Pages

Monday, December 10, 2012

Trading Sex for Resources

Feminism has rescued women everywhere from that horribly sexist and near-universal practice of being forced to trade access to their sexuality for men's money and resources. Hooray! A strike against the roots of worldwide organized patriarchy was struck! Or was it?:
Gee this story sounds familiar:
Undergraduates have traditionally pulled pints or waited tables to pay their way through university, but a growing body of research suggests that a significant number are now turning to sex work to make ends meet.
The rise in fees which will see some students graduate with projected debts of up to £53,000 at the end of their course is being blamed for persuading young women and men to take up pole dancing, escort work or even prostitution. Experts say that university welfare officers are largely ignorant of the growing phenomenon and poorly equipped to deal with issues arising from young people’s involvement.
Under the evils of the patriarchy a woman could only reasonably expect to escape living with her parents by getting a man to provide for her. This was usually accomplished by the woman promising sex in exchange for access to a man’s resources. Of course, the problem with this system was that a woman would to (gasp!) have sex with a man who may not be the most attractive man in the world (the horror!) in exchange for his (oh-so-attractive) resources.*
 Fortunately, feminism has solved this problem by enabling women to achieve independence from their parents by getting men to pay her money in exchange for sex. What a deal! It’s so different** from the old one!
* Now, I ain’t saying she’s a gold-digger
 ** Of course, by “different” I mean “worse,” because under the old system women would at least generally be guaranteed that at least one man would actually care about her after she hit the wall.
Now, a question for the class: Under which system did women, children, men, and society in general objectively, measurably fare better? One in which men provided and covered for their wives and children, one in which crime rates were low, divorce was also low, bordering on nonexistent, where academic achievement was higher, children grew up with both parents, society reproduced itself, and government was (relatively) small...after all there was little "need" for government "help" because families needed less in the first place and communities--made up of those same intact and functional families--took care of their own in the second? Or the other where women and their children had to make it on their own, either through male or (much more likely) through female choice, where the products of single parent households depredated on one another at rates far higher than in years past, where choice mommies struggled to make ends meet, where disenfranchised and "unnecessary" men are incarcerated and/or are sold into fractional bondage to either get them out of the way or to milk them for resources to support the new social matrix, where academic performance has fallen dramatically, where women do not have enough children to replace themselves and the men they breed with, and where liberty and freedom in general have precipitously declined.

Framed in such a benefit vs. cost manner, clearly the evil patriarchy™ has much to recommend it over grass hut-style matriarchy.

In addition, I struggle to think of a time in human history where women haven't traded access to their sexuality for resources. That's just the way it's been, "just so".  And doing so doesn't necessarily make women prostitutes, just as it doesn't necessarily make men johns.  It is merely two drives, unique to each sex, that propels men and women together and serves to propagate the species. Now a culture can put this drive under a yoke of service to society, by enforcing male resource fidelity and female sexual fidelity, or let it run wild and haphazardly. We used to do the former. Now it is the latter. But our collective abandonment of the civilizing technology of patriarchy in favor of dissipative matriarchy hasn't stopped women from trading their sex for resources or men trading their resources for sex.

35 comments:

okrahead said...

The difference today is who gets the sex vs. who provides the resources. Thanks to insufferable universal suffrage, womyn are now able to avail themselves of the sex they want (hello bad boy alpha!) while absconding with the resources of the best workers (hello beta bucks!). Hence the new system allows a woman to act as a slut, (which is actually worse than a whore) but to acquire the wealth of the hard-working men who have NOT availed themselves of her "charms." Behold the beauty of the welfare state, where the honest and hard working men pay the wages of the whore to womyn who look upon them with contempt and would not deign to speak to them, much less trade sex for the resources with which they have absconded.

newrebeluniv said...

And additional twist I would like to point out:

The women resorting to prosituting to pay for education is merely getting paid to do something she would otherwise do anyway at her own expense: getting drunk and having sex with the guy who buys her drinks.

So, it isn't the most desparate women resorting to this, but the most lazy. The ones who want the bucks in exchange for the least amount of work possible and no real committments to a boss for regular work.

It is just icing on the metaphorical cake that they are doing this "desparate" activity in exchange for something that they don't need and will likely never use (worthless liberal arts degrees).

Christina said...

I'm not certain if when a woman "hit the wall" (what's that supposed to mean?), at least one man would still care about her.

If I understand you correctly, if the woman was sold to her husband by her father and her husband abused her, I think it could be fairly likely that if the father gave her to such a man, he wasn't the most loving in the world =/

It seems to me that in the grand scheme of things, women trying to take control of their own lives to avoid the chance of being bargained over by evil men, they ended up putting themselves into those positions freely - only they brought women who may have otherwise been willing to trust their fathers along with them.

The irony that they fought against such a system to choose freely and they keep choosing the very men who they didn't want to be forced into relationship with.

Its a difficult thing to argue with someone who prefers this system over that system. They keep arguing the "What if" scenario, never really realizing that if ANYONE intends evil towards anyone, they can figure out how to do it in any system - and that the likliehood of being such a pawn was probably not as common as they'd think - like a rape victim getting an abortion (another common "What if" game for another type of system they advocate).

wanderling said...

"Thanks to insufferable universal suffrage, womyn are now able to avail themselves of the sex they want (hello bad boy alpha!) while absconding with the resources of the best workers (hello beta bucks!)."

It's ironic how misogynistic MRAs actually are. We can see this in the way they categorize men into an alpha/beta dichotomy, thinking one is worthwhile and one isn't. I think it's high time they just came out and admitted they are misanthropic.

Christina, hitting the wall means the age a woman obtains when she is no longer sexually attractive. According to MRAs this means she is also worthless in every other respect because to them all that matters are aesthetics. Once again, this is evidenced in their alpha/beta dichotomy where alpha guys are the good looking worthwhile ones and beta guys (themselves) are the ugly, worthless ones.
Most MRAs think hitting the wall occurs around around 28. All of them think thirty women are diseased hags who have been around the block too many times, regardless of the woman's romantic history. It is to laugh.
This is why they all fetishize 12 - 14 year olds.
I think the real story though is that none of them truly dated in their own adolescence and they refuse to give up on the fact that they want their first girlfriend to be a child, because no matter how old they are (40s, 50s), they all want a virgin childbride. Yes, it's creepy and sick, but that's what they are.

ScareCrow said...

Thank you for writing this Mr. Wapiti!

I have pointed this out myself - I asked several topless dancers if they had degrees - all said yes - and of course - all had huge student loan debts.

I have some questions for you however...

It is true that more women are getting degrees than men.

Are the degrees that women earn "more worthless" than the ones that men earn?

Is it true that such worthless degrees cost enormous amounts of money?

If that is true - what would you say about somebody who wants to make the number of men and women earning said "worthless" degrees "equal" - that is, put as many men in the bad economic position that many young women are in?

Please note: these are QUESTIONS.

wanderling said...

Further to my post above. The lesson here for single or divorced women aged over thirty with female children is that you best follow your instincts and continue not to date "beta" men, because no doubt he will start taking more than a fatherly interest in your daughters once they hit 12 years of age.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Okrahead wrote:

"Thanks to insufferable universal suffrage, womyn are now able to avail themselves of the sex they want (hello bad boy alpha!) while absconding with the resources of the best workers (hello beta bucks!). "

I take some solace in the conviction that the present configuration cannot last in the long term. Too much social spending, propelled by the security-safety voters of which you refer above, too few providers' pockets to loot (whose pockets, in turn, are too shallow) to pay for it all.

The slide from complex patriarchal civilization toward grass hut-style matriarchy shrinks the economy just as much as it shrinks fertility. And that's before we start talking about deliberate marriage-striking and rational slacker behavior.

I suppose one alternative is to sic thug-enforcers on unattached, disenfranchised men who resist induction into the massive partial-slave army needed to effect this monstrous wealth transfer, but there is only so much blood that may be squeezed by a turnip. I have no doubt that Big Momma Leviathan will try, mind you, but at the end of the day all the enforcer's guns in the world can't make wealth just appear.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Er, "from a turnip"

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ PH,

"merely getting paid to do something she would otherwise do anyway at her own expense: getting drunk and having sex with the guy who buys her drinks.

So, it isn't the most desparate women resorting to this, but the most lazy. "


It appears also that she/they're the shrewdest. Getting paid for what you would happily do (i.e., sleeping around) for free? Desperate? No. Winning? Oh yes.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Christina,

At the risk of citing Roissy as an authority, the "wall" refers to when a woman's fertility begins to tail off.

"If I understand you correctly, if the woman was sold to her husband by her father and her husband abused her, I think it could be fairly likely that if the father gave her to such a man, he wasn't the most loving in the world =/"

I think I may be being misunderstood here. The "patriarchy" I'm referring to is not the "bride price/human trafficking" strawman the feminists like to imagine it is, but rather the one suggested by a straight-up etymology: rule by fathers. Where dads, not cads, and certainly not moms, are the authority in the home and by extension in society.

" they ended up putting themselves into those positions freely - only they brought women who may have otherwise been willing to trust their fathers along with them."

The problem with the feminist theory here is that patriarchy--with its emphasis on female chastity and fidelity--is made out to be this all-encompassing bogeyman, and they proffer loose morality as a curative. It seems that in the feminist philosophic system, being promiscuous is synonymous as being powerful, because a woman has the agency to sleep around whereas before, under patriarchal morality, a woman could not.

As you say, it would be one thing if the long-faced grumpy women would keep their toxic philosophizing to themselves. Sadly, it seems the bulk of women buy into their self-defeating and self-loathing BS.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Holy smokes I don't know where I would even start with Wanderling's comment. So I won't.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Scarecrow queried:

"Are the degrees that women earn "more worthless" than the ones that men earn?

Unfortunately, value is in the eye of the beholder. What seems relatively worthless to you and I may have some psychological value to those women with master's degrees in Renaissance Lit or Women's Studies or other such poofy degrees. Yes, they spent $50,000 for their MA in divinity. That they couldn't get a job with it matters not, the value they get out of it is bragging rights or status or whatever.

Now, if we're talking economic ROI, cost v payoff like us vertically thinking men are wont to do, yep, next to worthless.

Is it true that such worthless degrees cost enormous amounts of money?

All depends on the degree of course, but I'm inclined to agree.

If that is true - what would you say about somebody who wants to make the number of men and women earning said "worthless" degrees "equal" - that is, put as many men in the bad economic position that many young women are in?"

Is someone really proposing this? If so, that's just stooopid on a whole crap-ton of levels.

wanderling said...

Of course that is your response ew, the truth always is unassailable.

Christina said...

It seems that in the feminist philosophic system, being promiscuous is synonymous as being powerful, because a woman has the agency to sleep around whereas before, under patriarchal morality, a woman could not.

Meekness is not a trait The World values or overly tolerates. The World finds meek to be boring, tedious, exhausting, and weak.

Even the church has a difficult time affirming meekness even though Christ said "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." They are easy to forget, easy to overlook, easy to never notice.

A chaste woman tends to be meek and has a difficult time being anything but.

Found out the hard way how difficult it is to act like a slut when your a chaste virgin when I tried auditioning for Godspell with "Turn Back, O Man." I was told I probably would have gotten a part if I had done "Day by Day," but I'd already been sufficiently programmed enough to find the character who sang that to be weak, naive, and utterly boring.

I knew I was all of the above - I accepted those negative words about my chastity and believed them. I just cared more about my values than I did what my peers thought - a wonderful gift of being strong-willed and limited access to peer pressure whilst forming those values.

When you are a 4th-5th grader or in middle school when you are the most vulnerable to peer pressure, being exposed to such negative characterization of virginity and chastity, no wonder more girls bought into the idea that sex means power. The power to manipulate. A chaste girl just doesn't think in that way (note that chaste does not necessarily equate virgin...point to girl selling virginity on e-bay for that).

Elusive Wapiti said...

lol Wanderling you keep telling yourself that.

ScareCrow said...

@Elusive Wapiti -

"Is someone really proposing this? If so, that's just stooopid on a whole crap-ton of levels. "

Yes, Warren Farrell is suggesting that it is "unfair" to young men that so many more young women attend college than young men.

I see this on various blogs in the "man-o-sphere".

The studies they present are very simple minded. That is, they do not take into account what TYPE of degrees are being earned, and who is getting jobs with said degrees.

They only focus on the fact that more women get degrees than men - and hence that is unfair, and hence, we must be striving to put more young men in college...

Your thoughts?

wanderling said...

MRAs hate women. Warren Farrell said years ago that incest is positive in some cases. That's right. That's what he said. Hence the protest against his recent brainwashing seminar. Or did you just think that women like to stand around protesting and shouting in men's faces for no reason? If you did think that, then I'd like to introduce you to a 4 month old who is smarter than you. Any 4 month old will do.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Thanks Christina for your wonderful comment. I waited to comment on it until this evening, for I wanted to take the time to let your comment sink in and for me to fully grok it.

The trouble with meekness is that the World's definition is at such variance with the Biblical one. The World defines "meek" as synonymous with "weak", whereas for Christians "meekness" is anything but weak but is instead "a total lack of self-pride, to the point of a lack of self-concern...a decided strength of disciplined calmness [and] is also not a submissive or pacifying state, but rather an active proponent of what we know is right" (source).

As such, "meek" is about as far from the value feminists place on autonomy and agency as one can get. Unfortunately, equalitarianist philosophy (of which feminism is a child) dominates the Worldly culture at the moment, and humility, self-displine, calmness, and a vigorous advocacy of objective Truth take a backseat to self-aggrandizement, will to power, and subjective morality.

I find myself wondering, when considering the Worldly definition of meek: who is stronger? The woman who gives in to her base urges, and urges those around her to do the same, or the one who exercises control over herself and encouages others to do best by not only themselves but others around them?

ScareCrow said...

@wanderling & Wapiti:

Did I say something to offend?

I neither support or condemn Warren Farrell - I was just wondering about his (and other's) proposals of putting more young men in college to make it equal with the number of women - in spite of evidence, that coming out of college with a huge debt and a degree that won't even get you hired at Taco Bell is not such a good thing...

Just wanted some input/insight...

I shun the whole MRA thing BTW...

Elusive Wapiti said...

Scarecrow,

Far be it from me to critique the inestimable Mr. Farrell, but I fail to see how fairness has much if anything to do with it.

So more girls are going to college than boys. Big whoop. I'm on record as taking a very pragmatic view of college attendance, thinking that in many ways attending college simply does not pay off.

I think I see where Mr. Farrell is going, though. The world today is very much about credentials than it used to be, possibly because credentialism can be viewed as a crude way to sort for GMA. Men who don't jump through that hoop fail to get the jobs, especially with the proliferation of female-dominated HR.

OTOH, as I mentioned in one of those posts I linked to above, dodging college (unless one is pursuing something in hard STEM) in favor of vo-tech...or at least in favor of JC...may be a good move for men overall. It lets them earn early on, they dodge the student loan racket, they acquire an in-demand skill, etc.

I don't think I favor AA for men in college to make things more "fair", although it would certainly be entertaining to throw the techniques of white-male hating liberalism back in liberals' faces.

In short, no I don't support striving to put more men in college by anything other than market means. As you say, there are many other factors that must be considered, and I don't think forcibly minting a bunch of men with economically worthless lib-arts degrees and saddling them with debt will be to our brothers' advantage. Especially since the women they will want to pair up with will have student loan debts for worthless degrees as well.

Did that rambling answer take care of your question?

Elusive Wapiti said...

"Did I say something to offend?"

No my friend you did not. At least me, anyways.

The delay was because it just took me a while to write a response.

Christina said...

EW - your response hit me like a ton of bricks... and I actually wrote a response to it on my blog (gasp!). Its kinda too far off topic for here.

But this -
I find myself wondering, when considering the Worldly definition of meek: who is stronger? The woman who gives in to her base urges, and urges those around her to do the same, or the one who exercises control over herself and encouages others to do best by not only themselves but others around them?

If we are considering worldly definition? They don't see it that way - what good is power if you don't use it? Someone who is meek may be stronger, but what good is strength if you don't use it?

To the world, a strong man fights back. They use their strength and show it. What good is strength if you don't hit back and hit back hard? If you aren't using your power, you are weak.

Its not that I disagree with you, its just that I don't see the point in convincing the world to think any differently. It never will. The best I can do is teach those around me that when I am weak, God is strong. And that being meek is not something to be shameful of. That being overlooked is not something to be upset about. And to affirm those around me in their humility so they are less likely to open their ears and eventually their hearts to a world that seeks their destruction and not their salvation.

wanderling said...

If you think Warren Farrell is inestimable ew (ew in more ways than one) then I take it you also believe, like him, that both mother-son incest can be positive, as well as father-daughter incest.
I'm glad you have sons, not daughters.

wanderling said...

"I shun the whole MRA thing BTW..."

Orly? Is that why you follow MRA blogs and list "dominating women" as one of your interests?

I'd just like to point out to you that any male who comments on an MRA or anti-feminist blog and who posts on such a blog that he shuns such things...lol...well try and connect the dots if you are able too.

Christina said...

I'd just like to point out to you that any male who comments on an MRA or anti-feminist blog and who posts on such a blog that he shuns such things...lol...well try and connect the dots if you are able too.

Lol...I had no idea you were MRA, Wanderling! All this time, I thought you hated men!

There is a huge disparity among the men in MRA - and scarecrow may sympathize with some of the ideas, but as a whole refuses to align himself as such. Doesn't mean he won't share some interests with some of the others.

"Dominating women" may be an interest some MRA hold, but while I consider EW MRA, he really don't see that as one of his interests - at least not in the way you think this means.

P.S. You may have stated "male," but if you are going to put ever man into your little box, you can put every woman in your little box, too.

For it is not every woman who chimes in on a feminist blog that is a feminist, so neither is it every man on a mra blog that is MRA.

newrebeluniv said...

Education (degrees) are a consumer product. There is nothing to be learned from the fact that more women are consuming the degrees than men or what type of degrees they are consuming or how much they spend on their consuming (Coach bag vs packpack). The university system is simply selling a product and marketing that product as best they can to whoever will buy it and pay the most for it. Student loans and government grants allow the university to charge more for it. Required courses in diversity allow the university to pay a lower cost fo raw materials.

you may as well try to make a socialogical argument about what women are buying more of at Walmart.

The only thing that matters is all the stupidly misguided programs paid for my tax dollars to entice more women to buy more degrees on the flawed assumption that there aren't enough women doing so on their own.

--Prof Hale

ScareCrow said...

@wanderling - "dominating women" was a smart-ass remark.

I follow blogs that have nothing to do with the mrm as well.

I follow blogs that I find interesting.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"They don't see it that way"

Good point that. From my perspective, the stronger woman is the one who is meek, who disciplines herself to exercise control, to do the right thing even when her flesh/hormones/tingle wants her to do the wrong thing. As you say, they don't see it that way...their minds are darkened to the truth.

"They use their strength and show it. What good is strength if you don't hit back and hit back hard? If you aren't using your power, you are weak"

What keeps coming to mind when I read this is "when you live by the sword, you die by the sword". I don't deny the veracity of what you have written, only that it is, in the end, folly. All the world knows how to do is oppress and destroy and devour, and in their rapine, they destroy themselves.

wanderling said...

Christina said...

"Lol...I had no idea you were MRA, Wanderling! All this time, I thought you hated men!"
Well you thought wrong and you're still thinking that way.
I’m egalitarian, which means I’m for both genders in case you weren’t aware. Most of you may believe that egalitarianism isn’t practically possible and that one sex is always going to be worse off than the other in some way, but I disagree, for like a true egalitarian, I believe that benefitting one sex actually also results in benefits to the other considering the sexes don’t live on their own little islands.

"There is a huge disparity among the men in MRA - and scarecrow may sympathize with some of the ideas, but as a whole refuses to align himself as such. Doesn't mean he won't share some interests with some of the others."
No Shit Sherlock but maybe you should let scarecrow speak for himself. In any case, IMO the wish lists of the MRAs all boil down to discrimination against women, so even if he does only align himself with some of their beliefs, that still means he is against women's rights.

""Dominating women" may be an interest some MRA hold, but while I consider EW MRA, he really don't see that as one of his interests - at least not in the way you think this means."

In what way do you think I understood it?

"P.S. You may have stated "male," but if you are going to put ever man into your little box, you can put every woman in your little box, too."
Thanks, but I don’t need your permission to analysis and understand people.

"For it is not every woman who chimes in on a feminist blog that is a feminist, so neither is it every man on a mra blog that is MRA."

Those who don’t tow the party line tend to get moderated and banned. I have never yet read a dissenting male voice on an MRA blog in all the years I’ve been following them. That demonstrates that every single male commenting on them is an MRA. The dissenting male voice is overwhelmingly absent. Maybe dissenters are out there and just don’t make it through moderation, who knows. If a male says he shuns them yet he makes it through moderation, that suggests he is a liar.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"Those who don’t tow the party line tend to get moderated and banned"

It's "toe".

"I have never yet read a dissenting male voice on an MRA blog in all the years I’ve been following them. That demonstrates that every single male commenting on them is an MRA. The dissenting male voice is overwhelmingly absent. Maybe dissenters are out there and just don’t make it through moderation, who knows. If a male says he shuns them yet he makes it through moderation, that suggests he is a liar."

Multiple logic fails.

Tell me, why do you think I tolerate your usually unserious, bellicose, and provocative rhetoric here?

wanderling said...

Tow makes more sense.

Because you believe in free speech, and that really must rankle because I know you'd love to ban me. Alternatively, it is impossible to ban people using blogger.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"Tow makes more sense."

Not really.

"Because you believe in free speech"

Pretty close. Right bloggers by definition don't put as much emphasis on ideological conformity as lefties, to whom ideological purity extremely important. It's that whole Western Civilization thing, where a person can forward his or her ideas and put them to the test.

So, I let peoples' own words speak for themselves. As is so happens, sometimes their words are either self-refuting or self-caricaturing. Or both.

As far as banning, in 5 years, I've only had to ask one person to leave and never come back. She was gracious enough to comply.

And as you say, I can't easily enforce an involuntary ban in Blogger. Thus at the moment I have the choice to moderate comments (and thus suppressing the conversation) or nuking them. I've chosen the latter for comments that take too much advantage of my hospitality and grace.

I'm certain you've noticed that many of yours go MIA. It's for the reasons listed above they go missing, not because I oftimes find your comments obtuse or inconsistent with measurable reality.

ScareCrow said...

I think that wanderling is "j duff" that recently appeared on my blog - and is now throwing all kinds of poop at me...

wanderling said...

I don't believe you do let people's words speak for themselves. I think you do the exact opposite with clever spin and reframe of their intended meaning.
You may have a valid excuse, for as you say, you do find my words, obtuse, but most times it looks to me like you've respun what I've said.
You may think that it is better not to ask me to leave because I in fact help to make your cases for you by throwing a pie in my own face, but you're not always correct.
It would be far better for you to ask me to leave, although, granted, there is absolutely no guarantee that I would respect your wishes.
As for j duff. Never heard of him/her.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"It would be far better for you to ask me to leave, although, granted, there is absolutely no guarantee that I would respect your wishes."

Well gee, Wanderling, why don't you just leave, and take what little you've contributed to the discussion here with you?

Perhaps your purpose here is to bring the level of discourse down so far, to turn threads into as much a slaughterhouse as possible, so as to bait me into taking this blog private or moderating comments? Both actions would serve the goal of squelching any voices that speak truth to powerful femmarix BS.

I won't make you into a martyr by banning you. It would give you too much satisfaction, methinks. And, as you say, you may not respect me or those who preceded you here enough to stay out of where you are not welcome.