Home | About | Donate

'A Day Without Women': Calls Grow for General Women's Strike


'A Day Without Women': Calls Grow for General Women's Strike

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

The next phase of the resistance as embodied by last month's Women's March may come in the form of a general women's strike—a day inspired by feminist movements in other countries, during which women don


So what's the date for this strike? The article seems to be talking about 2 calls to strike, one for March 8, as well as mentioning the call for a general strike on F17. Dispersion doesn't seem to be effective.


I support the cause but the way this is framed is unhealthy. If you make this women against men, it's a losing battle. Women and men must UNITE to fight violence and oppression. Men are not the enemy.


Did you even read the article? Besides calling for women, transwomen, AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM, this is how it describes violence against women:

"In embracing a feminism for the 99 percent, we take inspiration from the Argentinian coalition Ni Una Menos. Violence against women, as they define it, has many facets: it is domestic violence, but also the violence of the market, of debt, of capitalist property relations, and of the state; the violence of discriminatory policies against lesbian, trans and queer women; the violence of state criminalization of migratory movements; the violence of mass incarceration; and the institutional violence against women's bodies through abortion bans and lack of access to free healthcare and free abortion."


Well, have fun. A good chunk of the country can't risk losing their jobs by walking out, knowing there's nothing to fall back on, in a country that has no mercy on the jobless.


Twenty-some years into this country's war on the poor, the entire "99%" theme is false.


De acuerdo, we are in this Rebellion together'; that is the Way to victory!


Women must strike to protect themselves and their rights from the misogynists and Dominionists in power today.

Such a strike should include women doing unpaid work also. And, male feminists should definitely join this women's strike.

Any idea that this is a strike against men must be put down. It is a strike FOR WOMEN, FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR RIGHTS, FOR DAY CARE, FOR PAID MATERNITY AND FAMILY LEAVE.

It is NOT a strike against men.


Lysistrata ....


I read the article and this is what I object to. Numerous times women are singled out when all people should be resisting violence and oppression. You can quote more at me and pretend that this isn't hurting the cause but it is. The language is clearly not inclusive of males throughout the publication.


Female lives matter. Male lives, for the most part, always have.


When it comes to the crunch, then, why in the western world, is it always women and children first?

When it comes to the public description of atrocities, why is the emphasis always on the women and children killed?

Men, it seems, are generally disposable and as such are always the first to be conscripted for war.


That argument is like saying "All Lives Matter" rather than "Black Lives Matter". Of course all lives matter. But there is a particular violence against blacks that is being called out here. Just as there is a particular violence against women that is being called out.


I agree that we definitely need to work together with men to accomplish equality in ALL areas of our lives on the Planet. However, the "word on the street" with regards to women getting the vote almost 100 years ago, was that when it came down-to-it, women crossed-their-legs until the men woke up and agreed to (voted to) let them vote!! Maybe that would be the way to break through all the BS in today's political landscape, and show men how much women are needed (& loved). Ponder this.


On another board I saw a woman calling for a Sexit--no sex for Trump supporters. :smiley:


It seems to me that's because you-all tend to feel you get off the hook for your repression by telling us how we're protected. Probably because of what we risk to to procreate, you need to make us "the weaker sex." Nothing weak about it except the bystander.

Men, it seems, are generally disposable and as such are always the first to be conscripted for war.

I don't know about that. You'll have to figure that out for yourselves. It's not the women conscripting the men and throwing them at each other.


"It seems to me that's because you-all tend to feel you get off the hook for your repression"

No.The mediaeval courtesy of allowing women first through the door, after opening it for them, was, so I am told, to ensure that she copped the hidden assassin's dagger thus giving the knight of the realm a fighting chance to make good his cowardly escape. Something went badly wrong with that notion, with the sinking of the SS Birkenhead, a British troopship carrying soldiers and their wives and children to South Africa. The commanding officer of the troops, realising that there were too few lifeboats, ordered the red-coats to stand in regimental order on the deck of the sinking ship whilst the women and children were placed carefully in the lifeboats. Alas, but the commanding officer did not appreciate that the lifeboats contained no assassins and the women and children got away safely whilst the men either drowned or got eaten by sharks.

However, in true Glorious Imperial British Tradition, this unwitting heroism became legend and led to the sort of behaviour that saw legislation passed that forbade women to work in coal mines, whilst the men were still allowed to do so thus getting crushed by rockfall or dying from black lung (silicosis) whilst the women did the cushy jobs up top sorting the rock from the coal before going home to cook dinner.

The other chivalric tradition that I can't really understand is the one where women are allowed to walk on the inside of the pavement, again arising from mediaeval days when houses were cantilevered so that the top floors nearly touched each other and chambermaids threw out the shit from the chamberpot straight out into the streets. The inside position on the pavement was of course the protected one. I suppose it might have saved on laundry bills cleaning the wife's skirt and multi-layered petticoats so again chivalry might have had some practical value.for the master of the house..

I do recall that in 1914-18 in the UK the women went around giving white feathers to those men sensible enough to try to avoiding getting maimed and murdered whilst trying to kill German men on behalf of King, Country and God.

I will now refer you to Mrs Beaton's cookbook, 1899 edition, probably around page 14. You would love it!

Have fun and all the best.


An amazing feat of off-topicness and self-contradiction.


As others have commented above, this doubling down on Identity politics and focusing on male-female differences is dangerous. It will destroy the solidarity of the little people that is necessary to win the upcoming battles. Note that the great majority of the people subjected to violence by, and killed by, the state throughout history were men, especially men not in the one percent.

To anyone not completely brainwashed it should be obvious that individuals are multi-dimensional, i.e., each has individual characteristics, some immutable and some not, on the dimensions of sex or gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion or spiritual beliefs, age, health, athletic ability, income, personal or family wealth, educational level, profession or job, physical beauty, etc... On each of these dimensions, an individual may be advantaged, disadvantaged, or somewhere in between. Out of all the possible dimensions, wealth is generally the one that reveals the most about an individual's advantage or privilege, and so with the possible exception of wealth, it makes no sense to focus on one dimension and completely define an individual by that or use that to make a determination of whether an individual is "privileged" or not.

As I've stated before, a huge change is coming from the revolution in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotics in the next decade or so. Most people will be thrown out of work and, if a puppet of the plutocrats is in power, e.g., Paul Ryan, you can say "goodbye" to the social safety net. Instead of meeting the demands of the tens of millions of unemployed, impoverished, and suffering little people, the state will use robotic police and military, as well as other high-tech methods stemming from DARPA research, to put down protests and rebellion.

Further driving a wedge between the men and women of the 99 percent is insane. Not only is that destroying the feeling of connection men have for women, but it is erasing the motivation of the men to sacrifice for the well-being of society in general. It is creating conditions where most men in the 99 percent will sell out to the state and accept its meager offerings, including lowering their expectations to the point that the only sex or comfort they will ever expect to receive will be from AI robots with an outer shape designed to resemble human females. This dark dystopian future is on the horizon. There is no more time for divisive, feel-good foolishness.

By the way, I will ignore any responses to my comment that I feel are silly or pedestrian, as I usually do.


Absolutely! Yet as a reply to your rather rude remark not so off topic if one reads between my lines.! But being deadly serious all of the time is a bore. However, Mrs Beaton's cookbook, 1899 edition, is very instructive of how society viewed the woman's role at the turn of the 19th century. It is also a highly instructive historical record of middle class and upper middle class expectations, as well as food prices. Now I am being serious; off-topic maybe, but interesting. Funny how a cookbook can tell us in a couple of pages what modern feminist authors spend a lifetime writing about.