50% of what this author says is reasonable but the other 50% is conservative propaganda and acceptance of the status quo based on creepy mystical arguments that assume there is some primordial truth in a social order that was invented within the last 400 years
That’s very close to the time when the first ever common stock was issued - 1602. It was issued by the Dutch East India company to fund “adventures” in the indies where they “traded”, plunderer, kidnapped, and squatted. It was, in essence, the beginning of the current formation wherein colonialism and private business fused into a global network of terror, slavery, mass murder, and grand theft.
That was about 100 years after Europeans began colonizing the Western Hemisphere and at the same time completed the Reconquista against the Muslim kingdoms (driving them from Europe and establishing the continent as Christian) so some would say the ideas of masculinity today really started to form 500 years ago.
I made it the fuck up as a ballpark because I forgot the exact figure but the simple answer is that the western masculine and feminine social roles that he constantly gestures towards were invented to serve the interests of the elite land/private-property owning class as western powers moved away from feudalism towards mercantile capitalism and eventually the industrial revolution and imperialist global conquest.
The men go to work and have the surplus value they generate for the boss stolen while women stay at home and perform all the maintenance labor for free (such as taking care of the kids). This was the social model pushed on the masses by the elites because it ensured smooth operation of a system where they benefited the most.
He attributes real social problems like expensive cost of living/nonexistant employee bargaining power/social malaise due to the systems we use to relate to each other being fundamentally antagonistic and anti-human solely to a mystical individualist problem (a crisis of initiation), an interesting theory but a gross oversimplification of reality.
50% of what this author says is reasonable but the other 50% is conservative propaganda and acceptance of the status quo based on creepy mystical arguments that assume there is some primordial truth in a social order that was invented within the last 400 years
If you have read the book through how did you come up with this number? Asking out of genuine interest.
400 years ago is 1625.
That’s very close to the time when the first ever common stock was issued - 1602. It was issued by the Dutch East India company to fund “adventures” in the indies where they “traded”, plunderer, kidnapped, and squatted. It was, in essence, the beginning of the current formation wherein colonialism and private business fused into a global network of terror, slavery, mass murder, and grand theft.
That was about 100 years after Europeans began colonizing the Western Hemisphere and at the same time completed the Reconquista against the Muslim kingdoms (driving them from Europe and establishing the continent as Christian) so some would say the ideas of masculinity today really started to form 500 years ago.
I made it the fuck up as a ballpark because I forgot the exact figure but the simple answer is that the western masculine and feminine social roles that he constantly gestures towards were invented to serve the interests of the elite land/private-property owning class as western powers moved away from feudalism towards mercantile capitalism and eventually the industrial revolution and imperialist global conquest.
The men go to work and have the surplus value they generate for the boss stolen while women stay at home and perform all the maintenance labor for free (such as taking care of the kids). This was the social model pushed on the masses by the elites because it ensured smooth operation of a system where they benefited the most.
He attributes real social problems like expensive cost of living/nonexistant employee bargaining power/social malaise due to the systems we use to relate to each other being fundamentally antagonistic and anti-human solely to a mystical individualist problem (a crisis of initiation), an interesting theory but a gross oversimplification of reality.