Month: July 2017

What is worse: marriage or prostitution?

Radical feminism and the 2nd wave feminism consider prostitution

and pornography (prostitution registered on film, tape or paper) crimes against women. In patriarchy, female sexuality is recommended as submissive, and women have to be submissive all the time, and their sexuality is simply a romantic reflection of their forced submission. Andrea Dworkin and other 2nd wave feminists tried to ban pornography, outlining its effects on male sexual behavior.

Now radical feminists (as few as they are today) oppose legalizing prostitution, against the strong lobby of pimps and other males in the sex industry. But some prostituted women remonstrate to radical feminists that they forget about marriage and heterosexual relationships, which means the same, i.e. selling yourself. Prostitution is not worse than marriage and dating, the only difference is the social stigma, they say..
It’s true, nobody can condemn prostitution without condemning the legal prostitution, supported by state and church, patriarchal institutions, i.e. marriage. Radical feminism is about smashing patriarchy and patriarchal relationships, institutions, etc. In patriarchy, women are born slaves, they are meant to be men’s servants and sex slaves. Women were sold like cattle and they still are in some traditional patriarchal societies. Most of them were sold into marriage by their own fathers, as still happens in Afghanistan, for example. In such societies prostitution is banned, as described in the Bible, although prostituted women were mentioned in this book of the Jewish people. There were free prostituted women, who sold themselves, no pimp was mentioned. But in other ancient societies, like Greece or India, women used to pay a kind of protection tax in order to marry, and its name was dowry. The institution of dowry survived until recently in the West and still survive in India. Poor women couldn’t marry, and they often became prostitutes, as in  Victorian England, but also all over Europe. A woman should have paid for her safety and respectability, her place in society. Marriage was only for some women, the others got no protection, no status.
But in ancient Greece prostitution was everywhere and in every form. There were the courtesans, intelligent, educated and wealthy women, able to have free relationships with men, but there were also poor prostitutes and porneia, female slaves bought for brothels in Pericles’ Athens. So democracy and female sex slavery were in good relationships, as we see, since the beginning of democracy.
The idea is patriarchy has different positions toward prostitution in different places, but none of these positions had anything with women’s wellness, but with different ways of sharing and exploiting them. Marriage means a woman for every man, although the wealthiest men could afford more (up to 10% of them), and this institution was invented in order to pacify men, warriors, by providing them women. When a woman is sold, she’s a slave, she has no rights, she can be beaten, killed, nobody cares. But when women pay for being married, as in the West, they have a little more rights. And history confirms this idea. So, if a woman has a little economic agency, by her family or herself, her situation is a little better. And in some cases, her agency is to become a courtesan. A wealthy woman, even a courtesan, has some power and freedom. In this case, going into prostitution was a chance for a woman. And it could be entirely her decision. It was an option in some patriarchal societies, but not in all, as I already mentioned. Money or wealth, in fact women access to property, had liberating effects. But where women had no access to property, this was not possible, as it wasn’t in the case of slaves.
Transferring this analysis to the present situation, things look a little different. Most women have no wealth by themselves, men earn more than women. Most of them engage in relationships with men for money. Most of them are in fact forced into prostitution. And there are “the most prostituted” women, those who don’t pretend something else. They simply are the most sincere of all women. They don’t pretend they like their partners, to sexually satisfy them, to have them around. The only think they like in these men is money. If they had their own money, they wouldn’t sleep with these men. But would do married women? No. Prostituted women risk more than most married women, although in some cases, being married to a man who is dangerous for prostitutes is riskier, they are forced into worse business with men, but at least their conscience is cleaner and freer, they have not to pretend all the time. Maybe men hate so much prostitutes and are violent toward them, not only because they can, just because prostituted women are vulnerable, nobody cares about them, but also because these women tell them the truth, they confront them. Married women lied to them, are more submissive in this respect, they flatter them, they make them believe they are better than really are, and some women don’t feel only sick or contempt for them, as prostituted women openly show it.
No, radical feminism doesn’t praise marriage, its interest for prostitution is only a fact of emergency, prostituted women need protection now, but marriage is the same crime as prostitution, in fact, another face of the same crime. And some married women are in even a bigger physical danger then prostituted women. Although prostitution is a consequence of marriage, marriage is now a form of prostitution and it was during the history of patriarchy. In some societies, it was forced prostitution, in others, women had a kind of agency in selling themselves. So, marriage should be condemned like prostitution. And there are some initiative in this respect.


Patriarchy through the curious, sincere, and intelligent eyes of a former Muslim woman

Contrary to the western legends, Mohammed, the prophet, was a genius, not a mentally disabled man, I think. The western propaganda, many people believe in, says he was illiterate, retarded, with speech problems. He may have been illiterate, with speech disabilities, but certainly, a very intelligent person of his time. I don’t mean he was a good, empathetic or moral person. Not at all. But I can’t stop admiring his vision about society, power, the human nature, in fact about long term political power. He united the Arab tribes, that were in a perpetual war one with each other. He succeeded to bring peace among these people, as he promised. Peace was his gift for his kind, Islam means peace. And his project still functions, he still rules over a fifth of the world population. He’s the prophetical king who reigned over 1000 years. not Jesus. In fact, the power of Jesus started to fade centuries ago. But Mohammed is still very influential.

Why? Because he brought a perfect social project, able to assure its own long-term success. In fact, he brought a perfect patriarchal model. Strict authority, hierarchy, control over peoples’ activity, minds, and dreams. Long before Hobbs, he new authority and fear were essential for peace. All for peace and…freedom. He promised freedom, not slavery, to all the tribes he and his adepts defeated, with only one condition: adopting Islam. That time, slavery was the fate of the defeated ones in fights. Genial!

Long before communism, he promised the same as communists did, and did almost the same they did. But he was more successful. Really successful. I dare to say he was a good tradesman, he used to work for a successful businesswoman, whom eventually married. He knew the subtleties of the human nature, he knew what most people want. Most people want peace, silence, a kind of material and mental security, they have no daring dreams, no bold personalities, no strong internal needs toward exploration and self-discovery.  In fact, they are eager to trade all of their daring dreams, their dream of real happiness, real selves, for a little material, mental security, and a little peace. In fact, he invented surrogacy for all the human mental functions and needs he deceitfully inhibited. He invented honor, instead of real dignity. The crimes of honor are proves supporting this statement. He standardized the higher human mental needs and found satisfying solutions for most people. And for those dangerous people, a minority, who want more, his system found a solution: damnation. He was against Islam, and they must be punished. Islam controls every aspect of life, in detail. There is no escape. Everything is in the Quran. Admirable.

As for women, they were transformed into a machine for reproduction, in fact producing boys. They will and personalities were entirely annihilated. They were transformed into merchandise, sold by their families. Because then and a long time after the most important wealth transfer was marriage, women as breeder were transferred from one family to another in perfect breeding condition: virgin and obedient (brainwashed)… If a family has no good merchandise, it has no honor. It’s normal in trade.

After a period, at the end of the first millennium AD and the beginning of the second, when science knew a wonderful development in Islam, the progress stopped. Why? Because, science wasn’t in agreement with Islam, and the Islamic schools needed social support in order to exist. And Islam was the key to such support. Islam destroyed the scientific, cultural and artistic elites. And then its way to success was free. On the contrary, in the poor, dirty and illiterate west, a few measures against corruption (clans), able to support elite building pave the way to the modern science and development.

I read books about Islam, But Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the most sincere, crystal clear writer on this topic. I want to be represented by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the most admirable European politician, the most sincere and honest one. But unfortunately, she’s not European anymore…Anyway, she did a wonderful job, not only for the Muslim women but for all the women, especially the ones living in patriarchal cultures. She made me understand Islam more than any other author. Because she has passion and sincerity and she is a woman.

Reading “The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam””, a collection of essays and lectures from 2003–2004, combined with her personal experiences as a translator working for the NMS (as Wikipedia explains)  I understood more not only about Islam, the human nature, but the situation of women in the west. And the truth is, we, westerners are living an illusion of freedom and empowerment, but our societies share the same framework with the Islamic ones. Instead of being horrified by the situation of women in Islam and naively enjoy our privileges, we should focus on the similarities between the situation of women in Islam and in the west. And for sure, there are more similarities than differences. We are living a big lie. Patriarchy is patriarchy. In Islam it is perfect. In the west is fuzzy, imperfect, deceitful. But still patriarchy. And we are confused, and that makes us depressed. I think the entire industry of psychotherapy, politics and social sciences, with few exceptions, helps us struggle finding a way in such a mess, discovering the well-hidden truth.

The truth is we a living in an Islam full of illusions. We are living in patriarchy. This system preceded Islam. In fact, Mohammed didn’t invent anything important (including the veil and the genital mutilation, not mentioned in Quran), as communists didn’t either, but he and his followers adopted the best inventions of their time in order to build a perfect theory of mass control. Women in the west shouldn’t be virgin anymore, because their function is in a lesser degree breeding, but sex providing. Western men prefer prostitutes, they are cheaper, as long as marriage doesn’t function as wealth transfer anymore. Women don’t belong to their fathers anymore, they are freelance prostitutes.

I never see, in any book or article, a clear emphasis on the patriarchal nature of corruption. If we admit Islam is a source of corruption and economic, scientific, cultural stagnation, why we don’t draw the natural conclusion, patriarchy, in any society, leads to corruption and stagnation? Patriarchy is a criminal system, build by criminals, for criminals, based on criminal goals and reasons. It is not meant to lead to development, but robbery and exploitation. It levels people, their behavior, dreams, goals, it destroys real, self-made cultural elites.

If we want progress, we should condemn patriarchy in any form. Our laws must combat it. And the first goal is the real liberation of women. They should build their own structures, institutions, and the patriarchal family should disappear. Any sexual relationship should focus on women’s needs. Society will look different, for sure. But destroying patriarchy may be the first and most important aim of this species. Liberation of the half of the human kind deserves any efforts. But destroying patriarchy may save the entire species, otherwise condemned to regress, as Islam shows.

In the west, people use to believe Muslim will emancipate themselves and Islam will emancipate itself, as Christianity did. In fact, Islam may be a mirror, not only of the past of the west but of its future, too. Because the factors which destroyed the progress in Islam started to act in the west: leveling people, performances, ideas. When the top performances and schools seek for the acceptance and support of the masses, that will happen. Remember the Islamic schools. And mass media, showbiz even academia in the West crave for popular acceptance.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, writing about Islam, writes about the west and the entire world.

Updated: April 29, 2018 — 10:01 pm

A white woman as a savior of all women

We are living pretty weird times. We allegedly are crossing the feminism of the third wave, but apparently, it’s a wave that does nothing but washing the other ones. Everything seems to fall apart, to be deconstructed until being demolished or distorted, in the best case. On the other hand, some leftists and the cultural relativism dilute any clear message. Sometimes things really are black and white, no shades of gray. Sometimes you have to make precise spectral analyses. So in feminism sometimesthings are clear. And painful. Patriarchy exists, destroy lives, minds, in every moment, even now. Women are taught to be slaves, to adapt as slaves, with more or less “rights”. Any approach which doesn’t go to the root of things, the existence of patriarchy, it’s just a cosmetic measure. It’s like you plug a hole in a dam, but you still remain in an inundated / flooded area.

It looks absolutely amazing, but there is feminism that accepts prostitution, calling prostitutes “sex workers”. Well yes, and slaves are all kinds. Can illegal immigrant workers be called “workers in agriculture, construction” etc.? They work, but why do it? Like prostitutes, even if they are not forced by pimps, as well as women who are not kidnapped, but married to abusive men. They have sex with those men (without any pleasure ) and remain with them, they even have children fathered by these men, may have multiple abortions, but only because they have no choice. It’s about survival forced by poverty. But survival in the  Nazi or communist camps is still survival. And if there, people make survival strategies. But one can’t say living like that it’s a way of life. In dictatorships have to adapt. But one can tell that dictatorship is a legitimate lifestyle. I’m saying it as a person who saw a  communist dictatorship. Prostitution, and here I’d  exclude luxury prostitution, although I am not sure about that, is not a lifestyle, it’s a horrible way of survival. Many heterosexual relationships motivated by survival are prostitution too. If you say that these relationships are worthy alternative lifestyles, motivated by real choices, where the reward is more than survival, you commit a crime against the people who live like that.

Cultural relativism and blaming Eurocentrism (which I agree with to some extent) have absolutely horrible consequences such as oxymorons like Islamic or Christian feminism. Well then we can talk about feminist rape, why not? If there is a feminist burqa, why not going farther?

It seems politically incorrect to say that the situation of women in Islam is unacceptable because it would hurt the feelings of Muslim women. I mean saying that rape is horrible hurts the feelings of raped women? Or what? I’m all for tolerance, but not until there is nothing left to claim.

As for Eurocentrism, it exists, is more prevalent than we think, it has deeper roots. Western science is not the only approach to knowledge and it developed in certain special conditions. But if a  secular European white woman who cautions that women in Islam are living in an unacceptable way, that poor women often experience a form of prostitution and abuse, prostitution is a crime, she does not it because of Eurocentrism, contempt for other cultures or classism. Not all the time, anyway!

When we ask for something, we refer to something/someone who has more than us. When black slaves were talking about freedom, they use the whites’s status as a reference system,  the black liberation movement in the US uses the social, economic, the political status of whites as a reference system. What would have happened if Martin Luther King has accepted the lifestyle of blacks, meaning unemployment, lack of education, poverty, and violence as a legitimate lifestyle, which is not allowed to talk about in order to avoid offending the feelings of those who live like that?

Western culture is not something extraordinary and whites are not extraordinary people. Europeans even less. But we cannot deny that the westerners have the highest social, economic status,  they enjoy the most freedom and they have the best medicine. Things can change, but now this is the case. Moreover, other cultures are more advanced in other respects. But when we ask for something, we demand something, when it comes to individual freedom, civil rights, health, we refer to the West. Sure, it’s good to get more, but even so.

Saying that a white educated middle-class woman does something disgusting when she tells Muslim women that their way of life is oppressive, the same the impoverished women trapped in abusive heterosexual relationships or prostitutes, she doesn’t disregard any of them. She does it just because she doesn’t  consider that she, as a white and educated western woman deserves more than other women. Just for that.

Some leftists, accepting the misery of poor people’s lives in oppressive cultures, only perpetuate the conditions those people are living in, maintaining their privileges for themselves. What should do westerners, especially if they are doctors when encounter people living in traditional societies?  Should they leave incantations and traditional medical practices like sex with virgins as a medicine against AIDSintact and not give them modern medicines because these medicines may offend them?

I am an educated white middle-class woman who does not consider herself special and wants to get everything through individual merits, not because she’s white, educated, or middle class. Any person with similar merits, wherever she/he is, deserves similar social and economic status. I still want a high SPF cream for myself. It’s the only thing I feel entitled to have as a white person. .




Updated: April 29, 2018 — 8:25 pm

Why human rights are not enough? Why do we need feminism

There are people, especially males, who claim the concept of human rights is enough in order to protect women’s rights. If we apply these rights, women will be OK. Beating, rapping discriminating at the workplace, street harassment is against human rights. Yes, it’s true. But we should take into account that all the public institutions are creating for men by men, ignoring women’s need for millennia. Moreover, during the last two or three centuries, the male power was getting stronger, and the so-called democratic revolutions, partly initiated and largely supported by women, deprived them of political power even more than before.

At the core of this system is the patriarchal family. If you ever participated in a wedding or civil marriage, you saw why feminism is still needed. Family, marriage is the base of society. every institution is built around family: church, school, state. And family means husband and wife (this is the order people are asked about their will of getting married), not wife and husband. It is a male arrangement, not a female one. It is about a man’s need and sexuality, not a woman’s.

When at the core of society will be a feminist cell, based upon female needs and sexuality, we’ll speak about human rights. An alternative solution will be enough. Gay/lesbian marriage is not an alternative, they are the same pattern with changed names.

Taxes, privileges, social support, education has the family as the starting point. Families are supported, not mothers, not mothers with children or matrifocal family groups. In such conditions, women will be forced to get married, the dependence on their husbands will persist. They will be raised in order to be desirable wives. They will ignore their real sexual needs and choices. They will subordinate their dreams of social and professional fulfillment to their goals of being married. Or they will pay huge prices like given up personal, affective happiness. But this is a luxury price. Most of the time, their lives, body integrity will be jeopardized because of their dependence on their male partners.

In such conditions, equality means being equal in a system conceived around men for them. It’s like talking about equality for African people in a system that keeps Apartheid or about equity for Jews in a fascist system. Patriarchy is like fascism and Apartheid because patriarchy enforces gender and gender roles. Men and women have distinct jobs, distinct goals in lives, distinct fates. The same rules like in fascism and Apartheid.

The patriarchal family and sexuality are imposed on women, it’s not natural, it’s a burden and a duty for them. It’s slavery. Prostitution is a by-product of this system. The family itself is a form of prostitution. There is no real sexual freedom for women in patriarchy. They sell their sexuality for survival.

We can speak about real equality after will condemn patriarchy like we condemn fascism and Apartheid after will recognize the immense evil it inflicts on women. And we will juridically condemn any patriarchal manifestation. When we will have laws against any patriarchal gesture, the way we have against fascism and Apartheid.

After will encourage institutions based on female sexuality and needs, we’ll speak about equality. But now women have to explore their sexuality to find out what they really like. As I already mentioned, the classical heterosexual family is toxic to women and they prefer something else, I think various models of family. A recent study suggests most women are bisexual and lesbians, but never what we call “straight”.

We can talk about equality after a lot of new institutions will be built around the female-based familiar groups, like female school, church (spirituality), science, and even state. And patriarchy will be recognized as a crime against humanity. Now the most important religions are patriarchal and support women’s domination. Now science is sexist, patriarchal, it reinforces gender roles and proclaims it biological like religion. Sociobiology is now more powerful than religion in some media, and I think, more toxic.

In conclusion, equality is a bad joke, not a myth, it’s an offense against female intelligence. Human rights are not enough, because “human rights”‘ means men’s rights. And we need feminism just in order to speak about equality. In the future.

Updated: April 29, 2018 — 8:26 pm

Are you interested in a new radical feminist book with daring analyses?

I am just wondering….I created this blog in order to advertise for my radical feminist novel I started to write a few years ago. Unfortunately, I am very busy, I didn’t write too much, although the structure of this novel, all the important ideas, even some chapters are already written.
My blog is not very successful, most likely because it’s written in Romanian, and there are few radical feminists eager to read it. I am wondering if a radical feminist book based on my the posts of my blog would be interesting for radical feminists worldwide. Just wondering, because the novel is still a viable project. I need a vacation for it. But a radical feminist book, based on my analyses is simple to edit. But before it, I just want to know if it is worth doing if feminists really want to read such thing. I think these posts are very daring, very radical.
I need your opinion, please!
7000 years © 2019-2022

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.