From: fork34lift@yahoo.com
Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World WomenonStrike
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 19:50:05 -0000
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.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
