hello again, i am here to bring part II to journey to the sociology book. anyway let's get stared.

note: if you want info on book take a look at part I

radical feminism(the really scary ones) suggests that patriarchy(male domination over females[always with the patriarchy]) keeps women more tied to family and home, even if women work full time. based on this approach, prositution might be explained as a relection of society's sexual double standard(there's a double standard, but not against females), whereby it is acceptable for a women to accept money for such services. although prositution laws in canada define both the prositute and the customer as violating the law, women are far more likely than men to be (caught) arrested, brought to trial, convicted, and sentenced for prositution related offences(a small fine).

socialist feminism(the scariests ones) notes that women are exploited by capitalism and patriarchy(they love their patriarchy). capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of means of production, from which personal profits can be derived through government intervention. because most females have relatively low- wage jobs(waiting for her knight in shining armor) and few economic resources() crimes such as prostituion(not because it's a choice) and shoplifting become a means to earn money or acquire consumer products. instead of freeing women from their problems, however, prositution instiutionalizes women's dependence on men() and results in a form of female sexual slavery(). lower income males, who perceive themselves as being powerless(read lazy) in the capitalist ecomic system.

that all for today, this book is putting me to (and i wanna get playing my dead rising).

comment to your hearts content.

If women are superior why did they allow the 'patriarchy' to subjugate them for thousands of years? isn't this a logical impossibility?

"women are far more likely than men to be (caught) arrested, brought to trial, convicted, and sentenced for prositution related offences(a small fine)"

I'd like to see the statistics to back up that statement - and are there not some feminists who celebrate the sex trade as some kind of empowerment?

don't ask me i just type the stuff.

Actually that statement is not true. I don't have any statistics to back my claims (OMG! I'm turning into a Feminist!), but I have listened to many people who advocate for prostitute's rights. Feminist organizations do push for laws that penalize women for prostitution, but they seek greater punishments for the MEN who seek such services. Wendy McElroy gave an excellent speech on the state of affairs with "whores", as the like to be called, and I was quite enlightened. As it turns out, feminists have given us a misleading picture of prostitution (SHOCK!). All the horror stories we have been fed come from "street walkers" who make up the minority of prostitutes. Furthermore, laws that punish only men and let prostitutes continue their work actually put women in danger! Law abiding citizens, who have reputations and families, will avoid these women for fear of being exposed and having their lives ruined. As such, only men who do not fear such punishment (i.e. criminals) will not be detered. With the consequential drop of clientel, "whores" will not screen their clients as closely and will more likely take home someone who will harm them. Once again, feminists shoot themsleves in the foot.

Oh! Zombiefarmer, try looking at the end of your chapter for sources. Academic texts must include sources for their information and should cite said sources in the text.

thanks istoute I thought that smelled funny...

thank God for Wendy McElroy, Cristina Hoff Somers, Camille Paglia and all women who stand up to the radfems

here here!!!

to istoute, i don't really care about the sources. i just want to show what kind of muck and lies they teach in the modern college classroom.