WomenonStrike

[Guest guest]

One essential task a society must do, is raise the next

generation. Institutions often form around fulfilling one of

society's basic needs. However, even before organized society

existed, nature had developed a way to continue the species and

ensure the next generation. Note that the act by a caveperson to

have and care for offspring did nothing to benefit his/her individual

survival; but did everything to benefit the future survival of the

species. Thus nature (or God) caused there to be a physical (bodily)

attraction between male and female, and for mothering instincts so

that individuals would do what otherwise didn't benefit them, -that

otherwise was an expense in effort and resources. So that the

essential societal need of producing the next generation already has

a mechanism for being fulfilled, even without the institutions of

marriage and family. -So that the 3rd, modern meaning of marriage

(that is, for the personal fulfilment of the body/mind provided by

nature/God) is not really new, but is instead, ancient and existed

prior to recorded history.

As civilization developed more structure and organizaton, perhaps the

institutions of family and marriage then grew into the main way to

supply society's need of producing the next generation. (Note, the

institutions of family have traditionally included arranged marriages

for the purposes of keeping wealth and family properties together and

prospering. -This representing a more traditional meaning of

marriage.)

 

 

 

 

Men have been running things since the beginning of recorded

history. -There has not been one woman US president or vice

president, yet women make up half the population. It is at this time

we tap men on the shoulder and say: haven't you had a long enough

turn? -that its time to trade places and let women have a turn? So

we politely tap men on the shoulder, ask them to step down and

relinquish the reigns of power to women.

 

 

 

Looking at the task of producing/rearing the future generation:

those who must do this task are prevented from attending to the power

struggles of the present generation. Because it is the women who

grow an embryo to a fetus and bear the children and are semi disabled

in being pregnant; because women have the equipment for feeding the

children; and have a mothering instinct: it is women who do more of

the task of producing the future generation than men. Over history,

this has left men free to dominate their present generation (while

the women are busy taking care of the kids). With men making the

rules, they became the order givers and women the order takers.

 

 

 

 

Looking at the task of producing the future generation of our

species: since all of society is benefited by its successful

completion, it is reasonable to expect all of society to bear the

expense and burden of this task. However, the institution of family,

ties completely the burden and responsibility for offspring a couple

bears, to that couple, and frees the rest of society from any

responsibility whatever. And this burden becomes especially intense

when the father steps out and leaves only the mother to bear the

whole burden.

This doesn't represent parts of society cooperating and working

together to accomplish a common important social task. Thus the

institution of family is not a part of the structural-functionalist

theory, at least not concerning the important (essential) social task

of producing the next generation. Females have and raise kids for

the benefit of society having a next generation, but the other parts

of society give nothing in return for this. The act to divide the

societal whole into parts, with each doing a task, doesn't represent

cooperation between the parts, but represents a shoving the burden

onto one group (which is exploitation); -when all groups and parts

should be helping with an important task, in order to be in

cooperation. This represents a basic flaw in the structural-

functionalist theory.

 

 

 

The major cause of people on welfare, is the expense of raising

children born by single mothers. But the priority of current policy

is for poor mothers to do better in the economic system (ie working

to accumulate wealth to the rich). This has nothing to do with the

priority of producing the next generation. In fact, now, this is

even more difficult, because now single mothers must juggle work plus

taking care of their kids. -Essentially an affirmation by society

that the raising of the next generation has no economic value, and

that mothers must do additional work in order to recieve money. But

is the raising of the next generation really of no value to

society? -That the society expects to recieve this for free? Since

it is the poor who have more kids: who will now have kids? It is now

more important to get established in the economic system and to put

off having kids. This only exacerbates the problem of too many old

people, not enough young workers.

 

 

-(The expense of raising children is real. Just look how it holds

single mothers down.) And the dominant cannot extract from children

like they extract from the rest of us. A society cannot say to an

infant " pull your own weight " . A religion cannot say to an

infant " if you don't work, you don't eat " . If they did, they would

in one generation, vanish, because they would have killed all their

children and thus their next generation.

 

Because the procreation of a new generation is a benefit to all of

society -in fact it is an absolute essential because all societies

would be completely (but non-violently) anhialated within one

generation without their women procreating. (Note that given today's

advances in biotechnology and cloning research, this may no longer be

true.) Because all of society benefits from a limited degree of

procreation (not overpopulation), then it is not unreasonable to

expect all of society to help shoulder any burdens involved with

raising children. So that we can correctly call it exploitation or

creating haves vs have-nots, when society designates family units to

bear the total cost/responsibility of raising children and absolves

the rest of society from any cost or responsibility.

 

 

 

 

When someone provides a benefit to society that is absolutely

essential to the survival of society, one might think society would

reciprocate. But in one area they don't, because there is a natural

process which provides this for free. As human beings we

are considered as " human resources " in the human resources department

of every business. Yet one area so basic to society has not been

given an economic value. The benefit to society from what women do

in producing /rearing the next generation, is so great that if women

were paid for what this was actually worth to society, they would all

be millionaires. Do you realize that women have the power to totally

(but non violently) anhialate a society by just refusing to have any

more kids?

What I suggest, is not an anhialation of the US, but a collective

bargaining whereby women ultimately recieve the monetary compensation

and the reigns of power befitting the benefit they provide society,

that they have been denied since the beginning of recorded history.

Now it is true that men have military power and are able to topple

any women ruled society easily; but what I suggest is a more equal

sharing of power where women have considerable more power and

economic resources than they command now; by having them organize and

excercise their collective bargaining rights in the area of receipt

of payment for the benefit they provide in having and rearing the

next generation. So what I ask poor white women to do right now, is

to have as much sex as they want, just to use contraception or

abortion and not have any more kids. And this great and powerful US

superpower society will be totally gone in one generation unless

things change and women are given more.

 

 

 

As for the idea for women to stop having children as a means to

gain power: Here in the US, minorities are poised to overtake the

white majority in number; and seeing that play out would produce more

immediate good; and that could not happen if minorities quit having

kids. In impoverished 3rd world countries where there is only one

group of people where there are just the very rich and the many poor

of one ethinic group: one might think this is where to apply the idea

for women to stop having kids to gain power and overthrow even the

most dastardly military dictator who ships all their economic wealth

to the US as part of globalization, who is unlikely to be deposed any

time soon by other means. However, birth rates are high in 3rd world

countries. In fact, high birth rates are used by these people as

another method to control their government -because if most of a

country's resources go to feeding an ever burgeoning population, then

there is little left over for guns or other economic development

(enslavement). However, the developed countries have already

defeated this strategy. -They provide the economic development (via

globalization) and supply of arms, so that the population of these

countries can fight each other and slave all day at cheap labor to

produce the wealth imported to the US. So, to help 3rd world

countries, and our own, we must enact this plan in our own developed

countries, and gain control of them, and then eliminate this

globalization and arms supplying and torture device supplying that

the US does. But minorities should be exempt until they gain a

majority. In China, where they have restricted the population growth

to one child per couple so as to allow for greater economic

development, my method would also work to overthrow that regim if

their population so desired.

 

 

 

 

Right now the women's union to accomplish this is yet to be created.

What I suggest is an organization without leaders where each member

has the ability to participate equally. The internet is an excellent

forum for this as it allows each member to 'speak', whereas in any

auditorium or physical place each member would have to take turns

speaking. We would vote on issues. All members could raise issues.

To make it so unscrupulous people couldn't come in and vote many

times for one person, we might have a system outside the internet

where a person would ID themselves with a drivers licence, and be

given an internet ID number, plus many 'transaction numbers'

associated with that ID number. Each transaction number would be

used only once when a person voted, and then they would have to go

onto the next number in their list to vote on another issue. That

way it would be ensured that it was that actual person who was

voting, and not someone who just used her ID surupticiously. When a

person ran out of transaction numbers they could get more by snail

mailing a reserve number (also included with the initial transaction

numbers) to the understood group organization where they showed their

drivers license; whence they would be snail mailed back another long

set of transaction numbers. There would be a place for any person to

write up 'laws' to be passed. People would vote for them over time.

Only when a majority of the organization had voted for them would

they then be passed after the central organization had verified ID

and transaction number (using a computer program of course).

But before this organization gets underway, one thing I would ask is

that white women, poor white women, middle class white women: please

delay having children, -or if you must have kids, do so with a

minority who has had a hard time becomming part of the accepted US

society ie African Americans.

 

Please forward this message to all you know.