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.