Theos-Talk Archives (March 2001 Message tt00069)

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.