A caring culture and a caring economy?

The Real Wealth of Nations is the newest book by Riane Eisler - one of the icons of the sustainablity movement.

She writes:

"Our beliefs about what is or is not valuable are largely unconscious. They have been profoundly affected by assumptions we inherited from times when anything associated with the female half of humanity — such as caring and caregiving — was devalued. If we look at our current fiscal priorities, we see that policymakers always seem to find money for stereotypically “masculine” control and violence — for prisons, weapons, wars. But we’re told there’s no money for caring and caregiving — for “feminine” activities, such as caring for children and people’s health, for nonviolence and peace.

I want to say that when I speak of caring and caregiving as “women’s work” I’m only echoing conventional beliefs we inherited from times when gender roles were much more rigid. The goal is an economic and social system that supports caring and cargiving in ways that put food on the table and a roof over people’s heads — one that no longer bars women from areas traditionally reserved for men and no longer views caring and caregiving as fit only for women or effeminate men."

Who is responsible for the markets?

Joel Makower wrote an entry while back which is a reality check for us "greenies."

When all the world is going "green" he shows evidence and view that is not always the case:

He writes "First, the bottom line. 'Given consumer attitudes today, green is best characterized as a niche opportunity in the consumer marketplace,' says Walker Smith, president of Yankelovich. 'It is a strong niche opportunity, but it is not a mainstream interest that is passionately held or strongly felt by the majority of consumers.'

Or, perhaps more to the point: 'The majority of consumers really don't care all that much about the environment. Green simply doesn't has not captured the public imagination.' Ouch."

Read his entire article here.

What is it going to take?

Who really is leading the markets, anyway?

Corporations say "the consumers." Yet if all the corporations adopted environmentally responsible practices and began offering truly green products and services - the consumers would also follow.

If the major corporations really educated the public about the challenges in their industries and appealed to the customers, and fellow corporations to change the markets, I think we would be surprised as to the ease of the transition to a sustainable economy.

I attended the Social Venture Network conference last weekend and we heard from a NIKE executive.

She shared with us some amazing things that Nike is doing - good job. As to the speed and effectiveness of their efforts she said that Nike is subject to the markets and the financial constraints in the quarter to quarter profit system we have created on Wall Street.

Now, I got her point. Yet I stood up and asked a question - "Is Nike really a victim of the markets, and the stock market?"

Who are the players in the market? Aren't the consumers and the corporations?

Is Nike REALLY a victim of the markets? Isn't Nike one of the leaders in the apparel industry?

More fundamentally, who is market comprised of - corporations. Then corporations who make up the market have the power to create the constraints and therefore begin to remove the constraints of the markets....

Anyway - if the consumers are still blase, and the corporations are saying that they are victims of the markets....

Who's left to be responsible?