Making the Future Female


The Womanifesto is the philosophy underpinning the novel

DOG Sharon: The Future is Female 

The Womanifesto calls for a positive re-evaluation and adoption of what have traditionally been referred to as Female Values and Perspectives with a corresponding paradigm shift in human affairs.

By this we mean an emphasis on cooperation and community rather than competition and individualism, with society organised to protect its weakest members, namely children and the elderly.

In the present global economic system we are told there is no alternative to production being governed by the Market.

However there can be no production without people and people are created by reproduction.

Therefore whoever controls reproduction controls production and future human society.

This explains why religions and other bastions of male power have worked so hard to regulate and deny female sexuality. These sad people kill to oppose abortion, fight against birth control and do anything to prevent children getting proper sex education.

The rulers need our children for their wars and as workers, but they don’t want to acknowledge the power of reproduction.

They can’t let the women speak out.

So they denigrate the Feminine and attack women because they’re scared.

When women manage reproduction, the risk posed by overpopulation – probably the biggest challenge facing humanity – will quickly diminish and our species will no longer threaten all other life on the planet.

If women see a future where their children will be working for slave wages or die in wars or starve or die of thirst – if women see this, they will refuse to bring more children into the world.

Why should women give birth to children in a society that abuses most of the people most of the time, a society that lets tens of thousands of kids die each and every day from preventable causes?

Women everywhere are demanding change, and will not be denied. The genie is truly out of the bottle.

The existing order is based on violence or the threat of violence. But as violence creates more violence this is obviously counterproductive.

Women and children suffer most from wars and crime, face sexual assault, domestic violence and constant harassment.

Violence in all its forms must become a thing of the past.

We’ll need new politics for this new society and we’re calling it Lowerarchy.

Everybody knows a hierarchy is a pyramid-like structure with power concentrated at the top. This model worked well for kings, emperors, presidents, prime ministers, warlords and tyrants of every kind, and when allied with military might, has allowed these dictators to dominate the vast majority of people for the last several thousand years.

Hierarchies are part of our heritage, but then so is cannibalism: both have no place in a modern egalitarian society.

Government has developed from the absolute rule of kings and is the means by which the few dominate the many – so is part of the problem not a solution.

Lowerarchy is the opposite of hierarchical organisation.

In the Lowerarchy there will be no need for leaders as there will be no nations to lead. Local people will decide for themselves how to live and manage resources.

Then artificial national boundaries can be dissolved, and with no nation states to defend, armies will become redundant so can safely be disbanded.

Likewise, security services can be dismantled as we would all be on the same side.

The policies of the powerful nations, from colonial times to the present, have caused great inequality in the world, both at the level of continents and regions and for individuals.

We propose a couple of modest rebalancing policies.

The first is that antisocial debts, whether at the international level such as money supposedly owed by poor nations to rich, or by ordinary folk to financial institutions, should all be cancelled.

If we Default All Debts, everyone can start again. Most folk would be better off – only the rich would lose. And if we lost a few financial institutions, would anybody care or even notice?

Second, if we want a world where everybody truly feels equal, then let’s reflect that in the economic sphere.

We suggest a One World, One Wage policy.

It’s a simple plan. Everybody gets paid the same salary. So cleaners get the same as bankers, teachers are equal to dinner ladies and mums valued as much as soccer stars.

So we run society just like a big co-operative – because that’s what we are.

And as we truly are all in this together, obviously those that can’t work will be cared for: that’s what society’s for.

Once this is implemented, and in tandem with the debt default, much of the inequality will soon be squeezed out of the system. After the real price of labour has been factored in, the true value of any good or service can be calculated.

The alternative to the above?

Catastrophic overpopulation, continued unfettered competition and the commodification of everything, wholesale destruction of the natural world, mass extinctions, more pollution and greenhouse effects on the climate, a further widening of the gap between the rich and poor, loss of civil liberties, wars over resources, famines and the likely destruction of the species.

It’s time we changed the way we live –

Let’s make the Future Female!



12 responses

  1. Reblogged this on dogsharon and commented:

    This is our philosophy

    August 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm

  2. Love

    I was a little concerned about the genderification of cooperation and competition. Or more precisely the acceptance of it because it is patriarchy that assigns gender to them.
    Further, since those two things are in every one, I do not see either one as inately good/bad, so some competition is good, although the overall economic and social environment ought to be much more towards cooperation than competition, and that is a major problem today, i.e. lack of cooperation or destruction of it.

    I am also very leary on the “wage equality” not so on the family/tribe/community level but on the larger scales.

    September 1, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    • Thanks for the response. You say some competition is good – where is the evidence for that? The almost religious emphasis on competition has created so many problems for the rest of life on the planet that there isn’t much time for debate – we either stop our destructive ways soon or much of the ecosystem will be destroyed.
      I haven’t heard the word ‘leary’ for ages 🙂 What is the problem with wage equality and what exactly are the ‘larger scales’ you mention?
      Remember this is a rhetorical piece – I’ve avoided terms like ‘patriarchy’ and ‘genderification’ because I wrote it to be understood by non academic readers. Most folk will stop reading the moment they see such terms. Regards, Dave

      September 1, 2012 at 6:31 pm

      • Catherine

        Apparently, we are not overpopulated – the entire human race when standing together would fit into the state of California. It is the rate at which we use resources that is the problem. Agree that we need to feminise world politics, though.

        September 4, 2012 at 7:09 pm

      • Thanks for your response. However, if you don’t mind me saying, the area of humans standing together is irrelevant with regard to overpopulation – the key issues are the effect on the ecosystem – notably pollution of the oceans, destruction of wild habitats and release of CO2 causing climate change.
        Resources are not managed fairly or ergonomically so many people starve while others have too much and waste lots.

        May I ask where you found this statistic about California?

        Species are disappearing at an ever increasing rate, certain minerals, potassium in particular, which is a key part of fertilizer – are becoming scarce and oil production has peaked – all issues exacerbated by a large and growing human population.
        Having said that, I’m really pleased we agree on the need to empower women to manage human affairs. As I’m sure you are aware, when women become educated the birth rate drops.
        If women are further repressed I fear for the future of humanity.
        Look forward to chatting further.

        September 4, 2012 at 7:32 pm

  3. Love

    “The almost religious emphasis…” exactly that is why I qualified it, to emphasize it to the point of maniachal obsession has done exactly as you said. but really is it that it is inately bad or the obession with it? Evidence? Have you never played any kind of game? Sure I prefer cooperative games but may it be that obsession once again and the sore loser/ poor winner result of the mania. And it does drive product development to a degree, much less so due to the corporate stranglehold on capital and power. Once again I must emphasize balance here and the fact that competition is a part of everyone, it is the worship of it as you say that makes it disgusting and ugly.

    I was not meaning that you had to incorporate the terms in the work, but simply pointed out that the division of the two and attaching them to “opposing genders” has its roots in patriarchy. As does the gender diad to begin with.

    I don’t have a problem with wage equality per se, just in the immediate future, I do not see it as a possability on a global scale, if it ever can be. In my crazy utopia of the future, globally there would be no money. But considering its existence, I do not think it possible to have more than a couple of hundred people in a wage equal scheme, i.e. a community. this is simply because, say on a global scale, who determines the wage, what will it be, in comparison to necessity? I can only picture, on a global scale, a subsistence wage, all surplus going to “public good” and who would decide this, globally?

    I think in terms of the local myself. Such as a “tribe” of 20 to 50 people. And wage equality is generated not by actual incomes, but by all incomes being combined and a wage/allowance that is equal given out to all memebers (whether they bring income in or not). The remainder is for the public good (in this case the “tribe”) which actually does pay all the subsistence and creates savings for emergencies and improvements to common items (homes, vehicles, equipment, land, etc.). The main point here is controllable by the members. And note that this is an idea I have toward working within this monster called capitalism, so it may not be at all applicable.

    It is kinda tough when I do not know what setting and time period this book will have. Nor really the purpose, audience or meaning of the book. I do agree with much of the philosophy there, really those were my only two concerns. One out of not wishing to have gender matter (for truthfully it confuses the hell out of me) and the other on practical grounds, for I tend to be somewhat practical in my theoretical dreaming. LOL

    September 2, 2012 at 8:11 am

    • Thanks for this – let me read your full response and I’ll try to reply and do it justice. If you’re from the UK I’ll send you a book to read so you can judge for yourself. Maybe we’re in agreement more than disagreement – let me know if you want a copy while I digest your points.
      Regards, Dave

      September 3, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    • Thanks for this – let me read your full response and I’ll try to reply and do it justice. If you’re from the UK I’ll send you a book to read so you can judge for yourself. Maybe we’re in agreement more than disagreement – let me know if you want a copy while I digest your points.
      Regards, Dave

      Okay, I’ve read your response again and here’s a few points. When I refer to ‘competition’ in this document I mean as a business model and basis for nation states to contend with each other – this is what leads to war and inequality. I do not mean as a component of our personal dispositions. I can be extremely competitive in games and have represented my town and county at team games and athletics and play many card and board games and enjoy quizzes and competitions. But these are games – not fighting in real life resulting in taking unfair amounts of resources needed for others to live. However I thank you for pointing out this ambiguity and will rewrite to make this clear.
      With regard to wages – who decides wages now? My argument is that if we want equality then we should begin at the level of equal remuneration – if you look at the history of economic disparity then you’ll see that it comes about due to unequal power. I recommend reading Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems Analysis to get a handle on this. He shows how powerful countries maintain economic differentials over poorer countries and I think this is mirrored in the class system.
      The book is a satire in the manner of Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels and Modest Proposal. It’s set in England in 2012 and follows the adventures of a middle-aged women and her friends as they try to solves the world’s biggest problems. It’s funny and political and meant to be a wake-up call. It’s aimed at women mostly but I hope cool men will appreciate it. I’ve had some great responses from a wide range of women who’ve read it. As I say above – if you live in Europe I’ll send you a copy. x

      September 3, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    • Dear “Love” – Re your comment, “… division of the two and attaching them to “opposing genders” has its roots in patriarchy. As does the gender diad to begin with.” I think this is important and I’m interested if you have evidence for this statement, or is it a quote, and if so, where from?

      September 3, 2012 at 8:59 pm


  5. These ideas are beautiful (how could they NOT be so? -hehe)….
    …and in my mind too, a lot of them have appeared from time to time.

    I always valued my own mind on the basis of similar ideas,
    but dared not speak out, most of the time…
    …since dogmatism of one kind or another ensured that I keep silent,
    that I never questioned the established “party line”.

    It’s perhaps because…
    it was considered incorrect (politically or otherwise)
    to speak of values that are feminine (or masculine for that matter).

    The real mystery however, remains, even now, unexplored
    which is (now that feminine wisdom prevails)….
    WHAT is the true, sane essence of the masculine side?

    Is it just power, sweat and muscles, all cogs in the wheel of the machine
    Is it perhaps bravery? oh no, as if Woman can not also act bravely….

    WHAT is it that makes men worthwhile
    in a non-sexist, non-male-dominated civilisation?

    To ASK the question, in THIS way, is perhaps a good beginning.

    September 17, 2012 at 1:09 am

    • I am so excited to read your comments. You are the first person to ask this most important question! This ‘real mystery’ is something I hope we can explore together, for as you say, we must find the answer or be superfluous to human life.
      It seems to me that most people, men and women, are not fully awake – they walk around in a trance, hardly noticing what is happening all around them. Whether this is a modern phenomenon or has always been the situation is open to debate. But it seems to be getting worse as I look at people’s eyes and do not see much life or fire.
      I have written my book as a wake-up call to men and women – it is a satire in the manner of classic satirists – it is saying “Take responsibility!”
      I have studied both academic subjects and occult ideas – the politically correct and incorrect. Like you, I have battled against orthodoxy from a range of so-called authorities, and usually found the greatest thinkers do not conform to the suffocating standards of little minds. It is fashionable to say that humans are simply socialised into male and female thinking and behaviour, but after much study and contemplation I realised this could not be the case. History and culture tell a different story. Also I have had mystical experiences that do not sit easily with modern thinking. We can hopefully discuss this in a less public arena.
      With regard to your main point, men have a great power of vision that finds it’s positive expression in art, music, technology, discovery and imagining the future. That is the irony of me, a man, telling women to fully realise their power and save the world.
      I’m really excited to have met you, and look forward to working and thinking together.
      Regards, David

      September 17, 2012 at 8:24 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s