The Womanifesto is the philosophy underpinning the novel
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 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!
Me with some colleagues from around the world
Gender and International Human Rights MA
Coventry University 2010
stayed at home
did the domestic work
This interesting article brings the personal and the political together.
On 24 January 2011, a Toronto police officer gave a talk on crime prevention. When speaking about rape, he uttered the now infamous words, “Women should avoid dressing like sluts.” Enraged at his words and the culture of victim-blaming it reflected, Canadians marched to let everyone know that women’s clothes were not responsible for rape; rapists were. Although it was a Canadian police officer who had made those comments, the rape culture that gave rise to the sentiment was not confined to Canada. Women from around the world recognised it, shared their outrage, and have joined in the movement, with Slutwalk protest rallies popping up in more than 40 countries so far.
From the start, Slutwalk has been controversial, even among feminists. Some seek to reclaim the word ‘slut’, to redefine it to mean a sexually liberated woman, instead of a judgmental term used to cast aspersions on the morality…
View original post 953 more words
Is it Bye-Bye Blokes?
I recently reblogged an article from my friend MADD suspicions about male and female brain types.
Click here to have a go at the fun quiz he found.
Also I’ve been reading, laughing and learning psychology from the witty and suave but spiky PinkAgendist. Stop by if you enjoy perceptive pieces.
And of course other fine blogs I haven’t time to mention now, but will soon.
We all affect each other.
Their posts led me to think about thinking – always fun but a slightly weird experience as well.
In my more political posts I’m calling for a paradigm shift in human affairs to move from a male-managed world to a female- and child-friendly future.
With cooperation rather than competition as the guiding principle.
No violence. Local organisation of life. Less people.
Women managing human society and reproduction.
No nation states and therefore no armies, weapons of mass destruction and no National Security.
But for this argument to make sense there must be actual differences between the sexes – not just differences we learn in life – but innate differences.
So yesterday I argued that we are all Equal But Different.
The title of this blog is Different But Equal
Let’s look at some differences now and start with brains.
How often have you heard men say, “I just can’t understand women…” or “My wife doesn’t understand me…”
Do women find men equally difficult to understand, or do they, on average, have more empathy and so can work men out?
Is there such a thing as female thinking or awareness? Can there be a ‘male’ type of thinking?
Are men and women more different or more the same?
And what about the brains of homosexual folk?
All interesting questions.
That’s why the relationship between sex differences in the brain and human behaviour is so controversial in psychology and society generally.
If there are real differences between the sexes then the implications are immense.
Recent studies show there are measurable differences in female and male brains.
For instance, there is a difference between sexes in the transcription of a gene pair involved in brain development unique to Homo sapiens.
Consequently female and male brains show differences in internal structure.
One of the main areas studied is the proportion of white matter relative to gray matter.
Gray matter is made up of neuronal cell bodies. The gray matter includes regions of the brain involved in muscle control, sensory perception such as seeing and hearing, memory, emotions, and speech.
White matter is the tissue through which messages pass between different areas of gray matter within the nervous system.
So the gray matter can be thought of as the processing areas, while the white matter connects.
Blood flow is also different between women and men, with females able to move blood more quickly to the areas needed and not losing functions in old age as much as males.
There are also differences in the structure and size of certain areas in male and female brains.
Studies found men on average to have larger parietal lobes, responsible for sensory input including spatial sense and navigation.
Women usually have larger Wernicke’s and Broca’s areas, regions that are responsible for language processing.
Postmortem and imaging studies over the past two decades have revealed structural differences in both global structures and sexually-related brain structures between heterosexual and homosexual subjects.
Researcher Simon LeVay showed that parts of hypothalamus related to sexual orientation not gender.
The hypothalamus is an area known to be involved in sex differences in reproductive behaviour, mediating responses in menstrual cycles in women and the back of the hypothalamus regulates male-typical sexual behaviour.
These results were obtained from postmortem analysis of hypothalamic nuclei of known homosexual subjects compared to heterosexual patients.
The size of the brain’s hemispheres is a sexually dimorphic trait in which men tend to show asymmetry in the volumes of their hemispheres while women show more symmetry.
A recent study found homosexual men showed hemispheric volumes to be symmetric similar to heterosexual women and homosexual women showed asymmetry in hemispheric volumes as heterosexual men do.
However differences in brain physiology between the sexes and sexual preferences do not lead to differences in intellect.
This points to females and males taking different but equally successful routes to achieve the same outcomes.
Evidence for this was found in a 2004 study finding men and women achieve similar IQ results by utilising different brain regions.
So this suggests there is no singular underlying neuro-anatomical structure for general intelligence.
In simple language, different types of brains work equally well.
So, different but equal.
Equal but different.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN EQUALITY?
Nowadays we talk about ‘equality’ and ‘everyone being born equal’, but what exactly do we mean?
We speak of ‘equality of opportunity’ and ‘equality under the law’ but if we are unsure about the concept of ‘equality’ in the first place then these phrases don’t mean a whole lot.
People have said to me, “But humans are different, so how can they be equal?” or “We have to have difference – it’s just natural” and “I’d hate it if everybody was the same…”
These arguments are mistaking ‘Equality’ for ‘similarity’ or ‘sameness’. This kind of mistaken thinking is often a cover for discriminatory practices.
These arguments take the form of;
Women are different to men, so they shouldn’t earn as much as males,
Black folk are different to Europeans so it’s alright to enslave them.
But different doesn’t mean inferior.
Obviously there are differences between people, but there is no intrinsic reason why that should preclude equality.
Equality means everyone has the same right of respect from other individuals and to be treated fairly by social institutions.
Equality means we all have the same right to self-expression, self-determination and the chance to live and grow. Clearly there is a long way to go to achieve this.
What we are saying can be summed up by the phrase, “Equal but different…”
Click here to listen to the brilliant Au Pairs sing about this idea.
Our diversity is our strength, not an opportunity to discriminate against others.
Although the majority of us live in modern societies that claim to be democracies, there are plenty of old ideas still circulating that hark back to the pre-democratic systems that promoted inequality.
These hierarchical systems of social organisation are the biggest obstacles to developing truly modern societies where everyone has an equal stake and input into all aspects of life.
It’s worth briefly examining the ideas that were used to justify inequality in the past.
(Latin; scala naturae, literally “ladder or stairway of nature”) was a concept derived from Plato and Aristotle and developed more fully in Neoplatonism.
The Chain charts a fixed hierarchical structure of all matter and life.
The chain starts from God and progresses downward to angels, demons, fallen and renegade angels, stars, the Moon, kings, princes, nobles, men, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals.
Each link in the chain could be divided further into its component parts.
In medieval feudal society, the king was at the top, succeeded by the aristocratic lords, next came the merchants and then the peasants below them.
Solidifying the king’s position at the top of humanity’s social order is the doctrine of the Divine right of Kings.
In the family, the father was considered head of the household; below him came his wife; below her, their children.
This mistaken notion that some are more important than others underpins racist and sexist thinking, and that some nations can dominate other countries.
While there are small differences between people of various races, there is more divergence within each race than with other races.
However, there are marked differences between the sexes – this is called Sexual Dimorphism.
Men and women have different bodies statistically, meaning men tend to be taller and heavier with more muscle than women. However individuals may not display these attributes – some women are taller than some men for instance.
Crucially, modern research points to differences in brain organisation and processing systems, and I think this is really important.
Men and women think differently yet this isn’t taken into account in education and other aspects of life.
In my next post I will examine these differences in more detail.