Comments on: Costs of development http://nisheedhi.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/costs-of-development/ Ideas,images,cultural expressions Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:47:28 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: nisheedhi http://nisheedhi.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/costs-of-development/#comment-42 nisheedhi Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:43:59 +0000 http://nisheedhi.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/costs-of-development/#comment-42 I really do not see any point in believing that male consciousness is aggressive ,the female one passive or conversely all that is aggressive in human nature is male and all that passive female although the concept of prakriti-purusha is deep-rooted in our cultural conscious.This assumes that the male is the chaser ,the female chased with its archaic concept of female passivity.I believe that the traditional role of the aggressive male and a docile female archetype had their roots in economic specialisation -the male going out to earn bread and the female rearing children and keeping the house-forced by the need to raise a family and keep it protected from outside dangers.Somewhere along the way the human society added the additionality of female chastity in order to leave no room for an irresponsible male for disowning the offspring or may be,to prevent promiscuity and possible loss of "purity" of the race.All this does not in any way lead to the thrust of your argument that globalisation as practised is basically patriarchally-driven and as a result development tends to remain skewed and one-sided. I believe you say subjugation ,which is supposedly a male characteristic applied in relation to the mate is further extended to Mother Nature and destruction follows.Can we say if the decision-makers are female a better management of the environment will follow ? I don't believe so. I also do not know if it is a scientific fact that humans in stress tend to bear female offspring. Anyway ,thanks for responding to my question and take care. I really do not see any point in believing that male consciousness is aggressive ,the female one passive or conversely all that is aggressive in human nature is male and all that passive female although the concept of prakriti-purusha is deep-rooted in our cultural conscious.This assumes that the male is the chaser ,the female chased with its archaic concept of female passivity.I believe that the traditional role of the aggressive male and a docile female archetype had their roots in economic specialisation -the male going out to earn bread and the female rearing children and keeping the house-forced by the need to raise a family and keep it protected from outside dangers.Somewhere along the way the human society added the additionality of female chastity in order to leave no room for an irresponsible male for disowning the offspring or may be,to prevent promiscuity and possible loss of “purity” of the race.All this does not in any way lead to the thrust of your argument that globalisation as practised is basically patriarchally-driven and as a result development tends to remain skewed and one-sided.

I believe you say subjugation ,which is supposedly a male characteristic applied in relation to the mate is further extended to Mother Nature and destruction follows.Can we say if the decision-makers are female a better management of the environment will follow ? I don’t believe so. I also do not know if it is a scientific fact that humans in stress tend to bear female offspring.

Anyway ,thanks for responding to my question and take care.

]]> By: Vaz http://nisheedhi.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/costs-of-development/#comment-41 Vaz Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:10:55 +0000 http://nisheedhi.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/costs-of-development/#comment-41 ofcourse nothing comes without a price ! ofcourse nothing comes without a price !

]]> By: Sneha Krishnan http://nisheedhi.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/costs-of-development/#comment-40 Sneha Krishnan Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:33:56 +0000 http://nisheedhi.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/costs-of-development/#comment-40 I meant of course, in the second paragraph (3rd line), Yang-led civilization I meant of course, in the second paragraph (3rd line), Yang-led civilization

]]> By: Sneha Krishnan http://nisheedhi.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/costs-of-development/#comment-39 Sneha Krishnan Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:49:40 +0000 http://nisheedhi.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/costs-of-development/#comment-39 Hi, I might be able to answer that, as the author of the post. Well, Eco-Feminist philosophy looks at aggressive development as essentially male in consciousness. It is structured, rigid, hierarchical, based on conquest. It is dependent on a cultural modification of nature and cannot occur without subjugation at some level. The most basic level where subjugation occurs is nature, and this is where destruction begins. The female consciousness, on the other hand is passive, complex - force of conservation and intuition (not rationalism). Consider the biological fact that any species under threat or even human beings under stress tend to bear more female offspring than male. Globalization in the 21st century is the expansion of business, economics and in general a way of life as conceived by one people - a people who have had what Fritjort Capra calls a Yin-led civilization, based on aggressive policy, expansion and the spread of one single idea of "freedom" and "development". By application, Earth, as the subject of conquest of this male consciousness for development is close to female consciousness. Thus the duality in values that identifies nature as close to Woman and culture as close to Man. So the ultimate question is not merely about whether men or women should own resources but about where this whole idea of "ownership" of resources as basic as water and knowledge came from. Can anyone claim to have conquered the right over water? While, of course, gender-skewed development is a manifestation of the overriding influence of the male consciousness, the question of masculinization and patriarchy goes much deeper. I hope that answered that question. If not, you're welcome to write to me at the address on http://savadati.wordpress.com Hi,
I might be able to answer that, as the author of the post. Well, Eco-Feminist philosophy looks at aggressive development as essentially male in consciousness. It is structured, rigid, hierarchical, based on conquest. It is dependent on a cultural modification of nature and cannot occur without subjugation at some level. The most basic level where subjugation occurs is nature, and this is where destruction begins. The female consciousness, on the other hand is passive, complex – force of conservation and intuition (not rationalism). Consider the biological fact that any species under threat or even human beings under stress tend to bear more female offspring than male.

Globalization in the 21st century is the expansion of business, economics and in general a way of life as conceived by one people – a people who have had what Fritjort Capra calls a Yin-led civilization, based on aggressive policy, expansion and the spread of one single idea of “freedom” and “development”.

By application, Earth, as the subject of conquest of this male consciousness for development is close to female consciousness. Thus the duality in values that identifies nature as close to Woman and culture as close to Man.

So the ultimate question is not merely about whether men or women should own resources but about where this whole idea of “ownership” of resources as basic as water and knowledge came from. Can anyone claim to have conquered the right over water?

While, of course, gender-skewed development is a manifestation of the overriding influence of the male consciousness, the question of masculinization and patriarchy goes much deeper.

I hope that answered that question. If not, you’re welcome to write to me at the address on http://savadati.wordpress.com

]]>