Skip to main content

Add Comment

Comments (1)

Newest · Oldest · Popular

There's a certain irony, while well-intended, in both...

1) Telling people to work on self-compassion, defined by your newsletter as "extending compassion to one’s self in instances of perceived inadequacy, failure, or general suffering".

2) Having a consulting business that defines people by their worth to others... "Blue Collar Consulting can help craft a program to help protect your most valuable assets - your staff"

Many people suffering emotional distress don't have issues of perception. They are struggling with real, externally imposed barriers. They struggle with a society that treats them as assets and throws them away if they don't comply to externally-defined value or forces them to somehow convince others to value them.

There is little to no accountability in modern society to hold people and systems accountable for creating environments that create emotional distress. Even your consulting business is optional and not mandatory, and notably is your definition of what a "healthy workplace" is or isn't.

Targeting leaders instead of involving the "assets" speaks volumes about the continued oppression and powerlessness that exists. Mixing that with a demand for those powerless individuals to use "self-care" to cope with the intolerable wraps the package up in a neat tidy bow.

Demanding self-care while disempowered is oppression.
Not giving individuals control over their work environment is oppression.
Not giving individuals a choice in what work will be supported is oppression.

We need a new model of understanding what society is and why the structure of society itself can be questioned and looked to as a source of emotional distress.

Post
Copyright Β© 2023, PACEsConnection. All rights reserved.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×