Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons

Mr. John Stossel, co-anchor of ABC News’ 20/20, wrote an opinion editorial on December 11, 2007 about the Tragedy of the Commons in the Opinion Editorial of the Atlasphere: Connecting Admirers of The Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/stossel-tragedy-commons.php This article was sent to me by an Atheist who said that Mr. Stossel’s argument in support of the Tragedy of the Commons makes sense.

Throughout my life experiences as a militant Atheist, I notice, all too often, that other Atheists do not want to completely let go of the imperialist patriarchal ideology and practices so fundamental to religion. It would behoove Atheists to reconsider their cozy partnership with the imperialist patriarchal ideology by Mr. Stossel, God, and friends. Furthermore, I am responding to the TOC myth to expose bourgeois trickery.

Mr. John Stossel argues that in order to promote prosperity and responsibility, societies need private property. Mr. Stossel claims, “the pilgrims nearly starved practicing communal farming, but thrived once they switched to private cultivation”. I beg to differ. But, before I dispel the myth of the TOC, I want to dispel the use of the word pilgrim as if it is some innocuous term. I want to expose the use of the word pilgrim as a word used by bourgeois historians, liberal, libertarian, and conservative capitalists believers to obfuscate the reality of the imperialist nature behind the colonization of the America’s and which promotes the chosen people myth, via national sentimentality and/or religious fever.

The “Pilgrim” word as Trickery

The word pilgrim is one that is embraced by most non-indigenous Americans [who uphold the belief in private ownership, despite their religious background, (even though so many people pray on this day, treating it as a religious holiday)] used to describe the first Europeans who came to the “Americas”. It is understandable that the two definitions below would suit just about most Atheist Capitalists and Religious Capitalists, because belief in private ownership is just one patriarchal element that both these groups have in common. The most used definitions to describe pilgrim:

1. a newcomer to a region or place, esp. to the western U.S.. This definition sounds too neutral as if the Europeans were some good-intentioned people, peacefully just trying to find a new place to live.

2. a person who journeys, esp. a long distance, to some “sacred” place as an act of religious devotion: pilgrims to the “Holy” Land. This sounds too innocently spiritual for the real purpose as to the journey these Europeans took to the “Americas”.

It is more accurate to describe the “pilgrims” as imperialists. Imperialism is, firstly, the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies and, secondly, a way to live out the patriarchal “chosen people” myth, that both Atheist Capitalist Patriots and Religious Capitalist believers support. I will, therefore, us the words imperialists, or colonialists, conquerors, and the like instead of the word pilgrim.

The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons

One reason the European conquerors nearly starved trying to practice communal farming, is because they were completely barren of former communal knowledge and skills. Any former communalist knowledge and skills that they once possessed were sadistically choked out of them by proponents of private ownership, i.e., patriarchal economic system, institutions, and customs: church and imperialist rulers (slaveocracts and feudal landlords), and male inheritance. The Church burned, not only their pagan libraries, but hundreds and thousands of wise-women. By the time the Europeans arrived to the “America’s”, they were well indoctrinated by the patriarchal paradigm of rape, pillage, conquer, and divide and of private ownership of land, animals, and people (ownership of people as slaves, indentured servants, and concubines). If the Europeans colonialist had the full knowledge and skills of communalistic living and were not indoctrinated with the patriarchal principles of ownership, they never would have ended up on an expansionist hegemonic venture into the “Americas” in the first place. With the inevitable interdependent relationship between the Church and imperialist rulers having power over the ecology, economy, and social arrangement, people become alienated from a sense of communal living. The patriarchal property owners rely on the church to tell the poor to pray to God, and everything will be okay. Just so the slaves don’t have a rebellion to overthrow the propertied class. And that in their next life, they will live in peace. The church relies on the capitalist class to uphold their patriarchal traditions of hierarchy, myths, etc…

Furthermore, to say that the ‘pilgrims’ nearly starved trying to live communalistically, therefore, communal living is a bad practice, is an overgeneralization. If you study the Native Americans, you will see that they knew how to live communalistically, not only with each other, but the land and animals. The Native American’s did not even have a word in their vocabulary to describe private ownership when the European privateers come to the “America’s”. Chief Seattle wrote in 1854 to President Franklin Pierce;

. …How can you buy or sell the sky— the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. . . . Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. . . . When the buffaloes are all slaughtered, the wild horses all tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the views of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires, where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone

Not only did the Native American’s know how to live communalistically, so too did all the world’s people prior to the patriarchal rule over some 5000 years ago, prior to the idea of one private ownership, one male God, prior to the Church. The idea of a male God, is so intrinsically inseparable from the whole foundation of private property. Not only did the Native American’s and the people prior to patriarchy know how to live communalistically, but also more recent cultures such as the Mosuo people’s of China.

I am not saying that I believe in the matriarchal spirituality promoting superstitions. But, I am proving my point that many people outside the patriarchy, knew how to live communalistic with each other and their ecology.

Another argument I have with regards to Mr. Stossel’s argument that “the pilgrims nearly starved practicing communal farming” is that the “pilgrims” also were not historically wise to their the ecology in which they conquered. Again, the Native American’s knew how to live harmoniously with each other and their ecology.

Mr. Stossel also argued that the “pilgrims” …. “thrived once they switched to private cultivation.” How come Mr. Stossel and bourgeois history books, leave out the real reason why the pilgrims thrived on private cultivation? The truth of the matter is that these pilgrims thrived on the ownership and exploitation of black slaves. These European ownership-freaks loved to own everyone and everything they could get their greedy hands on, destroying the lives of the “other”, and using the Church to justify their ownership fetishes. Today, ownership-freaks and many average joes who believe in capitalism are often the same as those Super-patriots, and flag wavers whose national fervor mimics that of the Religious right in terms of a colonialistic history, chosen people myths, -isms, bigotry, and stupid rituals.

Mr. Stossel also argues that it is a bad thing when the “government takes our money by force and gives it to others, that’s not sharing.” According to Michael Parenti, a political analyst and professor of Yale University, in his book Contrary Notions,

“John Stossel, an ardent supporter of big agribusiness, claimed that organic food ‘could kill you’ and that catastrophic global warming is a ‘myth’. He called for privatization of Social Security, the curbing of environmental education, and the celebration of greed as a good thing for the economy.”

Mr. Stossel’s bourgeois perspective on the “pilgrims” should come of no surprise to us. Mr. Stossel, supports big agribusiness who takes from the government billions in welfare, e.g., outright welfare for the rich or as with tax subsidies, etc…. Since Mr. Stossel and friends hate government so much, they shouldn’t take money from the government at all to fund their corporations or their war machines. Mr. Stossel and friends only like government when it is sharing its money exclusively with only them. To Mr. Stossel and friends, the word, “force” does not apply when the bourgeois government’s standing armies, courts, and police are there to protect and fund their profits financed via hard labor and meager earnings from poor working class people. But they feel that when their bourgeois government may be “forced” via generals strikes, peoples uprising, etc… to share some of the wealth with the poor working class people (this wealth created by the working class anyway), such as welfare for the poor, social security, free schooling, universal health care, then they deem this as “force”.

As for property rights being associated with benefits, the bourgeois once again, only concern themselves with financial benefits; they do not operate in terms of social or environmental benefits. The few elite think only in terms of the “benefits” they alone exclusively get from their market to exploit who and what they want. They leave out the fact that these exclusive “benefits” often have a detrimental effect on people and the environment.

Mr. Stossel and friends complain that socialized health care doesn’t work. Well, for one thing, socialized medicine doesn’t work when greedy profiteers can’t, therefore, make profit off of death and disease. Furthermore, socialized medicine superimposed on top of a Capitalist patriarchal economic base has major limits. Socialized medicine in countries such as Great Britain, France, Canada, don’t work perfectly because it so happens that when you have socialized institutions resting upon a Capitalist patriarchal economic base, they won’t be perfect. And, as much as Cuba’s socialized health industry rests upon a defunct form of so called Communism, it at least has some of the best doctors in the world, doctors without borders, and allows anyone in the world, including the United States, to attend their medical schools for free. All these various forms of socialized health care industries would work better if they did not rest upon the Capitalist economic base or some makeshift version of so-called Communism --- an antagonistic relationship from the get go. A democratic socialized economic base, would be a more compatible bed fellow for socialized medicine to rest with, which would synergistically buttress the socialized health care to it’s utmost potential, never seen in all of history.

Mr. Stossel and friends like to dumb down the classism which they create with their private ownership fetishes which create masses of dispossessed people.

Capitalist doctrine mimics Church doctrine of the ownership, hierarchy, authoritarianism. Capitalist atheists should resist anything that resembles the church doctrine, therefore, they should resist Capitalist patriarchal ideology and practices.

Andrea Lavigne

1

Research Project for Advocates of Legalization / Unionization of Prostitution

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Duke Lacrosse Team and Their White Male Supremacy Ritual

The Duke Lacrosse Team and Their Supremacy Ritual

In April 2007, legal authorities announced that the Duke Lacrosse ‘boys’ were “innocent”.

According to the mainstream media, the woman who accused some Duke Lacrosse players of sexual assault was a so-called evil black woman out to get white boys. Mainstream media dragged her through mud. And, while grossly trivializing the sexist and racist unethical behavior of the Duke Lacrosse team, they focused solely on the unethical behavior of Prosecutor Nifong, which pales in comparison.


MISOGYNISTIC CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

Just to shed some light on the misogynistic mentality of the Duke Lacrosse frat boys, check out this email by one of them, namely Ryan McFayden. I guess the email was sent out after the famous, “show”. Ryan had called out for his teammates to join him once again in another male supremacy / white supremacy ritual, see below:

“To whom it may concern:
tomorrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. all in besides arch and tack please respond”

If it is true that Eden was going to hold Ryan’s male supremacy / white supremacy ritual at his home, then that would make him Ryan’s accomplice or henchman.

Nifong’s unethical behavior pales in comparison to the Duke Lacrosse player’s unethical behavior. These Duke Lacrosse male supremacists do something so unethical as to not only purchase female humans to sexually and racially objectify them, but to even suggest, “killing the bitches” and “cut their skin off” – this suggestion alone is a violation of human rights and dignity that pales in comparison to the unethical behavior of Prosecuting Attorney Nifong.

Male supremacy / white supremacy correlation
Just look at the master/slave financial transaction: the Duke guys purchased this woman from a wholesale cargo of female humans from a strip club (i.e., female auction block) off the plantation.

Women as the Other
Sexual and racial objectification of the OTHER, like any other hate crime, serves as a prelude to commit sexual and racial violence (anywhere from light groping to murder) toward that OTHER. As John Stoltenberg in his book, Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice, states, that

“Not all sexual objectifying necessarily precedes sexual violence [that is, if you don’t think all sexual objectification, in and of itself, is not violence], and not all men are yet satiated by their sexual objectifying, but there is a perceptible sense in which every act of sexual objectification occurs on a continuum of dehumanization that promises male sexual violence at its far end. The depersonalization that begins in sexual objectification is what makes violence possible.”

One thing we do know about male supremacy / white supremacy rituals is that it is a common patriarchal tradition in today’s class society where misogynistic and racist assholes like to form into groups in order to objectify several women at once time. Why do many heterosexual males in today’s world like to either individually or in concert sexually objectify women and girls? Let me ask this another way, “Why do so many heterosexual males in today’s world organize themselves closely with hard-ons, under one roof / one room to make homoerotic sadistic attempts to prove their “manhood” by sexually objectifying the Other?” I guess my longwinded question answered itself.

Bachelor parties serve to uphold male privilege
Bachelor parties are a type of male supremacy ritual held most often by misogynistic heterosexual males as an “innocent” rite of passage into so-called manhood, a way to uphold male privilege, and a homoerotic way to male bond. Their manhood, male privilege, and bonding is achieved via the sexual objectification of woman’s commoditized bodies. This parasitic process of jacking themselves up by exploiting women paradoxically proves that these guys are anything but real men.

Why not male bond through the purchase of a blow-up doll? Why not bond by purchasing a 1930’s Dancing Samba or Dinah Coon doll to celebrate their stupid fucking whiteness rather than purchase a human? No! Firstly, that is just too 1930ish. Secondly, the life of women, especially if she is black, is so very cheap and affordable these days for even the poorest of males, why not purchase the real thing!

At many of these male supremacy rituals, males can freely enjoy going so far as prostituting the female “entertainers”, because in class society with one of it’s pillars as patriarchy, as it exists today as Capitalism, money absolves men from the crime of rape for pay. And, if you treat her like she is not a real human being in a world where women are not real human beings, she is not a real human being. You’re, therefore, legally off the hook.

Our Patriarchal Legal System
Just because our local and federal patriarchal, and Capitalistic legal system allows for the purchase of women for sexual objectification, via “adult entertainment”, the commoditization/objectification of women is still a violation of human rights and dignity.
Firstly, our legal system does not take into account the context for which a woman, black, or any other minority “consents” to being objectified for money. In our legal system, consent has become the defining factor in determining whether violation has occurred. In this way the human experience and self is reduced to will, intent or consent, as if that is all that is involved in violation. In this way, liberal legal theory does not consider the oppressive condition of class domination which invokes consent. It sees just the “consent”.

Secondly, our legal system, regarding men’s purchase of women, also believes that if there is money involved in the purchase of a woman, (where the woman pimps herself or is pimped by a strip club owner aka legitimate business man), that that absolves the strip club pimp and male purchasers from a crime.

Thirdly, our legal system also supports property rights over human rights when it comes to male property owners owning women as property.

Male supremacy should be left behind, back with the dark ages.

Andrea Lavigne

If Your Dissing The Sisters, You Ain't Fighting The Power

The B-Word in Rap
If You're Dissing the Sisters,You Ain't Fighting the Powers
Revolutionary Worker #972, September 6, 1998, by Bob Avakian

The word "bitch" as applied to women plays the same social role as the word "nigger" applied to Black people.

People, we are heading into a new century and we are still having problems with the "B" word in rap music--and in life. Too many times we have to hear the refrain, "b*tches and hos"--including from some of the most rebellious and anti-system rap artists. From N.W.A. to Tupac Shakur, we have faced a painful situation--where brothers who are hard against the system's enforcers are way off base or, at best, seriously confused, about the sistas.

N.W.A.'s "Fuck tha Police" became a righteous soundtrack of the streets nationwide because it put out the sentiments of many millions who hate the subhuman prison guards plaguing the people 24-7-365. N.W.A. could devastate with a rhyme, and when they turned the tables on the enforcers it was funny and serious at the same time.

Tupac Shakur came on strong, taking Panther attitude into rap in the late '90s--and Tupac became a cultural touchstone for a generation. Under heavy fire from the system--for his music and his lifestyle--Tupac was constantly harassed and busted for a self-defense shooting of an Atlanta undercover cop.

The militant stand of these rappers against the system and their enforcers was righteous and earned them love from the people. But when it came to the sistas, these brothers had serious problems.
N.W.A.'s "Straight Outta Compton" smacked us with lyrics like: "What about the bitch that got shot/Fuck her/You think I give a damn about a bitch/I ain't a sucker./This is the autobiography of the E...." And this was all tied up with the gangsta mentality.

Tupac was way contradictory. He had a fierce struggle going on within himself (and a lot of revolutionaries and fellow artists trying to struggle with him) about the thug-life and his attitude on women. His lyrical lows included slinging b's and h's in his music, in Makevelli he bragged outrageously about sleeping with Biggie Small's wife. But at his best, Tupac soared with moving messages and a lot of heart for women, like in "Dear Mama" and "Keep Ya Head Up": I give a holler to my sisters on welfare...I know they like ta beat ya down a lotand when ya come around tha block brothers clown a lotbut please don't cry, dry ya eyesnever let upforgive but don't forget girlkeep ya head upand when he tells you you ain't nothindon't believe himand if he can't learn ta love you, you should leave him.

For Tupac, these positive thoughts co-existed with the male-dominated gangsta scene where women are treated like things, not people--the rewards of male "success"--where sisters are disrespected as "b*tches and hos."

In life, as in art, Tupac was plagued by this confusion. Charged with the sexual abuse of a young woman--who had been invited to his hotel room, Tupac claimed he had not participated in the multiple rape. Bitterness at what he saw as a betrayal by female fans led him to lash out. Drawing a contrast between the charges of shooting an Atlanta undercover cop in the butt and the rape charges in the hotel incident, Tupac told Vibe in 1994, "It was all right with the police thing [in Atlanta] but this rape shit...It kills me....Cuz it ain't me...What was all that `Keep Ya Head Up,' `Brenda's Got a Baby'? What was all that for? To just be charged with rape?...I love Black women. It has made me love them more because there are black women who ain't trippin' off this. But it's made me feel real about what I said in the beginning: There are sisters and there's b*tches."

But later Tupac had to admit that he was in the wrong and criticized himself for not stopping his friends from gang-raping the woman who had come to see him. "Even though I'm innocent of the charge they gave, I'm not innocent in terms of the way I was acting." (Vibe, May 25, 1995) He later said that the Tupac who "would stand by and let dishonorable things happen is dead."

Tupac went down in a tragic blaze of confusion. And there are many who believe he would have been down with the people on the revolutionary path. But the questions live on.

The defiance of such militant rappers carries weight among the oppressed. This means that what they put on tape matters to the people today and to the future. When they're on target, they're a mighty force; when they mess up, it's a problem for the oppressed. And the whole point of going into these questions is so that the oppressed people can be stronger and clearer on our goals and how to get there. Because we understand that people can and will change themselves in the process of changing the world.
Clearly the people and our artists need to unite against the oppressors. The rulers of the system, their enforcers, and their media have no right to define the culture of the masses of people, no right to suppress this culture or these artists, and no right to whine about violence, PERIOD. But the stakes are higher than that! Our people--those who have nothing to lose but their chains--need to do more than fight the power just to survive on the streets. We need to prepare for the day when the people can rise up in revolution and seize the power--because without power in the people's hands, getting free is just an illusion.

As a May 1st Manifesto of the Revolutionary Communist Party put it:
"This ain't about the fight for personal power--the power to perpetrate our own and exploitate for private gain. This is the hour to get it right, emancipate, and break all the chains. It ain't about having Rambos, and Machos, brothers using sisters and out to dominate. That's the system's way: they say it's right, we know it's wrong. Brothers rising up with sisters, strong and proud, and with equality: our way, the way we all get free."

THE HOUR IS LATE ON THIS QUESTION. And the youth are the ones that have to make the change, to redefine the relations between men and women among the basic people. To hell with this code of "manliness" which makes it a sign of weakness to look on women as equals or to care about anything but yourself and maybe the brothers on the block. This ain't about nothing. IT IS A SIGN OF GREAT STRENGTH TO STAND UP AGAINST THIS MACHO MENTALITY.

The Chairman of the RCP, Bob Avakian, has said: "Fear nothing. Be down for the whole thing." So anybody that ain't afraid of the powers and ain't afraid to die shouldn't be afraid to take a hard look at themselves on how they relate to women!

Sisters Want To Be Free

A lot of sisters and brothers, especially sisters, want to ask rebel rappers: How are we gonna unite all of those who hate this system when the music puts down half of the frontline fighters? The endless torrent of violence against women in the music flows out of this dog-eat-dog mentality that sees the highest goal as defending your turf--whether it is as a "legitimate" entrepreneur or as gunman on the block. Women are seen as a piece of that property, and if they're "uncooperative" they have to be forced into line.

One young revolutionary woman told the RW, after she heard N.W.A.'s "I Ain Tha One," "I hear that shit and I wanna just flick it off. It makes me lose every shred of hope, at least for a minute. How are those guys ever gonna be part of the revolution?"

Let's be for real. All this carrying on about "dicking down the bitch" in some rap music has nothing to do with sex or having fun, any more than rape is about making love. It is not about being free or rebelling against prudish adults or "expressing yourself" sexually. It is not some street thing that "outsiders just don't understand." It is not a hip new version of the age-old "war between the sexes." And the selfishness in some of the lyrics is astounding--the characters in these songs don't even want the sisters to have a good time! It's about power, naked and cruel power over women. It's about putting women down and oppressing them.

It is about treating women as sex OBJECTS, not human beings. Women are treated like commodities--the way the Black people were treated under slavery. Sex is viewed as something to be bought or sold or traded for favors--and all on the terms set by the men. Fat white businessmen do it too, and it's just as ugly in those Wall Street cocktail lounges and suburban bedrooms, though their murderous rituals are more acceptable to "civilized" society simply because those men exercise their power over everyone, not just the women in their clutches.

We live in a patriarchal system where women (of all nationalities and classes) are systematically forced into a subordinate position to men. In a thousand ways, men are brought up, instructed and encouraged to do the work of the bourgeoisie within the family by dictating to the women. It's not the fault of the people, but the people have to recognize that the system sets us up to be oppressing one another. This male-dominating setup is very key to keeping the whole capitalist system cooking and provides some undeniable "rewards" to the men. In the households of the oppressed, the domination of the woman is often presented as the only "privilege" this system offers men, as twisted as this privilege is. This is why we have to overthrow the system. But we won't be able to do it if the brothers don't unite with the sisters and fight against this male domination

NOW.

Clearing the Air

Why would oppressed people who hate what this system does to them to the marrow of their bones want to turn around and lord it over the women they know, who are also under the boot of the rulers? These are some of the reasons you hear:
"A lot of women are just out to get the man's money, they use sex to CONTROL them. No self-respecting brother will let anyone or anything control them, not without a fight."

First off, when you treat sisters in this way, you ARE under control, the near-total control of the powers-that-be, who have every interest in keeping women under the thumb of men. You are simply suffering under the illusion that you're exercising some "control" over your lives by ruling over the lives of your girlfriends, wives, sisters, mothers, daughters, and friends. When these women fight back, with whatever means is at their disposal, they are labeled "bitches" and treated as the enemy. Men who do this are acting the oppressor.

It is really wack for men to accuse women of "sexual control." First off, if brothers don't really like a woman and have some respect for her as a human being, why do they get involved in a sexual relationship with her in the first place? Let's be for real. It's just plain opportunism to blame a woman `cuz you wanted to use her sexually. This society pumps the twisted idea into men's brains that women are on this planet to have babies and please men. And then the men feel betrayed when a woman demands to be treated as a whole human being--not just a sex partner. But brothers need to wake up and stop playing by the oppressors' rules.

Finally, everybody knows that a brutal double standard operates like crazy when it comes to sexuality. If women go out on their boyfriends they are called "bitches" and "hos." But men who womanize all around town are called "players." And despite all the talk about the so-called sexual revolution, the same old shit goes down when the men get together and talk--it's the sisters that get a "bad reputation." And women who try to win this macho sex game end up getting burned by society.
"There ARE women out there like that who dog men, and they ought be dissed. I'm not like that, and I know they're not talking about me. I demand respect and they know it."

You hear this from sisters, including some rappers. But think about what it means when a lyric like "All that matters is bitches and money" gets popular and gets repeated over and over by thousands of youth around the country. Could this possibly increase the respect for women in general? Or does it reinforce thousands of years of women as slaves who deserve no better than the back of the hand when they "get out of line." If any woman thinks this doesn't apply to her: more women come into hospitals with injuries from their husband or boyfriend than from car accidents. There are real reasons why there's no big demand for battered men's shelters.
About the word "bitch." This word has specific social content at this time on the planet. Ice-T once tried on a Nightline show to redefine it as anyone (man or woman) who's just after the money. But in reality the word is really about men saying to women, "I'm taking the power in this relationship, and I can put you down to the level of a female dog." Everyone knows this. After all, when it comes to men getting their money, the subject of many rap songs, there's no problem--they're "gettin paid" and proud of it. "Bitch" is the equivalent of "nigger" in this society.

The capitalist system inserts the brutal cash nexus into every human relationship. Sex becomes capital. So it is no surprise that "All she wants is the money" is hurled against some women who have the attitude of: "No romance without finance." In this method of sizing up friends and lovers, no one wins, but the woman, as usual, is the chief target. Why are there special words for WOMEN who have this capitalistic attitude? Why are women who have this attitude called "bitches"? Why don't people criticize these women for being capitalistic? Why, even when women are criticized for being "bourgeois," is the term "bourgeois" almost always followed by the word "bitch"?

For one thing, women who do have these attitudes are treating men the way men are brought up to treat women--like objects! This infuriates men because this is not how women are supposed to act: according to the "rules," women are supposed to be the property of men, not the other way around! And, as this property, women are supposed to behave a certain way--like "ladies." When a man calls a woman "bitch" it means one way or another she has stepped outside the bounds of what women are allowed to do and be. Women who call each other "bitches" are actually only in competition for who can be the best "lady" for some man.

Isn't it time for a full-scale revolt against these degrading terms over which men and women relate to each other?

"Our way of relating to each other historically--from the dozens and standing on the corner and talking shit about each other--the love is still there. And we understand the subcontext. Our use of language is so ridden with subtexts and a cultural understanding underlies it. If you ain't part of the club you ain't gonna get it."

You hear this from Black men. Sorry, but the subtext is the oppression of women. When people howl at a male comedian cussing out an "uppity woman," the subtext is that such uppity women need to be brought down. And specifically, as Chairman Avakian wrote:

". . .the notion has been propagated that inequality between women and men and the oppression of women by men does not exist or apply in the same way among Black people as among others--or even that it is reversed! This includes the idea (whether stated straight-up or slightly disguised) that the `emasculation of the Black man' has created a situation where it is necessary for him first to realize his `manhood,' including by lording it over women, and then maybe the question of equality between the sexes can be taken up.

"It is a truth and a searing indictment of America that Black men in the U.S. have suffered barbarous oppression--including literal emasculation--at the hands of slaveowners and other white oppressors. But oppression has assumed forms no less barbarous with regard to Black women. And the answer to the centuries-long oppression of Black people, women and men, in the whole historical development and present-day reality of the U.S. (an oppression which has, however, had different features in different eras) is not to `restore the rites' of patriarchy. Patriarchy and `male rights' serve imperialism, the bourgeoisie, oppression, exploitation, and the division of society into classes and everything that goes with them: they will never serve the struggle to abolish these things.

"Secondly, the oppression of Black people has never resulted and does not result today in a situation where Black women have a position of equality with--nor still less that they have a superior position to--Black men (or any other men). The fact is, Black women are oppressed--by Black men as well as more generally by men and most fundamentally by the whole system. (Of course individual cases where women have fucked over men can be cited among Black people as well as in general, and the same could also be said in terms of individual Black people fucking over individual white people, but we are talking about basic social relations here.) And the ending of these unequal and oppressive social relations between men and women is an integral and indispensable part of the overall struggle to end all oppression: the emancipation of the proletariat--and of mankind itself from the fetters and evils of class-divided society--is impossible without the emancipation of women. If you think being free means or must include having a woman (or more than one) to oppress, then you are still striving for the `freedom' of capitalism, not the emancipation of communism."
All-the-Way Liberating

The youth are under the gun these days--and a whole generation of Black and Latino youth are being criminalized. Lines are being drawn sharply around many problems in U.S. society and the fate of the planet is in the hands of a new generation. There are some key dividing lines: Where you stand on opposing the oppression of women is gonna count for a lot. The people have to be strong and united in the face of the enemy.
There are millions of women right now going into battle for their lives. They are fighting against rape, battering, attacks on abortion--their right to control their own BODIES--and they are being thrown into prison at an alarming rate. Yet there are brothers who ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder with women against this common oppression, and all they have to say to them is "You can only lay me girl/You can't play me girl"! Fucking and fucking over women. And for what?? To prove what?? Manhood? Control over your lives??

Let's get some real control. We have a world to win, and there is a serious revolutionary alliance that needs to be built between different sections of the people. Attitudes which stand in the way of that need to go.
This is not just a problem for rappers and youth who dis women. It is a problem for the revolutionary class, the proletariat who have nothing to lose in going all the way to overthrow this system. And it is a problem we will solve. How can we do less?

This is the challenge we put out to the youth: take that leap into REVOLUTIONARY struggle. And to the rappers: make the music that will move millions to end this madness and make a new world.
Think about what must be done to that system--to bury that system and free the people, worldwide. There is no greater love and nothing more real than this.

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Onlinefile:///C:/Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497(The RW Online does not currently communicate via email.)

Pornography Myth and Fact Sheet

PORNOGRAPHY MYTH AND FACT SHEET
socialphysics@yahoo.com

Myth 1: Pornography is a necessary outlet or a safe release for violent feelings, and a cure for sexual addiction.
Fact 1: If we really believed that pornography is a necessary outlet or safe release for violent feelings, then we would be dealing with a variety of social problems much differently than we are at present. For instance, in order to prevent physical abuse of children we would systematically flood our society with magazines, films, and videos which show children being beaten and tortured. An outlet to sexual addiction? You can't cure an addiction to let's say Twinkies unless you replace it with nourishing foods.

Myth 2: It's okay to argue about pornography as long as we don't get moralistic about it.
Fact 2: Why not get moralistic about pornography? Those who are pro-pornography proponents often argue that people should not get moralistic about pornography. I argue, that they themselves are just as "moralistic" in their support for pornography. It is just that the pro-pornography proponents have repressive whitemale centric morality that reflects the perpetrator culture of patriarchy and Capitalism. On the other hand, anti-pornography proponents have a humane egalitarian morality that is liberating and revolutionary, not patriarchal or Capitalistic.

Myth 3: There is a hysteria around pornography by anti-pornography proponents.
Fact 3: Firstly, "hysteria" is an antiquated term coined and used by 18 century misogynistic psychiatrists and physicians - a Greek word for "the rising of the womb", to diagnose and label assertive females who were outspoken against sexist patriarchal oppression. The only "hysteria" out there is from the anti-pornography "family values crowd" who want not to protect females, but to uphold patriarchal values and traditions, to preserve male- defined morality, and endorse male supremacy and your propornography so-called "pro-sex feminists".

Myth 4: Those who claim that pornography causes violence are clearly distorted by and allied with right-wing religious conservatives or the "family values crowd".
Fact 4: Even though the most base right-wingers or "family values crowd" also recognize pornography as cultivating a range of types of violence toward women, this in no way reflects an alliance between Marxist feminists with rightwingers or "family values crowd". The notion Marxist feminists are distorted allied with right-wing conservatives or family values crowd is a red herring argument. It is a scare tactic employed by sexists and pedophiles who will vehemently fight to avoid legal control of pornography at any cost for their ill intent. The fact is is that the right winger or "family values crowd" are anti-pornography, not to protect females, but to uphold patriarchal values and traditions, to preserve male- defined morality, and endorse male supremacy. No one suggests that feminists are wrong to oppose the American Star Wars initiative because the Roman Catholic church (male centric institution) also opposes Star Wars. No one told the trade unions are wrong in their support for the Eaton's strikers that because the Catholic Church also supports the strikers.

Myth 5: Reading the Bible is more likely to produce anti-woman psychopaths.
Fact 5: Sane males are actually the majority who practice misogynistic traditions of the patriarchy and Capitalism. There are many Atheist-Marxist feminists' and Agnostic-Liberal Feminists who argue that pornography is inherently sexist and promotes violence as it sexually eroticizes the objectification, domination, control, and submission of females on a violence continuum, contributing and perpetuating the objectification of women. They criticize the bible for it espousing that females are inferior to men, but also agree that the bible does not go as far as eroticizing female oppression. Unlike pornography, the bible does not operate as a "How To Manual" eroticizing the objectification and degradation of females by requiring them to stop eating the night before she is going to get fucked in the ass or be gang raped for money. Even if it was the case that the bible produced anti-female "psychopaths", this would not negate the fact that pornography along with it's buddy elements, such as strip clubs, brothels, massage parlors, escort services, street prostitution, bachelor parties, and sex tourism, etc... within the sex industry, produces anti-female "psychopaths". At least the bible has some good teachings.

Myth 6: There are no scientific studies to prove that pornography contributes to violence upon women.
Fact 6: R. Jensen argues that in pondering the question of pornography we need to go beyond simplistic cause-and-effect models (which are not particularly useful in explaining any human behavior). The argument is not that pornography causes individual males to commit violence toward females, but rather that it produces and sustains notions of femininity and masculinity that perpetuate violence against females. No critic of pornography ever argues that pornography is the sole cause of violence toward females. Pornography is only one out of the many of human rights and dignity violations in the whole sex industry that contributes, propagates, and fosters violence toward females. No one argues that.if pornography disappeared, rape would disappear. However, if patriarchal-class property relations, patrist-inheritence, and bourgeois right of the Capitalist economic condition disappeared, so too would the whole sex industry along with it's buddy "rape".

Diana Russell in her essay "Pornography As a Cause for Rape", argues, the laws of social learning, such as classical conditioning, instrumental conditioning, and social modeling apply to all the mass media, including pornography. If you assume that your child can learn from Sesame Street how to count one, two, three, four, five, then males can learn equally from sexist literature and images how to harass, degrade, beat, rape, and kill females. Many people have the opinion that men who consume pornography but who have never raped a female disprove the theory that pornography can cause rape. This is comparable to arguing that because some cigarette smokers don't die of lung disease, there cannot be a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer, According to Ray Wyre, a specialist in sexual crimes, argues that it is impossible not to believe that pornography plays a part in sexual violence. As he confronts sexual offenders, their distorted views, much like the views in pornography, legitimizes the objectification of females. Wyre states that at the very least pornography makes sexism sexy.

Multiple Causation versus Simple Causation- Per Diane Russell on the meaning of "Cause": Given the intense debate about whether or not pornography plays a causal role in rape, it is surprising that so few of those engaged in it ever state what they mean by "cause." A definition of the concept of simple causation follows:

• An event (or events) that precedes and results in the occurrence of another event. Whenever the first event (the cause) occurs, the second event (the effect) necessarily or inevitably follows. Moreover, in simple causation the second event does not occur unless the first event has occurred. Thus the cause is both the SUFFICIENT CONDITION and the NECESSARY CONDITION for the occurrence of the effect (Theodorson and Theodorson, 1979).By this definition, pornography clearly does not cause rape, as it seems safe to assume that some pornography consumers do not rape female, and that many rapes are unrelated to pornography. However, the concept of multiple causation is more relevant to this question than simple causation.

• With the conception of MULTIPLE CAUSATION, various possible causes may be seen for a given event, any one of which may be a sufficient but not necessary condition for the occurrence of the effect, or a necessary but not sufficient condition. In the case of multiple causation, then, the given effect may occur in the absence of all but one of the possible sufficient but not necessary causes; and, conversely, the given effect would not follow the occurrence of some but not all of the various necessary but not sufficient causes (Theodorson and Theodorson, 1979).

One woman's testimony, in Political Psychology, 1983 goes so far as to say, "I don't need studies and statistics to tell me that there is a relationship between pornography and real violence against women. My body remembers." We now know that sexist propaganda cultivates sexism like racist propaganda perpetuates racist behaviors, and like colonialist propaganda perpetuates violence onto a whole nation of people.

Myth 7: Pornography should not be equated with racist propaganda such as Nazi and KKK literature. Racist propaganda has the intent of leading to action in promoting terror and division within the working class. As offensive as pornography's depictions of female usually are, it is far from a call for genocide.
Fact 7: D. Russell argues, "Dehumanizing oppressed groups or enemy nations in times of war is an important mechanism for facilitating brutal behavior toward members of those groups. However, the dehumanization of females that occurs in pornography is often not recognized because of it's sexual guise and its pervasiveness." Sexist propaganda has the intent to promote sexual terrorism and division within the working class just as equally as racist propaganda has the intent to promote racial terrorism and division within the working class.

The gender politics of sexist propaganda such as in pornography, the whole sex industry in general, and in the flourishing Trafficking and Modem-day Slavery of women, children and some men is femicidal and genocidal like the racial politics of racist propaganda (graphic images portraying blacks like sambos, etc ... ) and the Slave Trade of Blacks enslaved black males, women and children is genocidal. Just like white slave holders micro-examined blacks on the auction blocks, so to do pornography voyeurs, bachelor party gang-bangers, street pimps and johns, strip-club pimps and johns, brothel pimps andjohns, and micro-examine females. R. Jensen argues, "Pornography offers people a politics of sex and gender. And that politics is patriarchal and reactionary."

Myth 8: Control of pornography would cause it to go underground.
Fact 8: My argument is that that is where it belongs. We all know that there are people who " kill for hire", but no one suggests that we should make it legal to advertise for murderers in the personal pages of newspapers.

Myth 9: Pornography is just sexually arousing material.
Fact 9: Try to tell a black person that degrading images of them are just arousing material. To assume that pornography is just sexually arousing material is to ignore the economic marginalization and social inequality of women and children with in patriarchal class Capitalist system. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar a year industry that profits off the super-exploitation and vulnerability of females. Pornography is an incubator for oppression of women and children. Pornography, through bigotry and contempt for females, depicts the subservience of females, which, in turn, leads to a variety of harms, such as workplace discrimination, domestic violence, and sexual assault. Pornography creates and maintains sex as a basis of social stratification. Pornography is anti-female propaganda.

Myth 10: There is no rational argument for a fixation on pornography as a promoter of sexism and violence against females when T.V.'s everyday depictions of females are sexist, too.
Fact 10: Resources Against Pornography, in Toronto argues, if every variety store carried 30 magazines published by the Klu Klux Klan which advocated either non-violent objectifying images of blacks or / and violent objectifying images of blacks, one would not be surprised to discover less extreme forms of racism being promoted in some advertising and certain mainstream films as well. But, no one who is genuinely concerned about eradicating violence against or the degradation of blacks would use the fact that advertising was also somewhat racist as a reason for doing nothing about the more extreme form of racism promoted in the Klu Klux Klan publications. If anything, the fact that so much violent and degrading imagery has infiltrated our mainstream media should be cause for alarm and increased resolve to stop this trend.

Myth 11: The call against pornography is a call for censorship.
Fact 11: The abolition of prostitution and pornography is not some kind of simplistic ban on freedom of speech, like nonthinkers would like you to believe. When black people call for reforms, regulations, or bans on racist practices and racist propaganda, people don't cry for "Freedom of Speech!" However, when females call for reforms, regulations, and bans on sexist practices and propaganda, the Freedom of Speech argument is not only simplistic, but is a cheap shot. When we vehemently clamor to protect "Freedom of Speech" for profiteers, pimps, and johns, we clamor for the freedom to stomp all over females as full-human beings. "Freedom of Speech" is important, but more so, is the right of women and children to safety and equality. We must decide that the right of females to safety and equality is more important than safeguarding the sellers and buyers of the objectification of females. The First Amendment protects political speech, not pornography. It does not give anyone the right to debase and dehumanize females. There is "no freedom to objectify females" clause in the First Amendment. According to the United Nations Human Rights declaration, it is a fundamental right to be free of sexual exploitation in all its forms. Women and girls have the right to sexual integrity and autonomy. The fact that pornography continues to be a running "constitutional" battle in the courts is indicative of the deep sexism and misogyny in our society.

Myth 12: Attempts to outlaw pornography would threaten other basic civil rights with endless censorship laws.
Fact 12: This is a slippery slope argument. According to Patrick J. Hurley, who wrote the book, A Concise Introduction to Loizic, 5th ed., a Slippery Slope argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place. Patrick J. Hurley gives a great example of a Slippery Slope argument :

"Attempts to outlaw pornography threatens basic civil rights and should be abandoned. If pornography is outlawed, censorship of newspapers and news magazines is only a short step away. After that there will be censorship of textbooks, political speeches, and the content of lectures delivered by university professors. Complete mind control by the central government will be the inevitable result."

It is not logical to think that censoring/banning sexist materials is going to cause other people's civil liberties to be violated anymore than banning marijuana has caused liquor to be banned.

Myth 13: Even if the state could effectively ban pornography, that would not bring anyone one hairs width closer to women's liberation, or spare women from the conditions of living in a sexist society today.
Fact 13: Much like the black auction blocks where black people's physical and sexual features were examined, strip clubs are female auction blocks where women and adolescents genitals are micro-examined. Black auction blocks are specific to the despair of black people in the days of black slavery and female auction block are specific to the despair of women and adolescents in modem day slavery. So, if we are morally justified in banning black auction blocks and abolishing slavery of blacks, so we are too, justified in banning female auction blocks and abolishing modem day slavery. A call for the abolition of modem day slavery is no more a bourgeois ban, no more illegitimate than the call was for the abolition of black slavery. Abolition of slavery is a transitional step toward liberation. Most black people will tell you that their current existence is much more liberating than their past existence under slavery, however, not complete emancipation. It is our job, in the long run, to continue to work on abolition all slavery and to seek emancipation of all oppressed, by dismantling the patriarchal Capitalist offender culture.

Myth 14: We need to keep the state out of our bedrooms when it comes to sexuality.
Fact 14: As long as women and children are systematically sexually abused in the public sphere, systematic oppression of women and children happens in the private sphere, in secrecy behind closed doors. We should not end Child and Adult Protective services because we want to wait forever for the working class to one day arise from their slumber and fight for more than just economic demands, to fight against the systematic sexual abuse of women and children. In the mean time, society has to have some laws that protect women and children while in their homes from this "sexuality", i.e., patriarchal Capitalist sexuality which is based on objectification and degradation, violence.

Myth 15: What about public education instead of censorship?
Fact 15: Resources Against Pornography argues, "Education is certainly important but we must remember that the allpervasive barrage of pornographic imagery in our society is also educating people. It teaches that violence against, and the degradation of, females is acceptable. Public education is an important tool, but it is not an alternative to regulation. It can't compete with a pornography industry which grosses between 10 and 50 billion dollars per year in North America alone. Arguing that public education would do the trick, is like arguing that public education / public education campaign on the issue of wife assault would be enough to stop wife batterers from battering women. No battered woman would agree that public education is enough.

Myth 16: Wouldn't outlawing pornography lead to outlawing erotica or works of art?
Fact 16: According to Resources Against Pornography (RAP), "It would be a mistake to equate artistic or other liberty with the right to produce material that promotes the relentless humiliation and physical torture of women and children. A true work of art which portrayed the humiliation or physical abuse of women and children (or, of anyone, for that matter) would do so only for the purpose of exposing and condemning the abuse. Such a work of art would not be proscribed by the law. People for whom this is a concern cannot provide valid examples of great works of art which would be affected by law prohibiting sexually violent or very degrading pornography. It is interesting to note that this concern is never raised with respect to other sections of the Criminal Code. No one argues that a forgery is any less of a forgery because it is expertly done or that an article is not hate literature because it is well-written. Surely no photography which seeks to sexually stimulate the viewer with a display of degradation or torture, no matter how "artistically taken", no article which seeks to excite it's reader sexually with a description of humiliation or mutilation, no matter how well written, its worthy of the title, "work of art". Neither is it worth a woman's life.

The Resources Against Pornography (RAP) also argues that there is a big difference between pornography and erotica. Pornography is designed to sexually stimulate the consumer by showing a power imbalance among the participants; showing sexual violence against, or the degradation of females. Erotica is non-violent, non-degrading sexual material which does not seek to sexually stimulate the consumer by showing or describing a power imbalance among the participants; it is mutually affirming. It is so interesting how we live in a society that fihds it difficult to distinguish between material which shows or describes loving, egalitarian relationships and material which shows or describes violent, degrading, or objectifying ones.

Myth 17: It is a difficult question. How can we decide what to do?"
Fact 17: Reforming the Tax Act is also difficult; Yet, no one offers that as an excuse for not reforming a Tax Act. What kind of society claims that prohibiting the advocacy of violence against or the extreme degradation of females is too difficult to undertake? Only a society in which females have fewer rights than pornographers.

Myth 18: Those feminists that criticize pornography are just prudes.
Fact 18: It is illogical to pigeonhole Socialist Atheist Feminists or Marxist Feminists as being prudish or as coming from the same paradigm as the religious right. Robert Jensen argues, when we criticize pornography, we are typically are told we are either prudes, anti-sex, or repressive, but just the opposite is true. That works to keep people quiet. For people to criticize pornography is not anymore repressive or prudish than people who criticize racist propaganda. The criticisms of pornography are crucial in the struggle to end not only domestic and sexual violence, but all violence for the creation of a healthy culture. The only prudes are those who are doing the exploiting, those who are working in concert with others to exploit.

REFERENCES

Engels, Frederick. (1884) The Origin of the Family, Private Property. and State. New York: International Publishers

Hurely, Patrick J. (1994) A Concise Introduction to Logig,15 th ed.). California: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Belmont,

Jensen, R. ( 2004, January / February). Cruel to Be Hard: Men and Pornogrghy. Sexual Assault Report, 33-48

Jensen, R. (2004, May) Pornography and Sexual Violence (2 nd Draft)

Marx, Karl. (1875) Criticism of the Gotha Program: Foreign Language Press Peking Resource Against Pornography (RAP): P.O. Box 695, Toronto Postal Station C, Toronto, Ontario M6J3SI.

Russell, Diana E. H., (1994) "Pornography As a Cause for Rape", Against Pornography: The Evidence of Harm Berkeley, California: Russell Publications,
www.dianarussell.com/pomtoc.html

Woman's Testimony, (1983) Political Psychology.

Prostitution Myth and Fact Sheet

PROSTITUTION MYTH AND FACT SHEET
socialphysics@yahoo.com


Myth 1: Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world.
Fact 1: Prostitution is not the oldest profession in the world. It is, in fact, very new in comparison to how long humans have been on this earth. Humans have existed on this earth for approximately say I million years as Early Hominids. Humans have existed as Homo Sapiens for the last approximately 200,000 years (give or take a few thousand years). Within this let's say 200,000 years of human existence, patriarchy has only been around for approximately 6000 years. Within the 6000 years of patriarchy, matriarchal societies still existing here and there in traditional forms, such as with the Iroquois Indigenous peoples prior to European patriarchal invasion, etc... or in altered forms mixed with patriarchy, such as the Mayan & Aztec's. Patriarchal society has existed in relatively short amount of time in all of human existence. Concurrently, as the matriarchal conditions transitioned into patriarchal conditions so did pairing marriages transition into monogamy and clans transition into families and so did the subjugation of women take place. Here the domestication of animals, the breeding of herds, and the cultivation of plants developed into an unsuspected kind of wealth and created a new social order. All the former hunting and gathering societies became replaced with agricultural society (domestication and breeding of animals and cultivation of plants). Private ownership of land, herds, and people came into play. This is the time when ownership of people through slavery and prostitution arises. Engels states that the "overthrow of mother right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. (Origin of FPS, 120) The man took charge of the home, the woman degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust (prostitute) and a mere instrument for the production of children. Prostitution, therefore, is not the oldest profession-- is not some inevitable aspect of the human condition.

Myth 2: It is all right to argue about prostitution as long as we don't get moralistic about it.
Fact 2: Why not get moralistic about prostitution? Those who are for the legalization and decriminalization of prostitution often argue that people should not get moralistic about prostitution. I argue, that they themselves are just as "moralistic" in their support for prostitution. It is just that their morality is repressive white-male centric morality that reflects the perpetrator culture of patriarchy and Capitalism. On the other hand, those who are against the legalization and decriminalization of prostitution have a humane egalitarian morality that is liberating and revolutionary, not patriarchal or Capitalistic.

Myth 3: According to police statistics, Copenhagan has a very low rate of violence upon women by men despite it being the smut capital of the world, especially after it lifted all censorship against pornography and has decriminalized prostitution.
Fact 3: . Firstly, the normalization of mass sexual exploitation of women and children has been greatly enhanced by the legalization/decriminalization of the sex industry in many parts of the world. According to Resources Against Pornography in Toronto, scientific research shows that every since Copenhagan lifted all censorship and decriminalized prostitution, sex crimes have increased. According to Janice Raymond, of the Coalition Against the Trafficking of Women, every since prostitution has been legalized in Australia and New Zealand illegal, hidden, street prostitution, and sex trafficking has increased. In Eastern Europe alone, the rise of organized crime capitalizes on the demand for prostitution and the desperation of trafficked women from poorer countries. One report found that 80% of women in the brothels of the Netherlands were trafficked from other countries" (Budapest Group, 1999) According to the Coalition Against the Trafficking of Women, "Men buying women in prostitution don't just want the local women - they want exotic women from other countries who, according to their racial preferences, may be stereotyped as more pliable, more willing or more sexy. Decriminalization of prostitution has been a gift to traffickers and pimps who, overnight, become legitimate businessmen. When prostitution becomes a public good, governments become state pimps gaining enormous revenues from it's legal legitimization, legitimizing the super-exploitation of women and children all over the globe. "Houses of protection" for women in prostitution, are not new solutions to deal with prostitution, but very old and very repressive measures. Prostitution is not only Modem-day Slavery, but is rape for pay!

Secondly, don't rely on police for accurate statistics to be reliable. Both the police and international "security" forces are crooks who work hand and hand with organized crime figures in the commercial sex trade industry.

Myth 4: How is fighting against prostitution by using the power of the state, the court system, without organizing the working class under working class leadership, going to wipe humanity clean of inequality?
Fact 4: As a Marxist feminist I find this "power of the State" argument rather odd that it is being put forward socialists. It is true that the state represents the interest of the bourgeoisie, however, many socialists often in favor of using the "power of the State" to prevent landlords from raising rents, to prevent employers from hiring strike-breakers, and to legalize abortion. Rapists, wife-batterers, pornographers, defenders or pornography, and child molesters would be delighted if women and children did not use the power of the state.

Myth 5: Even if the state could effectively ban prostitution, that would not bring anyone one hairs width closer to women's liberation, or spare women from the conditions of living in a sexist society today.
Fact 5: Lets take a look at strip clubs for example. The term strip club is a euphemism for female auction blocks where desperate women and adolescents are legally bought and sold to sexually service sexist pigs who want to own and control vulnerable people in society. Much like the black auction blocks where black people's physical and sexual features were examined, women and adolescents genitals are micro-examined. Black auction blocks are specific to the despair of black people in the days of black slavery and female auction block are specific to the despair of women and adolescents in modem day slavery. So, if we are morally justified in banning black auction blocks and abolishing slavery of blacks, so we are too, justified in banning female auction blocks and abolishing modem day slavery. A call for the abolition of modem day slavery is no more a bourgeois ban, no more illegitimate than the call was for the abolition of black slavery. Abolition of slavery is a transitional step toward liberation. Most black people will tell you that their current existence is much more liberating than their past existence under slavery, however, not complete emancipation. It is ourjob, in the long run, to continue to work on abolition all slavery and to seek emancipation of all oppressed, by dismantling the patriarchal Capitalist superstructure.

Myth 6: We need to keep the state out of our bedrooms when it comes to sexuality.
Fact 6: As long as women and children are systematically sexually abused in the public sphere, systematic oppression of women and children happens in the private sphere, in secrecy behind closed doors. We should not end Child and Adult Protective services because we want to wait forever for the working class to one day arise from their slumber and fight for more than just economic demands, to fight against the systematic sexual abuse of women and children. In the mean time, society has to have some laws that protect women and children while in their homes from this "sexuality", i.e, patriarchal Capitalist sexuality which is based on objectification and degradation, violence.


Myth 7: As feminists we should support the unionize sex workers who choose prostitution as work?
{As feminists(b) we should support the unionize(c) sex workers(d) who choose(a) prostitution as work(e)}

Fact 7 (a): ["Choice"] But let's say when a prostitute argues that she is freely choosing prostitution, then is it free choice? Prostitutes who argue, "It is my free choice to be a prostitute!" capitulate to prostitution as a result of internalized oppression. Internalization of oppression entails repeated exposure to oppression, subtle or direct, may lead vulnerable members of the oppressed group to internalize the oppressive image projected by the external oppressor -- the 'oppressor without'. The external oppressor may be the ruling class patriarchal society and / or an individual, such as a sexual abuser of a child. Internalization of this image and repression of the rage associated with oppression may lead to loss of worth or identity, dissociation, and destructive behaviors toward self and others as oppressed people become 'auto-oppressors' participating in their own oppression - self oppression. Sexual abuse, as well as global sexism in general, causes the victims alienation form her self, i.e., the prostitute becomes alienated from her self as she has conceded to being a commodity, not a human. A large reason for women turning to prostitution, out side of economic vulnerability, is that most of them have been sexually assaulted as children.

Is prostitution a free choice even if a prostitute argues that it is free choice? Is it all right when someone lay's on the ground and "freely chooses" or asks to be stepped on, for us to go ahead and step on that person because it was his or her "free choice"?

Prostitutes capitulate to prostitution as a "free choice" for reasons that are really not free choice. Does any prostitute who argues, "I am a prostitute out of free choice" realize the oppressive context as to why she is arguing this? Even if she did, does insight matter? She ultimately has to survive.

In any of the cases below (next page), is it all right to exploit women in prostitution?


Case 1: The primary reason for her being in prostitution is sheer poverty whether that extreme poverty exists in a dependent Capitalist country or Imperialist Capitalist country. (Economic abuse). Mabye victim of trafficking and Modem Day Slavery, maybe just the Modem Day Slavery. Maybe she has insight about the context of her oppressive condition, but survival is primary. Weather she is also a survivor of child or adolescent sexual abuse, physical abuse, homelessness, or not she may argue that prostitution is her free choice-- as a defense mechanism in order to feel empowered because the "work" is so degrading, even though a false sense of power.

Case 2: She is a prostitute who is just trying to desperately survive as there is no other alternative, in her mind, because of low self worth from being a victim of sexual and / or physical abuse. (Economic abuse).

• Maybe she has insight about the context of her oppressive condition, but survival is primary.

• She can dissociate easily from the prostitution as she is a victims of child or adolescent sexual abuse, which survivors of sexual assault are able to do. Because her boundaries have been violated when she was sexually or physically abused growing up, she does not have an healthy base that she can identify with as to what is healthy attention, and what is not.

• As a survivor of child or adolescent sexual abuse, physical abuse, homelessness she will argue that prostitution is her free choice --as a defense mechanism in order to feel empowered because the "work" is so degrading, even though a false sense of power.

Case 3:

• She is a prostitute who is part of a prostitute political organization that seeks to reform the oppressive condition through unions versus toward the abolition of the conditions of prostitution gaining a false sense of empowerment. Her political struggle is limited to the scope of patriarchal construct. (50 economic abuse).

• She may or may not have the insight of women's historical oppressive condition. In any case, she does not have the faith that it is possible now for complete emancipation anyway.

• As the prostitute who ferverently defends prostitution, she is much like the house slave versus the field slave. If the master's house is burning down, the house slave will do anything to save the master's house, even if the master is running away from the house.

• Most likely she is a victim of child or adolescent sexual abuse, and that's why she so ferverently argues that prostitution is her free choice so as a defense mechanism to feel empowered, even though it is a false sense of power.

Case 4:

• She may be a prostitute who fervently defends prostitution as a free choice because she may be making money off of other prostitutes. (Still economic abuse).

• She may or may not have the insight of women's historical oppressive condition. In any case, she does not care.

• She is suffering from auto-oppressor / internalization of oppression.

• Most likely she is a victim of child or adolescent sexual abuse, and that's why she so fervently argues that prostitution is her free choice so as a defense mechanism to feel empowered, even though it is a false sense of power. But, one can not even touch upon this issue with her without her denying some kind of abuse ever happened to her.

Case 5:

• Unlike 1-4, Prostitutes who seek Radicalization, ie., are in either in spirit with or/ and are able to politically active for radical change like creating an abolitionist movement to abolish the patriarchal classist condition as to why prostitution exists in the first place. (Economic abuse.)

• Women and girls don't simplify prostitution as "free choice". These prostitutes are more in line with the field slave. If the field slave sees the master's house burning down, she will do anything to see that the master's house burns down.

• Women and adolescents may be a survivor of child or adolescent sexual abuse, physical abuse, homelessness, and will never argue that prostitution is her free choice.


Fact 7(b): ["Feminists"] Any "feminist" or so-called "pro-sex feminist" who supports the prostitution of women is not feminist of any sort. She or he is not a revolutionary socialist feminist fighting for the complete emancipation of women, nor is she or he even a reformist bourgeois feminist or a theologian feminist. She or he may, however, be a bourgeoisie or a bourgeoisie wannabe who supports bourgeois ideology, traditions, and practices of patriarchy though. The title "feminist" for someone who supports prostitution is semantic trickery and a spin on the meaning of feminism. This hurts the ears no less than when hearing Bush say he is pro-life, but supports the killing of Iraqis civilians or when hearing Bush say he is fighting for freedom and democracy for the Iraqis, when this is obviously not true.

Fact 7(c): [Unions?] We don't seek to unionize slaves, we seek to abolish slavery! Just imagine a union of prostitutes, pimps, and tricks all sitting around a table negotiating contracts about the frequency of fucks and blow jobs per day. Would child prostitutes be part of the round table? This is not liberating for women or children prostitutes.

Fact 7(d): ["Sex Worker"] The term "sex worker" implies that women freely chose prostitution when they don't. The term "sex worker" is a euphemism like calling a black slave, "field worker". The term "sex worker" also implies that prostitution is labor and not a sex commodity. The term sex worker does not address that fact that women and children have entered into prostitution because of severe economic oppression and discrimination. Furthermore, "sex worker" does not address that fact that most prostitutes are victims of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is boot camp for prostitution. Prostituted women who argue in favor of unions or to be referred as "sex worker", argue this because they have capitulated to the patriarchal Capitalist archetype and condition of women, i.e., internalized the projected image and condition set upon them by their oppressor. Most prostitutes who capitulate, like most people in general, don't have an understanding of the classist historical materialist reason as to why prostitution exists in the first place. They don't see their plight in relation to the broader picture, the historical material condition of prostitution. And, those who are not prostitutes, but argue in support of unions and the label "sex worker", are just opportunistic sexist pigs. This semantic trickery or labeling prostitutes "sex worker" only serves to legitimize the objectification and degradation of women.

Fact 7(e): ["Work / labor"]

During the 1,000,000 years of human existence during matriarchal communal property relations women's labor (gathering) was considered most useful, more useful then men's labor of (hunting), and there was no prostitution of women or children.

Not until 6,000 years of patriarchy when people started to have the idea of private ownership of land and animals, did female inheritance Oust communal property passed down through the female line,) transfer to male inheritance (mass production, animals, and people to be inherited), did women's labor became uselessàat this point women become private property such as via the patrist marriage formation and prostitution, along with land, animals and slaves. So, prostitution matches up with labor uselessness of women, not labor of women. There is a distinction between private property and labor. Women and children are prostituted as property as useless labor and as a result of useless labor, not as labor. Prostitution because it can be identified with useless labor; therefore, is the antithesis of labor.

Furthermore, labor is where people work with their hands or / and minds in harmony manipulating their environment as shown all throughout human existence. Even animal males never prostitute female animals and refer to it in animal terms as labor.

Furthermore, as prostitution is discriminating toward the super-exploited, mostly women and children, this can not be considered labor. Prostitution is not so-called labor. Prostitution is a human rights issue. Prostitution is discrimination, sexual abuse, and it is physical abuse, rape for pay all intertwined. What does this say about ftie institution we live in when women make more money as a prostitute then through labor? What does this say about the institution we live in when women make more money as victims of this perpetrator culture, than as labors?

Myth 8: Well she makes a lot of money selling her body.
Fact 8: For one thing, this is a sad commentary about our society that women make more money having to be prostituted than through any line of work. Secondly, much of the prostitutes money is divvied out to those who protect her or to drugs. Some goes to feed her children, school, etc...., but rarely do they even finish school. Thirdly, this is a good measure as to how much males are willing to exploit women and children.

Myth 9: It is a difficult question. How can we decide what to do?"
Fact 9: Reforming the Tax Act is also difficult; Yet, no one offers that as an excuse for not reforming a Tax Act. What kind of society claims that prohibiting the advocacy of violence against or the extreme degradation of women is too difficult to undertake? Only a society in which women have fewer rights than pornographers.

Myth 10: Prostitutes choose to go into prostitution.
Fact 10: As a result of the development of patriarchy, which is inherently discriminating, economically marginalizing women and children causing many of them to fall victim to a position of servitude as they are now property (via patrist marriages or prostitution). If there was no sexual and gender discrimination, men would equally be prostituted. Wrong! If there were such a society with no gender discrimination, then it would have to be non-patriarchal, egalitarian. In an egalitarian socio-economic material condition women and children would not only be respected, but they would feel secure. If women and children were economically secure living with great respect toward them, then prostitution would not exit. Look at Cuba. During the Batista era, you had prostitution, gambling, poverty, etc.... When Castro came to power and he began to socialize the country, prostitution became rare. However, later, when Castro had to capitulate to the US Imperialist dollar, prostitution began to flourish.

Research shows that children who are victims of violence, (incest, rape, battering) often lose their sense of physical integrity. This loss of feeling that their body belongs to them explains why women seem to "choose" when in fact there is no choice. Women who are in situations which are economically, socially or emotionally difficult, often have very little choice in the matter. Although Andrea Dworkin may not be a revolutionary Marxist feminist, she does make a good point when she argues, "Incest is boot camp for prostitution."

The euphemism "sex worker" rather than prostituted women or woman used in prostitution, implies that women choose to be prostituted. This semantic trickery only serves to objectify the women and dignifies the sex industry, not women.

Not only did prostitution of women come about with the patriarchy alongside the practice of monogamy for only women, but also there existed an element of fear by men of loss of control over women as their legal and economic property in marriage. To maintain control, patriarchal domination configures and re-configures domination over women by producing a social, economic, and public condition of sexual subordination that follows women in the public life, in the life of prostitution. The socio-economic control of women is reinforced in the patriarchal world by invoking women's pseudo-consent (because what choices are out their for women) to prostitution of sexuality for prostitution and pornography. Within the patriarchal construct, when women attempt to become economically independent & emotionally autonomous in their desire to evade domestic and/ or sexual reductionism in marriage, the patriarchal system has instituted public sexual exploitation as an attempt to revert women back to sex object reductionism. Pornography is the graphic representation of the patriarchal reduction of women to prostituted sex. Prostitution is the enacted form of pornography where the graphic representation of women comes to life. Revolutionary feminists are not interested in defending traditional patriarchal masculine sex norms, nor in making them legally public as in prostitution. Prostitution is incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human condition.


References

Budapest Group (1999, June). The relationship between Organized Crime and Trafficking in Aliens, Austria: International Centre for Migration Policy Development.

Coalition Against the Trafficking of Women: www.catw.org

Resource Against Pornography (RAP): P.O. Box 695, Toronto Postal Station C, Toronto, Ontario M6J3Sl.