue through which "they" could generate revenue. Imagine if women didn't work?

posted July 01, 2009 10:39 PM         

Also, "the rich man in his fur coat can't understand why the poor man without a coat is shivering."

One other thing that has changed is that at one time it was nearly global that children stayed in the homes of their parents (or in-laws) well into their 30s, and often passing a home down generation by generation (ie, NEVER moving out). Practically contemporary is the change that now kids are expected to leave the nest at about 18 (and unlike previous generations, were often insulated and not allowed to grow up, making them even less fit to live on their own than people the same age in previous generations who weren't even expected to move out!). I've seen this lead to many people wondering what's wrong with their kids or themselves for someone staying home even in their 20s--they don't know history and so don't understand that it's NORMAL, not "abnormal," at least from the perspective of the human race from nearly the entire world until the last century (which made the community weaker as it happened, and the government & big biz more powerful as a result of this change).

But beyond that, the prices are out of control (or maybe TOO controlled, one of the two). Generally speaking, most people can't even afford a home on 2 incomes, at least not on an entry paying job. I know people who are illegally crowded together because the ONLY way they can pay even the cheaper rents (as opposed to own) is to pool their money, so that like a half dozen live in an apartment approved only for 2.

As you get better paying jobs, 2 people (and possibly even 1) MIGHT be able to afford a good home...but then keep up with the Joneses, kids, insane taxes that previous generations didn't have, and all the other things, and really they both need to slave away to pay it, and probably getting deeper into debt anyway. That's not even counting college loans that can take decades to pay off...

'course the culture can change. Many areas could have cob homes, for example, which for like less than 5 thousand bucks gives you a good home with all necessities without a 20-year-mortgage to pay off. Consumerism doesn't have to be constant. The meds (from alcohol to Prozac) needed to deal with a high stress job one hates also is no longer necessary. But those aren't our values, and too many of the big players (from CEOs to bankers to government bureaucracies) don't want to see that change, because otherwise they're out a bunch of money (from buying to paying taxes). And also people not deeply in debt can't be controlled anywhere as easily. Which reminds me of another classic saying (I think this one from the old Roman Empire, but probably older than that):

posted July 02, 2009 12:01 AM         

When we put our heads together..

quote:

---

One other thing that has changed is that at one time it was nearly global that children stayed in the homes of their parents (or in-laws) well into their 30s, and often passing a home down generation by generation (ie, NEVER moving out). Practically contemporary is the change that now kids are expected to leave the nest at about 18 (and unlike previous generations, were often insulated and not allowed to grow up, making them even less fit to live on their own than people the same age in previous generations who weren't even expected to move out!).

---

posted July 02, 2009 12:06 AM         

future, where's the little smiley guy that waves (when you need him)?

posted July 02, 2009 02:32 AM         

Anyway, your argument rests on a false premiss.

quote:

---

Thats how it worked for thousands of years.

---

Has it?

Maybe where you live. In your social class.

Ever read Germinal?

All the women work down the pits alongside the men.

Both my grandmothers had jobs. One worked in the Linen factory (Ireland). The other worked as a maid (England). I don't think they did it for personal amusement.

After the WW carnage, 2 million women were obliged to find ways of living their lives that did not involve the traditional wife and mother role. Their potential husbands were dead. At least here in U.K. Germany and France suffered the same.

The last bit I got from Virginia Nicholson's Singled Out . But it was also in my family, too.

There's a recession on, increasingly expensive bills to pay. Jobs are hard to find and low paid work done by women are keeping families afloat. Agonising over social conditioning or whatever the f*ck is the last thing on people's minds.

I grew up in a mining town, can you tell? I avoided using any of the phrases, "exploitation of women", "classist" or "beourgoise", but they came close to my fingertips during that little rant.

posted July 02, 2009 02:58 AM         

I think it's too easy to say that "society says it is sacred that every adult has a job." It's never that simple.

Both adults in a household work BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO. Neither do I think it's about rampant consumerism, either.
Wages have not increased in proportion to the cost of living.
"SocietyTM" says that everyone MUST go to college. Therefore, from birth parents feel obligated to start thinking about Junior's college education.

(I will add here that a college education is hugely marketed, and too many people go to college who DON'T really need to. JMO.)

As a culture, we are marketed to the extreme. Creating a culture in which you can now market to 2 wage earners has been an immense boon to our economy.

And now we are suffering in it's demise.

There are so many topics touched upon in the original post. Which one are you really looking to discuss?

The economy?
Child rearing?
The state of women being pressured by society to be superheros?
The myth of the nuclear family?

Pick one- I would love to discuss.

posted July 02, 2009 04:21 AM         

There might be consumerist choice about the size of my house, but tents and moorings cost money too, there is no way around it. Though....my cousin dropped out of society, went off and lived on Stonehenge or something. He still claimed his dole every fortnight. Twat. lol

I'm being naughty here arguing with Mr Valus but he knows we would both agree that if someone gets a job because they can't stand being around their kids then they have a problem. It does happen.

posted July 02, 2009 05:00 AM         

quote:

---

But was it really some enlightening insight into equality that brought women out of the home? (If so, wouldnt you expect to see a corresponding movement of men into the home?)

---

The concept of parental leave, as opposed to maternity leave is a new one. This is good. It does mean that more men are looking after their children while the woman works.

I do take issue with what you wrote about "how it's been for thousands of years". Same comments as blue moon actually (both of us are from working class mining stock). My grandmothers and great grandmothers worked, in service as maids. probably their female ancestors too. In rural economies, on farms, the women worked the farm as well as the men. It wasn't just simple childcare. It's only recently that Britain has become urbanised. Women were in charge of the dairy, small livestock, the kitchen garden, as well as sharing in getting in the harvest. So yes, a totally false premise.

What are you saying about the Sun and the Moon? Men are solar, women are lunar? I beg to differ if that's the point. Probably isn't what you are saying, but can you elaborate?

quote:

---

This civilization developed much faster than human evolution

---

quote:

---

While we all seem to agree that something has gone terribly wrong with our culture's conception of values, most of us adamantly defend the present structure without a second thought. "This is life," we say, and expect you to come to terms with it. But this is not life. This is just the culture we've been raised in. And while most people expect you to come to terms with that, I do not.

---

Is this some sort of cry for help for people who are "too sensitive" to get jobs? Yeah, I hear that one every day of my life. From the jobless. This IS the world we live in. If you don't like it, work to change it. WORK to change it. Lobby the powers that be, do some voluntary work, do something other than have a bong and say that the world is effed. It's not. Work is not inherently bad. I think people need the structure and I think children need the example. Nevertheless I do hear you, but I think work needs to be done to change it.

posted July 02, 2009 12:19 PM         

You raise some valuable points. My mars/merc in Sag (12th house) paints with a large brush.. thick, loose strokes. I rely on the rest of you to help me fine tune my blanket statements and work out the details. I really appreciate all of you who read what I wrote and shared your insights. I'll see if I can tighten my sites here a little bit, and bring some of my Jupiterian fire down to earth where its needed.

quote:

---

There are so many topics touched upon in the original post. Which one are you really looking to discuss?

The economy?
Child rearing?
The state of women being pressured by society to be superheros?
The myth of the nuclear family?

Pick one- I would love to discuss.

---

How about the development of modern civilization as it relates (or does not relate) to the true, natural capacities of mankind, including not merely what we (or the majority of us) are capable of, but, what is truly conducive to our greatest happiness. That is, can we envision a social order which better serves us, in all our diversity? Also, are we willing to admit where the present structure chokes and disenfranchises what is best in us, and most worthy of preservation? I think this is ultimately what I was trying to get at, though I took a rather scattered approach.

posted July 02, 2009 12:20 PM         

You are absolutely right, and it was careless of me to overlook these things in my haste to make my own points. Yes, hardly anything I said, and hardly anything I ever say, is all true, or always true, but I try to err on the side of what is mostly true. I think we can agree that, by and large, expectations of women have dramatically changed in the past 50 years, notwithstanding the brutal sort of equality which "lower" classes and farmers' wives have always had thrust upon them. It is worth noting that this "equality" is now being thrust, more or less, on the whole of society (or, at least, on the so-called middle class), and that many people see this as a clear and unambiguous cultural advance. Something which my post intended to draw attention to.

Granted, it is not being thrust on everyone in the form of an economic necessity, but, in the case of the middle, and even (though, to a lesser extent) the upper class, there is a tremendous stigma attached to people who do not work -- and, for that matter, people who work outside of the established channels, and have no $ to show for it. Its worth asking ourselves how much of this labor is really necessary, how much of it is personally chosen (as an expression of self-actualization), and how much of it is purely expendable. Its my contention that the larger part of the labor done in this world is unnecessary and, ultimately, serves to promote materialistic impulses and ends. There was a beautiful talk given by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh where he says, "[Most people are always telling you, 'Don't just sit there; do something' Well, I am telling you, 'Don't just do something; sit there. Sit there, for peace to be possible.'" I wonder if either of you are familiar with the book by Bertrand Russell, "In Praise Of Idleness", where he brilliantly elaborates on these ideas, and shows how labor might be drastically reduced and divided. With all the industrial and technological advancements we have made, we really have the ability to construct a civilization in which very little labor is needed. But this, first of all, requires a change in the collective consciousness. That's where I come in.

posted July 02, 2009 12:20 PM         

quote:

---

Is this some sort of cry for help for people who are "too sensitive" to get jobs?

---

Yes. Mercury in the 12th speaks for those who do not have a voice; who are swept into the margins and forgotten; whether they be sensitive people, animals, or just people incapable of effectively articulating their perspectives. I believe that many of the people who are least capable of supporting themselves in this culture are the first to be silenced and disinherited. We see them every day, on the streets, or sheltered by some understanding soul, but we rarely hear their perspective, -- and, even if/when we hear it every day of our lives, we are conditioned to scoff, and not really hear.

quote:

---

Yeah, I hear that one every day of my life. From the jobless. This IS the world we live in. If you don't like it, work to change it. WORK to change it. Lobby the powers that be, do some voluntary work, do something other than have a bong and say that the world is effed. It's not.

---

Of course you hear it from the jobless; who else would you expect to hear it from? It may have slipped your attention, but I am working to change it. Like I said, I believe that the change must begin at the level of consciousness, so I make every effort to share my perspective with my community. The people I am speaking for, like myself, do not tend to be "men of action", and, in fact, this part of them, though never entirely absent, is significantly reduced in comparison with the majority. Many are dreamers. Many are thinkers. What could be more absurd that becoming a man of action, in order to prove the impossibility of my becoming a man of action, and to prove the value of contributions which are more subtle than those already accomodated for by the powers that be? Do you see the catch-22? You want us to go "out there", but our entire premise is that the emphasis on going "out there" is biased in favor of a certain type of human being, who just so happens to be in the majority. But, what we are ultimately seeking is not a special exemption for ourselves. What we want is a way of life which will allow some people to survive (who are presently being crushed beneath the "wheels"), and everyone to be a lot happier. "You might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

quote:

---

Work is not inherently bad. I think people need the structure

---

I agree, work is not inherently bad, and, for the vast majority of people, a significant amount of structure is desireable and beneficial. But there are more chaotic elements among us, and however much it pleases us to believe that their round edges may be plained and made straight, history appears to support the contrary conclusion. Perhaps, instead of forcing them to abide by rules which barely appeal the majority, and not at all to themselves, we might consider another form of social organization; like that proposed by Riane Eisler in her groundbreaking work, "The Chalice And The Blade".

quote:

---

and I think children need the example.

---

Children need many kinds of examples. We all have something different to teach them. Personally, I am grateful for the example of shamanic societies, and the emphasis they place on the immediate experience of divine nature -- whether acheived through sitting meditation, dance, thoughtful reflection, or the ingestion/inhalation of psychedelic plant allies. I've never known a pothead to start a war, bomb a village, poison the water and food supply for profit, or close a factory in a town dependent upon it. They tend to be pretty laid-back, peaceful types, often with a wealth of insight and information to share with anyone willing and able to overlook the usual stereotypes.

quote:

---

Nevertheless I do hear you, but I think work needs to be done to change it.

---

posted July 02, 2009 12:21 PM         

quote:

---

There are lots of ways for the "sensitives" to make money.

---

There are all sorts of sensitives, and many of them are able to make money without falling into a suicidal depression, absolutely. But I think there are many (or, at least, enough to be counted) true outsiders whose souls would die, or be horribly perverted, if they were to attempt to make a living through traditional channels. It is also worth pointing out that there are many ways for sensitives to contribute which, unfortuneately, do not yeild income. Moreover, it would appear that the more unique and progressive a person's contribution, the less likely he/she will be to find an outlet for it within the prevailing social structure. There are many people who have nothing but their labor to contribute, and they make a fine living at it. But there are also people with nothing but their insight to contribute, and they starve at it. While the former may be performing actions which are unnecessary, and even positively detrimental to society, he is generally applauded and given a seat at the proverbial table. The latter, on the other hand, may be opening minds left and right, and, for this, he is stigmatized and thrown into the cold. That is, unless he has been rescued by some rare, neptunian-yet-worldly soul, or devised some other means of survival, concomittant with his own conscience and value system.

quote:

---

It is up to us what values to hold dear. The world offers choices, but it can't force us to conform to something that we don't resonate with.

---

Perfect.

They cannot force us to conform,
but they can starve us to death.

posted July 02, 2009 12:28 PM         

There's a confrontation in the fascinating new documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" that sums up why the most sardonic, most earnest and most intelligent of the Beatles can still drive people nuts, 26 years after his death. It's the early '70s, probably 1972, a year that marked a turning point in Lennon's life and, if you ask me, in American history. Sitting alongside his wife, Yoko Ono, Lennon is locked in heated conversation with Gloria Emerson, then a famous (some would say infamous) foreign correspondent for the New York Times.

The scene is brief but electric. (The same clip reportedly appears in the 1988 film "Imagine: John Lennon," which I haven't seen since its release.) There's none of the star-******* or ego-fellation that today characterizes celebrity interviews. Emerson and Lennon are both angry, and getting angrier. She finds the Lennon-Ono publicity stunts and peacenik ballads naive and simplistic, and she's letting him know that. Eyes boring into her, Lennon says he doesn't care about that, that his only goal is to end the Vietnam War and save lives. "You can't possibly believe that you've saved a single life!" Emerson says in her exaggerated upper-crust drawl. "Dear boy, you're living in a dream world." Lennon flicks her away like an insect, pointing out that "Give Peace a Chance" had become both a pop hit and the unofficial anthem of the antiwar movement.

As most viewers probably will, I instinctively sided with the working-class Liverpudlian rock star against the Upper East Side WASP lady with the ludicrous accent. But the scene stuck with me and wouldn't go away, and eventually I came to grips with it. First I realized that Lennon and Emerson were engaged in an important cultural debate, and neither of them was exactly wrong. Viewed in hindsight, Lennon and Ono's political theater of the early '70s had a Zen-meets-Dada brilliance and clarity that thrilled and engaged an entire generation. It may well have helped shorten the war and save lives. But Emerson isn't entirely the creep she at first seems to be; she saw their work leading toward an intellectual and political cul-de-sac, and she was right.

After that I became grief-stricken: Pop culture and journalism in our own time have been so thoroughly drained of content, and genuine confrontation, that nothing close to this could happen today. It's nice, I guess, that Bono is working with Paul Wolfowitz on Africa's debt crisis, and that Eminem wants young people to vote. But you're not going to see them arguing with a prominent journalist in front of the news cameras, and no prominent journalist (Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert aside) would even dare.

If Lennon was a dangerous figure to the pro-war American establishment of the early '70s -- and he clearly was -- so was Emerson. Her scathing, mournful reporting from Vietnam, which repeatedly lambasted the idiocy and incompetence of military planners and commanders, did a great deal to cement middle-class opposition to the war (and won her newspaper the lasting enmity of the right wing). Emerson's magnum opus was the 1976 book "Winners & Losers," the best and perhaps only journalistic attempt to capture the war's effects on both Americans and Vietnamese. Like Lennon, she was a spiny and difficult character, and we could use more like both of them. She lived much longer than Lennon, but also departed under painful circumstances. Gloria Emerson committed suicide in August 2004, in her New York apartment, at age 75.

posted July 02, 2009 12:53 PM         

also, most single income household are due to the fact that there is only one adult in the home.

sensitive types that can't or wont hold a steady job....i for one am tired of forking over gas money, bumming smokes and paying for dinners for those too sensitive to work.

there are a gazillion ways to make money. make jewlery and sell it at flea markets, paint, sell your paintings, do wood working, sell that stuff, drive miss daisy and charge her 15 bucks each way, seriously, if you can't handle an office 8 hours a day i understand, but to say, oh, I'm much too sensitive to work, i can't handle the structure...to me that equals a mooch, unless you find a way to pay for yourself by craft or crafty-ness.

i don't like working full time either, but i do it to have the means to do the things that i love, my art, my vacations, my music and equipment, my electrictiy, my water for a shower. if i seem to be equating too sensitive to work as too lazy ....uhm...i pretty much am.. like i said there are many many ways to make money.

i know a guy who made 100,000 a year selling bottled water and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches at grateful dead concerts. that is not structured.

i know a guy who was an indian who dressed in full american indian garb and charged 5 bucks for polariods with tourists. worked his way through college.

sensistive artists CAN be productive in a non conforming way.

i dont know, i just know i want certain things in life, and i know with perseverence i will have whatever it is i want.

you want to be outside? landscape

it isn't like there are only 3 jobs to pick from, lawyer banker and hairdresser.

name what you like to do and i will help you, anyone, find a way to make money at it.

you like weed? set up a caretakers shop and grow weed for handicapped individuals. i mean there is nothing that can hold you back from making money if you use your imagination.

i work to afford the things i really want to do. it is a means to an end. if i could get rich on my art, i would be a full time artist, but someday my goal is to be able to do what i love all of the time, until i can do just that, write books, and paint and write music and garden , take exotic vacations, i will continue the 40 hours a week that i have to put in to afford to do those things now.\\\

3 bucks. peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with a bottled water at a concert for 3 bucks. work three months and spend the rest of your time laying on the couch talking about how you are too sensitive to work, but be sensitive with money.

guess i am sensitive to this subject as i have forked out a lot of dough to those who are in need and can't be bothered to work. depression and sensitivity i understand, but i know the cable bill comes due too and, for the love of god, someone has to pay it. and who is to say that getting up and going to work every day doing SOMETHING might not help the depression anyway.

people need to look at alternative ways to make money if they can't work and it will help thier self esteem.

ok, i know i wrote a book, but go buy garage sale stuff and sell it on ebay. seriously, the only limits are those in our minds.

posted July 02, 2009 01:28 PM         

There's no need for anyone to starve to death in Britain as there is a welfare system to cover people too ill too work. This covers mental health.

If this shoe doesn't fit, it's possible to find a remote rural location and live a subsistence lifestyle, grow your own food, barter for essentials.

quote:

---

sell your paintings

---

My friend gave me one of his paintings. I sorted out his road tax and so on, things he can't face.

(Edited ramble.)

posted July 02, 2009 02:13 PM         

I think a "sensitive" only need to find a niche where they can thrive. I don't see "sensitive" as a curse, but a blessing. The very fact that someone is a "sensitive" means that they are a "creative", and that is already a signpost pointing towards what path they should take.

(CPN gave some very good illustrations.)

Money is crystallized energy. Energy doesn't always mean physical labor. There is a vast ocean of ideas in your head that you can turn into energy.

posted July 02, 2009 03:44 PM         

but to have thier sensitive butts sucking up my good air at the house well into thier 30's? sitting on the computer and reading deep books? while i the giver of thier life work 8-10 hours a day...? i dont think so. i will be more htan happy to help them figure out a way to make a living, help them anyway i can, but how is that fair to suck off your parents hard work late into life?

shut my womb and call me a meenie. ain't gonna happen.

when that was the norm, that was because the parents needed those grown children to help with the farming, or whatever that family did to survive. i highly doubt grown sons sat in thehouse while thier mothers worked circles. the whole family structure was different then.

i think the amish live similarly to what valus thinks society should be like. there are sects and groups that still live off the land so to speak and thier children work very hard wtih thier parents to make that happen for them.

posted July 02, 2009 04:22 PM         

Too sensitive to work? C'mon now.
As it has been said, there are a million different ways to earn a living without participating in a consumerist society that a person may morally oppose.

That only gets you so far, unless you are a trust fund baby or willing to live as a gutter punk.

(This does not apply to those with debilitating physical/mental health issues. My statements here apply to those who are capable of performing some sort of service without causing undue harm to themselves.)

I remember a time in my life when I desperately craved a haven for women, ala Mists of Avalon, where I could learn a craft and live in harmony with the universe, to not be bother by the banalities of bills, money, and the evils of modern society.

Then I snapped to, and acknowledged that I live in THIS century. No one is going to pay a 20 something for their "insights."

MY OPINION- There are FEW and RARE people who are so incredibly gifted with "insight" that they deserve to be "paid" for their brilliance.

One of them is Linda Goodman. Yet she still went through the effort of WRITING BOOKS.

I have read "Chalice and the Blade." Have you read "The Great Cosmic Mother?" That one is even better. At least, it effected me much more than TCATB.

We can hope and dream for a different kind of society, and our mental/emotional energy can create a shift in consciousness.

But to me, and the way I choose to affect this change, is by the practical application of my skills. Even though I may work a mundane type of job, just my being in that world and the communication with those I meet has the chance to spread my "insights."

Not by sitting at home with a joint and imagining pretty pictures. (No insinuations and no judgments from me in that statement. I can't cast a stone, get my drift?)

Can you tell I am a Virgo?? LOL. And a Virgo Sun conj my Asc in the 10th. Oh yeah, I LOVE to work, it's what I do.

But I also have Neptune in the 1st. I dig, I get it.

posted July 02, 2009 04:39 PM         

Wanna start some change? Want a new social organization?

Change these:

Support REAL family values-

2 year paid childcare for mothers and fathers
Free day care
Health care for all, regardless of income
PAID birth control for any who want it
Ban marketing targeted towards anyone under 12 years of age
Mandatory 30 days of vacation for ALL working adults
Pay women the same wages as men

We can't be mentally and emotionally healthy until we are physically healthy-

Outlaw fast food outlets, which contribute to factory farming
Ban GMOs and hormone laced foods
Teach nutrition starting in grade school
Support school gardening programs
BAN JUNK FOOD
Stop paving the wilderness for parking lots
Stop jailing people with addictions and treat the CAUSES not the results

Okay, okay, I imagine you get the picture. What I am wondering is this- how can anyone's "insights" do the world any good if you don't USE them in practical application?

Help me understand...