In a recent blog I discussed the insight concerning home. To recall it began with a recollection of feminism. Feminism knew that the position of women in society was undervalued. This took the form of a movement towards equality in the workplace, primarily towards gaining equal power within previous bastions of male power such as business. This has led to women also becoming bastions of capitalism. At the same time the home has become less stable. Previously men had not been so concerned about the home, their roles in terms of the home being that of provider, and especially in the west their roles were dominated by expressions of power with in society. This might have shown itself as the acquisition of money or careerism in the workplace. Homes were often existed as a base for the success of the male - as summarised by the phrase "Behind every good man is a good woman".

Within all this scenario, the natural role of evolution has been forgotten. Whilst providing education so that future generations could continue to fulfil power struggles through society and in the workplace, the rearing of the child is not necessarily considered the reason for the home - in society as a whole. Relationships including marriage are entered into for love, children come along, and are often seen as an encumbrance especially by men. The existence of children becomes divisive as the child takes the woman's attention naturally. Yet western society has moved towards the notion that the man and woman have equal rights to a career, and this further divides the home.

Current western society has created an ethos of conflict between the needs of society and the needs of the home, and this ethos is contrary to Nature. In Nature the social structure provides the security that enables the mother to rear the child, the male role as hunter and provider gives that security. Who is the dominant figure? The mother. The role of the mother in rearing the child should be the focus of the society. I believe this was what nature was trying to express at the time of feminism. The feminine role of motherhood was being usurped by the power struggles of the male ego, and Nature was asking for that usurpation to cease, and asking that the female role of motherhood be given its rightful place as the central role in life.

Instead the women of feminism had also been part of the same miseducation as men so they sought their sphere of influence in the same arena as men, in the society of power, corruption, corporate accumulation of capital, and measuring of a man's worth by the numbers in a bank account. Feminism rather than bringing the focus of governance back onto the home became a movement to increase the opportunity for women to join the exploiting class, and so further contribute to the decline in the home in the West.

The main point of this preamble is to recognise that Nature's fundamental purpose is evolution, and evolution is primarily created not through society but the home. Society's main role is to facilitate child-rearing in the home, and is not there to create power structures for male egos, and now female egos to fight over.

I cite as evidence the happiness that exists in peasant cultures where this type of role continues to this day, and as there is more contact with modern society these cultures start to erode and they become less happy as their minds turn to the products of materially-conscious societies. This is not an idealisation of women in rice fields 16 hours a day or men working all hours in order to eke out survival, but a recognition that in such societies and cultures children are happy. Children are seen as a joy, and not as something to be seen and not heard. Whilst growing up all children cause problems whilst they learn, but are they the same problems as western children? Miseducation has created children who are demanding, financially motivated, disrespectful of parents and elders in society, and the demands of their uncontrolled minds often leads to crime and gangland culture as drugs and money are sought to satisfy these demands.

Our western education system is significant in this as education creates a hierarchy of success based on how well children adapt themselves to a model that makes them fit into corporate culture. Children are not educated for their well-being but are taught to meet the targets of exam success, and this targeting soon changes into rungs on the career ladder as identity with corporate unity becomes the ,meaning of their lives. Whilst the rearing of children becomes secondary. Schools often perform the function of keeping children off the streets, and more and more institutions rise up to perform the same function, kindergartens, play-centres, youth services, etc. The rationale behind these are that young people often become criminal on the streets so there needs to be a place for them to go, yet this rationale does not recognise fully that the reason he streets are unsafe is because our communities are unsafe because the home is not empowered and parents are encouraged to leave the home for most of the day and night in the search for corporate success.

If both parents saw as their priority the rearing of children would they be such a problem? Would there be the need for these institutions? The point is not necessarily that children are on the streets. In simple communities children do not spend their time at home on parental-sponsored activities, and they are not supervised by parents all the time doting on their every wish. Far from it. These children grow up within communities centred around the home. They will play on the street, on the land, just learning as life goes on. And parents have not got to fear crime, the attraction of money, the demands money creates. It is an issue amongst black families in western (white) societies that they get into western education, become derailed, and the parents return them to their home culture - in the Caribbean, in Nigeria, etc. It doesn't work as the children bring with them the problems they have been brought up with in the West, but it is an indication of the instinctive understanding of the need for the home - the focus on the home as a place to bring up children.

Radical Implications

This focus on the home has radical implications or the restructuring of society. First and foremost becomes an alteration of the importance of roles. The primary role is that of mother - bringing up the children. Some might argue that men can bring up children, maybe that is so. In Nature females bring up the children and males act as providers. That is sufficient here. In western education the role of Nature has effectively been ignored as corporate demands take over. On occasions men have taken over the role of child-rearing as opportunities have presented to the woman. If child-rearing is the priority for the moment that doesn't matter. In time with priority being set on the role of motherhood I would suggest that these careerist businesswomen would slowly disappear because their egos would be satisfied as the home is being seen as the priority. Male egos might then choose to want to be the main role in the home, who is to say? Following naturally on from the home being a priority comes the community. How can a home be safe if the community is not safe? How can children play in the streets if the streets are the homes of crime? Governance would then have to prioritise the interests of the home and then communities. Governance would provide support for single-parent families, families would not be breaking up because as the home is the priority there would be social shame falling on parents who split up. Maybe the decision to be married would be considered seriously, and not as consequence of first thoughts of sexual passion.

The emphasis on infrastructure would be towards the family and home. Look at the obscenity of townships in the racist countries. How horrific was it to dump people in shacks away from where the white families lived, and then force them to travel great distances every day to be maids or gardeners? Yet this principle exists in western society. There are working-class estates where housing is provided so that workers can be bussed in to perform the various duties in the factories. Huge schools would be provided near these estates so that the children are kept off the streets, and whilst in the schools some children became successful, joined the corporate ladder, and moved away from such estates. Where is the emphasis on the home in this?

Unwittingly we have grown up in a society whose rationale is to provide a social structure for corporate success. People climbing the ladder in such a corporate world live differently to those on the estates. Their children attend different schools, sometimes that separation is paid for. Their lives are completely different. The way they mix socially is different, they marry within their social grouping usually, and their children grow up separately recognising difference in lifestyles such differences creating stigmas.

And all this stems from the focus of society and its governance on providing the infrastructure for the huge corporations. The corporation themselves grew out of a natural need for manufacture and trade, but this natural need was then usurped by the greed of initially the male ego. Technological modernisation is not necessarily unnatural, it is using Nature's mind to help humanity. But what drives that technology now? Is it the improvement of the home for child-rearing? No, it is market-driven, it is driven by fashion and advertising. Research is carried out with the express purpose of finding a new technology that can be marketed. And now even worse, technology is creating social interaction as online faceless communities provide a substitute for human interaction as people are so afraid to let their children mix. New mobile technologies create new forms of social interaction and social deviancy as people are harassed through phones, and different forms of criminal activity such as happy-slapping are created by these deviants.

And meanwhile what happens with our social elders? Governments instead of prioritising homes and communities continue to support the corporations. Under the pretext of providing jobs they allow big business to dictate policy. But where have the jobs gone? Into the corporations. What were originally jobs through trading in local markets have become huge distribution and sales networks for the corporations. Local stalls of farm-produce and crafts have been replaced by huge supermarkets almost eliminating family business, the men have then been forced to go into the corporations and accept the corporate ethos distancing them from the strength of the local community.

And what have the corporations done to our foods? They are poisoning us. Because of the distribution networks and the need to package foods, the food companies have introduced preservatives that are felt as poisons by our systems. At the same time with both parents away from the home time is not spent on cooking and shopping. Who can go to work, come home and spend an hour cooking kidney beans? Easy meals are readily available with these poisons yet of you look at traditional communities the daily routine of the home includes and sometimes even focuses on the preparation of good food. Small farming methods do not include the vast crop-spraying (poisoning) that requires an aeroplane!!! People grow for their families and sell extra to enable them to pay for extras. And children grow up with their parents learning these natural skills.

This is a call for "Back to Nature", but it is not a call for primitivism. Focusing on the needs of the family for child-rearing will move the engine of innovation away from corporate profit-making towards what is best for the children. It will move the profits out of the ambit of the corporations as priority will not be protection of big business finance at the expense of humanity but a refocusing on what is best for our children, the evolution of the next generation.

How Change Might Come About

To attempt to envisage how such a system might work, I have written a novel, Muban (not written), in which such a system might work. It cannot possibly include all the steps in this movement for change but it does illustrate a possibility. Such ideas as focusing on the children of the next generation are pleasant, but often dismissed because they are idealistic. Sometimes idealistic means difficult to put into practice, and in this case changing the power of the corporations and changing the way governance supports these behemoths is extremely difficult.

But I would suggest it can be achieved one step at a time. Examine your own lifestyle. How much is child-rearing the priority of your family? Not the ploy of saying I am working all hours God sends to provide for the family, but how much time and effort does the family put into child-rearing? Have you considered ways in which you can separate yourself from corporate involvement? Is the food healthy? This has a tremendous implication for time in the family. Are the children involved with the food? Do the children know about the poisons in food? If we put more labour into food then less is needed for providing money. Once we individually focus on the family and try in a limited way to provide a healthy lifestyle, then we see less and less the importance of the corporation. The amount of money we need can be reduced. Whilst organic foods are more expensive item-by-item, nutritional value is gained as is health. It is not necessary to pay for expensive ready-made foods as our lives are not governed by the clock but by the quality of time in the home.

As more people develop this community mentality the more governance will have to take account of this. All these corporations are based in democratic countries yet clearly they don't serve the interests of their own people. But whilst people's livelihoods are connected to the corporations and whilst they purchase the good of the corporations, government policy will be to support the corporations. But if we become more interested in local aspects within the community, then our voting patterns will also change to show this local aspect. As our votes change so will the platforms of the politicians. If we have more time maybe we will have more of a chance to investigate how the politicians act. If the actions of the politician prevent locally-produced goods from being sold, if the actions directly affect us individually maybe we will seek a change.

This process of change is slow, and is not a good way to view the changes. What happens when we focus on the home? Our actions in the home become the priority. How our children work and behave at school become a priority? They matter not as an inconvenience that disrupts busy work schedules. Parent meetings change from being an embarrassment to something to be looked forward to so that we can learn how to help our children improve. With the happiness of our children mattering more, that happiness then fills our lives. The joy of having children can return to the West, and whilst our family is happy erstwhile colleagues will gloat as we have less materially but internally there will be envy at the happiness. It is this happiness that is the motivation, and not how government and corporations respond.

This is primarily an education site, and the educational impact of this Home Evolution is drastic, I will begin to discuss that here (not written).