We have seen all those sexist vintage ads. What about 21st century’s new sexist ads!

In the West the companies are forced to ban their ads because of criticism and protests from feminists and women’s rights activists. In the East, no body protests against sexist ads. Sexism is cultural norms.

The Vodka company put up a new billboard promising New Yorkers ‘escort quality at a hooker price’. The poster was removed later.

It is a poster of the movie ‘the players’. Woman down. Man up. Woman naked, man dressed up. Woman slut, man gentleman. Woman begs, man gives. But for how long?

They are telling us that a woman can’t open a bottle of wine or a jar of olives. Men help to open the bottle and the jar. Do we really need those huge muscles to open those simple things? Hatred against women has no limits.

Believe me, it has no limits.


  1. says

    Well, in all honesty, the last two ads actually are a pretty funny play on the whole idea of “man can’t open pickle jar. man gives pickle jar to woman. woman opens pickle jar super easy.” I think they’re the complete opposite of what conclusion you drew from them.

    But I guess it’s all in how you view these things.

    • interrobang says

      Doesn’t anybody rap the edge of a jar lid with the back of a knife before trying to open the jar?

      You could probably unpack something interesting there about brains versus the stupid brute-force approach, but I’m not into it right now.

      • Wzrd1 says

        Guilty as charged. I tend to not try to break the jar by banging it.
        So, my wife does it and opens the jar.
        When she can’t open a jar, she gives it to me.
        Sometimes, the jar goes back and forth until one of us opens the damned thing.
        Usually, whoever has the jar ends up opening it.
        But, we both cook in the kitchen together. Save for when I “kick her out of MY kitchen”.
        Her response is, “OK, fine. YOU get the dishes too.” 😉

  2. Peter says

    I don’t know, I can only agree with Taslima. maybe 20 years ago I would’ve found these somewhat amusing, but not now. I guess the culture that I occupy has moved on.

    Here’s to the 21st century, let’s hope the rest of the planet catches up soon.

  3. mike says

    Hatred against women? I don’t see it displayed in these ads. Your assumption about these are just crazy. In the movie ad you say the woman begs and is a slut. I see two consenting adults. Man up woman down. Yes. Most sex acts the man is up and is more dominate. But that doesn’t make the woman less of a person. Just maybe she WANTS sex. maybe …oral sex. Taslima you are a nut. An extremist. I believe you see oppression in the smallest details, where it isn’t.

    • No Light says

      Yeah, not agreeing with you clearly means she’s mentally ill. I mean you’re a person, and she’s just a women with silly ladybrains.

      I tell you what, go to her ‘Seven years old’ post. Tell her she’s mentally unstable in that one, for her attitude toward men and patriarchy.

      Off you toddle.

  4. Kilian Hekhuis says

    Do we really need those huge muscles to open those simple things? Hatred against women has no limits.

    Though there might be a healthy dose of sexism in there, I think it’s a bit far fetched to call it hatred. Objectifying women is not hating them, per se.

    • ik says

      Yeah, well, the absence of love and the absence of hatred can and do go together. And that’s without even considering benevolent sexism (which is not going on here, but applies to a lot of other things). They definitely aren’t doing it out of love, but I wish you would get away from your patriarchy binary. Feminists like getting away from binaries, right?

      They don’t really love women here, they are treating them in a demeaning way, but they are not hating them. THey are being bad, but if you call this hatred, what do you call Iran?

        • Wzrd1 says

          Hatred isn’t the absence of love, nor is it the polar opposite.
          The advertisements don’t see women as anything other than tools to make them money and demean the intelligence of the target audience.
          When I see a woman in a bikini in an ad or a woman in some subservient position, I know that the product obviously has little to speak of, so that they must stoop to the lowest level to attempt to sell their garbage product.

  5. says

    I’m utterly disgusted with the La Quinta ads on TV where they show only men traveling for business and doing business with other men. The only women shown are maids and receptionists. This might have been ok to exclude women in the era of “Mad Men” but it’s the 21st century. If I was a traveling business woman I would certainly make it a point NOT to stay at La Quinta.

  6. Hunt says

    My general impression, born of a certain amount of ignorance since I’ve never been to Europe, is that some parts of it are an order of magnitude behind even American attitudes, sort of like US circa 1960, or James Bond heyday era level of sexism.

  7. Pierce R. Butler says

    Can anyone please explain to me the relationship between sex workers, vodka, and lambs for crysake?

  8. Gorbachev says

    Europe is behind re: sexism: Yes.

    European nations may have lots of women in politics and in Norway they may want women in the boardroom and may have to force it. But actual social attitudes on the ground are 1960’s American values.

    In most urban centers in the US, and Canada and Austrlaia, too, a woman who chooses not to work is often looked on as a pariah, a bizarre freak of nature, a neanderthal throwback – a bit of a loser.

    In the Netherlands, most women actively choose part-time work and don’t want to be expected to work full-time. They just defy social planners, allowing their men to look after them instead. Survey after survey shows women just not wanting to work overtime or focus exclusively on their career.

    I say the American way is better: Any woman who chooses a traditional female role should be shamed, humiliated and forced to get out there and work in industry and business. We should celebrate women who are successful in jobs and careers, and berate and shame women who choose not to take this path. Two generations of feminism have been explaining in great detail how family life is nothing but an infernal prison, a hell, for women, a self-abnegating eraser of female ambition.

    I agree. It’s too bad that outside of cities, women are socially permitted to follow traditional roles. it should be made so humiliating, so embarassing, that no self-respecting woman would ever admit to not wanting to work full-time in a good career, with her focus on advancement and making money for herself.

    • ik says

      You’re POe’s Lawing me. Is that satire?

      It occurs to me (as it does to most people) that if shaming and humiliating women is neccesary to get them to want to do do what you want, then maybe, just maybe what you want them to want is wrong?

      There must be freedom. And even if there is technically a choice, there needs to be a critical mass of women who conform to the new tradition of having professional careers. Otherwise, the default is overwhelming and can be hard to resist. It’s like, even if there was no homophobia, being gay could be really hard if you had never heard of another gay person in your own community.

      I wonder who you think IS going to do the domestic labor? Split evenly? It doesn’t go away!

  9. Gorbachev says

    On this ad being “hate”:

    There’s no hate in this ad. It’s all a play on stereotypes, ideology and imagery. In fact, the last two may suggest that

    “a woman has as much strength as a man and can be just like a man”

    Once again, the words are too extreme, and end up mocking the intent of the author.

    I think Ms. Nasrin is trained to write for maximum shock effect. It’s why most of what she writes sounds like crowd-whipping slogans.

    Alas, this also sounds intellectgually dishonest, verbally lazy and at best like grotesque exaggerations.

    Where’s the appeal to carefully considered reason in this blog post?

    And what’s with the grandiose conclusions based on the flimsiest of pretexes?

    This is not a feminism issue. It’s an intellectual standards issue. Or a reasoning issue.

    Even if I agree with teh basic premise – which I more or less do – the extreme conclusions are way too far out on a limb to go with this tiny thing.

    I suspect Ms. Nasrin has never been trained in science, philosophy or rhetoric. As with the prostitution article, once again, this illustrates more lack of reasoning and consideration and careful thought than anything else.

    When writing about a subject as crucial as sexism, it behooves a writer to consider positions carefully, and not engage in frivolous manipulations, or it undermines the entire point. Instead of convincing audiences and driving points home, it just makes authors look like fools.

  10. Navigator says

    The second two ads remind me of the GI Joe’s I played with as a kid. Don’t their arms look oddly segmented? Or is that just a bad Photoshop?
    But the ad for Les Infideles just strikes me as creepy. I mean, woman as just a pair of legs? How about a face, or a head? Oh, no, can’t have that, it would mean a woman with a personality, or thought/wants/needs of her own, not just a sex service station.

    • says

      It took me a little while to see it as well, but there’s actually a man standing behind the woman. She’s reaching behind her (I assume around his back) and he’s reaching in under her arms.

      To begin with, I thought it was just a -terrible- shop job.

  11. Gorbachev says

    Here’s some perspective on feminism.


    This is also feminism, regardless of what ideological absolutists think.

    Mary G. Dietz’s article Current Controversies in Feminist Theory defines feminism as “a historically constituted, local and global, social and political movement with an emancipatory purpose and a normative content. It posits a subject (women), identifies a problem (the subjection and objectification of women through gendered relations), and expresses various aims…in the name of specific principles (e.g., equality, rights, liberty, autonomy, dignity, self realization, recognition, justice, freedom)” (Dietz 399). When applied to prostitution, this definition supports the notion that prostitution is indeed a feminist movement, for the pro-prostitution movement considers a subject (women in prostitution), identifies a problem (the exploitation, degradation and stigmatization of women in prostitution), and expresses various aims in the name of specific principles (equality, human rights, liberty, bodily and personal autonomy, dignity, recognition, justice and freedom).

    With this definition of feminism, Dietz provides a thorough overview of three dominant feminist perspectives: difference feminism, diversity feminism and deconstruction feminism. Difference feminism acknowledges that there are fundamental differences among men and women while contesting that women have a distinctive way of viewing the world. Deconstruction feminism claims that it is unnatural to divide men and women into separate categories. With this, deconstruction feminism rejects the notion of “women” as the foundation for feminine politics, for there are a field of differences among women and they cannot be grouped into one class. Diversity feminism challenges, both philosophically and politically, the notion of a female subject and the very coherence of “woman” by considering race, class, ethnicity, sexuality (Dietz 402).

    Of the three perspectives, diversity feminism is applicable and relevant to the exploration of prostitution as a feminist movement in that rather than generalizing what it is to be a woman, diversity feminism acknowledges and respects the differences among women. With this, it would be inaccurate as well as absurd to make a blanket statement as to what is good or “right” for every woman because every woman is in fact different. Through this perspective, as Dietz asserts, “diversity feminism repeatedly invokes those subjugated and silenced ‘others’ who are displaced, marginalized, exploited, or oppressed under structures of domination that privilege the white, male, heterosexual, Eurocentric or Western subject” (Dietz 409).

    Within the controversy of prostitution, the mainstream argument against prostitution claims that those who are involved in sex work are exploited, degraded, immoral, desperate and ignorant victims. However, broad generalizations about prostitution are as inaccurate as those about “women” as a class (Kuo 149). What the prevalent perspective fails to consider is that there is an abundance of women who indeed choose this profession. In fact, according to a recent study, “many prostitutes feel empowered in their position and identify with feminist values such as independence, financial autonomy, sexual self-determination, personal strength and female bonding” (Fechner 10). Not all prostitutes are involved in the sex industry against their will nor do they act as powerless victims with no other choice.

    Individualist feminism and radical feminism are two prevalent and extremely divergent feminist perspectives involved in the existing debate concerning prostitution. In the Michigan Law Review, Ashlie Warnick assesses freedom and feminism in the twenty first century, comparing radical feminism to individualist feminism. Individualist feminism, or ifeminism (occasionally referred to as libertarian feminism), is based on classical philosophy and advocates the repeal of numerous laws concerning women’s issues. This perspective views individual autonomy as vital and believes that laws restricting women’s choices do more harm than good (Warnick 2). The core principle of ifeminism is that all human beings have a moral and legal claim to his or her own persons and property. In contrast, radical feminism is more concentrated on gender rights within a patriarchal system. While second wave feminists strove to expand women’s opportunities, radical feminists claim that these “opportunities” present women with a false choice because “patriarchy clouds all women’s judgments”, leading many radical feminists to discount the importance of individual choice (Warnick 5). This standpoint implies that women are incapable of making sound decisions for themselves and therefore, are in need of someone else to make their decisions for them, such as the government or even fellow feminists. This seems to completely contradict the very essence of what feminism supposedly stands for: equality, rights, liberty, autonomy, dignity, self realization, recognition, justice and freedom (Dietz 399). Furthermore, it seems to discount diversity feminism by grouping women in prostitution into one massive class, assuming that every woman is the same and has identical needs when in fact each woman is unique with her own individual needs and desires.

    In response to the stance taken by radical feminists, individualist feminists assert that individuals, both men and women, make the best decisions for themselves (Warnick 5). Furthermore, they contend that all people have the human right to protection of their self and property, consistently applying the principle of “a woman’s body, a woman’s right” to every issue that confronts women today, including prostitution (Warnick 5). According to individualist feminist thought, prostitution involves a woman’s decision about what she will and will not do with her own body. Patriarchy maintains that a prostitute contracts out the use of her body and is thus selling herself, however, as feminists, we should resist such self definitions and values in order to encourage and support any mass movement that attempts resistance, for according to Lenore Kuo, who explored this notion in Prostitution Policy, it is only through mass resistance and struggle that structural change is possible (Kuo 141). At the core of this discussion, a decision is a choice and it should be the woman’s choice, not the government’s. As Warnick states, “Either a woman can choose an option – including the good, bad, moral or immoral ones – or ‘choice’ means nothing. If a woman is only allowed to choose wisely, she never had any choice to begin with” (Warnick 7). Conditions placed on choice completely eliminates the element of choice entirely. Women involved in prostitution have a fundamental right to self ownership and personal choice as well as a right to use her own body as she pleases (Warnick 6).

    And here:

    Within the realm of sex work, there is a definite stigmatization embedded in prostitution. In general, people are against recognizing prostitutes both as women and as workers. Prostitutes are viewed as dirty, uneducated, immoral, desperate and exploited addicts as society breaks them down, reducing them to mere metaphors and disembodied stereotypes – “a one-dimensional object without individual identity” (Kuo 60). In essence, a woman is labeled as ‘nothing but a prostitute’. With this, there is a distinct division between prostitutes and everyone else, perpetuating a sense of isolation and stigmatization. Furthermore, prostitution tends to generate feelings of discomfort, causes people to be extremely curious about them and interpret their behavior in terms of deviant, negative characteristics (Kuo 101-102). Due to society’s discomfort with that which is out of the “norm”, women in prostitution are usually penalized and detached from the rest of society.

    It is often overlooked that prostitution is similar to the sale of any service available in view of the fact that prostitution, by definition, involves a contract between two or more parties and the parties in the contract will either meet or fail to meet their contractual obligations (Kuo 49). Furthermore, most do not realize that sex workers have the ability to distinguish intimacy and love from the sexual act itself, much in the same way that an actor or therapist is able to separate their work from their private life, preserving a sense of integrity and distance from emotionally demanding work (Kempadoo & Doezema 5). With this in mind, liberal feminism contends that sex work is an integral part of life rather than the sole identity of a woman (Kempadoo & Doezema 3). However, due to the rampant stigma attached to prostitution, most societies have historically been unable to separate a prostitute from her career. This distinction between the prostitute and everyone else helps perpetuate her exclusion from the ordinary rights which society offers others, such as rights to freedom from violence at work, to a fair share of what she earns or to leave her employer (Kempadoo & Doezema 65). Seeing as prostitutes are engaged in a form of employment that is one of a shameful, immoral and degrading nature, they are consequentially branded as outlaws. Such outlaws of society are ostracized and void of customary human rights, and unless prostitution is legalized, prostitutes will continue to endure the discrimination and violation of their rights. In order for prostitutes to claim their rights as full members of local and world society, it is vital that we identify prostitution as legitimate work (Kempadoo & Doezema 67).

    As far as the prostitutes’ perspective in this discussion of stigmatization, some women are actually drawn to prostitution because of its stigma. Some women view their work in the sex industry as a form of rebellion and as an expression of their legitimate anger in the existing context. Of the prostitutes Kuo interviewed, several prostitutes and prostitute rights spokeswomen view prostitution as a source of empowerment as well as a feminist strategy of resistance (Kuo 104). According to Kuo, stigmatization is the main source of control over women’s sexual activity (Kuo 113). So in essence, it is society that places this stigma on prostitution and in turn, society facilitates and perpetuates the cultural control over women’s sexuality. With this in mind, some women involved in the sex work industry reclaim their own sexuality and sense of self through their practice in prostitution by rebelling against what societal norms and expectations require. The discomfort and stigmatization prostitution generates grants the women a sense of power and liberation. Feminists have consistently argued that sexuality, including, sexual history, orientation and activity should be no more defining of individual identity than are any other characteristics of the self. Particularly under patriarchy, one’s sexual identity is both overemphasized and deeply perverted to maintain male privilege (Kuo 141). This dominant societal perspective seems to have distorted prostitution into an act of subordination and exploitation under patriarchy when in actuality, prostitution does not define the women involved in the sex work industry; it defines the work that they do. It is a valid, legitimate form of employment and can be a source of empowerment and liberation.

    Most stereotypes surrounding why women become involved in prostitution assume that its due to manipulation, drug addiction, poverty or pure desperation. In truth, the motivations of prostitutes vary from monetary rewards to empowerment and sexual pleasure. While the main motivation for prostitution is typically centered around money, numerous studies have indicated that women are motivated by a desire for independence, excitement, and the dislike of routine work while some are drawn to prostitution because they simply enjoy the sex (Kuo 69). Many assume that women get into prostitution due to desperation or coercion though this is generally not the case. Most studies suggest that direct force from an outside party is typically not a significant factor in the entry into prostitution (Kuo 69).

    So before you begin aligning with religious conservatives and start legislating sex, Ms. Nasrin, you might want to consider other bona-fide feminist perspectives.

    • says

      Speak for yourself Taslima! There is at least one person here that did get much interest in reading that. And nice ad hominem attack you did there.

  12. Gorbachev says

    And more for Mr. nasrin, who thinks there’s only one precise opinion allowed in feminism:


    The second is the breakdown of ages (in the final link) of the men convicted of buying sex from these women: 36% were born in the 1960s, 21% in the 1970s and 30% in the 1980s. The other 13% aren’t accounted for except to say that the oldest was 76 and the youngest 17. So nearly a third, and perhaps slightly over that, were teenagers when the ban was introduced in 1999: further evidence (as I discussed here) that it hasn’t had the normative effect it was supposed to have on younger men.

    The 17-year-old’s conviction is interesting for another reason. If Wikipedia (and all the other links I’ve found by Googling) is correct, Sweden’s age of majority is 18, which means that he is legally still a child. There’s nothing unusual about minors being convicted of crimes, of course, but the way that prostitution is conceptualised in Sweden does make this rather remarkable. The ideology underlying the sex purchase ban is that women cannot choose to sell sex; evidently, however, Swedish law considers that male children (at least of a certain age) can choose to buy it. In other words, when it comes to trading sex for money, adult women are less competent than male children. Could there be any clearer illustration of how this law infantilises women?

  13. AgeOfReasonXXI says

    “Hatred against women has no limits.”

    You deduced this from a couple of posters depicting masculine women opening bottles or jars?
    There seems to be a disturbing trend of exaggerations along these lines in you blog posts lately (“feminists gone wild”?)
    You do realize that such paranoid claims discredit anything else of substance you have to say, don’t you?

  14. AgeOfReasonXXI says

    “I am a nut, an extremist.”

    It’s nice to see you admit it 🙂
    But then, few of those who’ve read this post would think otherwise

    “But those ad guys are perfect even-though they think women are unable to open a bottle and a jar, and men from behind have to open those.”

    No, those guys are most likely not perfect, but they don’t seem to be so far out there as you when write crazy articles about prostitutes and rather harmless posters like the ones above. I’m also starting to think that if you’re anything like a representative of the feminist ‘club’, I have to rethink my position on the matter.

      • Gorbachev says


        Does that mean anyone who disagrees with you is a sex trafficker?

        This is wonderfully logical thinking.

        I can give you a dozen websites of actual women who weren’t sex traffickers or even prostitutes who support civil rights and treat women with the respect due to adults.

        And then a dozen more.

        And hundreds more.

        Most of your facts come from bizarre, slightly insane fundamentalists who engage in typical magical-religious thinking about sex.

        You are uninterested in hearing any opinions that disagree with your own. You don’t even want to hear them. You won’t engage anyone about them, you just call them names and dismiss them out of hand. This is not the action of a thinker. It’s the action of a crude ideologue: It’s the action of a religious zealot.

        I don’t know where you pick up this religious-mystical hardline mode of thought, but you might want to consider the spectrum of opinion and evaluate it solely on the basis of reasonable discussion. Slogans and parroting mindless ideology does not suit someone of your stature.

        You know what? Your brand of feminism is not particularly popular among Western women. The vast majority of feminists in western countries do not belittle and shame women the way you do.

        If the only response you have to the legion, literally legion, of feminists who disagree with you is “Those who disagree with me are sex traffickers and misogynists, even if they’re feminist women!”, then perhaps the problem lies with your brand of feminism – if this is what it can be called, because it only barely resembles anything that treats women as adults – and does not lie with those who disagree with you.

        I repeat: I have never paid for sex nor would I. And yet I seem to ascribe more agency and respect to women than you do. I treat them as fully capable, independent human beings responsible for their own decisions.

        If you’re not even interested in hearing out opinions that vary from your own, you’re nothing but a religious bigot in mock feminist clothing.

        I’m speaking about how you think about these issues – not about your perspective or opinions.

        I’ll post some links with information for you to peruse, ALL of it from card-carrying, bona-fide committed feminists.

        I’d like to hear you dismiss them as “sex traffickers”.

        • says

          You do not need to be a sex trafficker to be a misogynist. You can be a men’s rights activist and a misogynist. Or you can be just a lover of patriarchy and a misogynist. Your holy duty is hate strong women and to destroy true feminism. Your non-stop bullies are pathetic.

          • ik says

            Are you even listening to yourself? You just started sounding like a supervillian or something. Or a ludicrous romanticized hero.

        • Deb says

          How do you claim to know what the “vast majority of Western women” think? And what the f is a “bona fide, card carrying feminist”?? I haven’t bothered to read your overly long and clearly unstable posts, but just reading a few lines convinces me that you must a) not be a woman and b) not realize that you have no place in telling a feminist what to think and what not to think. People who call themselves feminist can hold a variety of viewpoints, however, some people who call themselves feminists actually support activities that do not have women’s best interests in mind. You just need to cool down and back off. If you don’t like what you read, instead of getting so incensed, go punch a punching bag or something to relieve yourself of your inner aggression. Don’t take it out here.

  15. S Babu says

    To those of you whining about how it’s not ‘hate’ to portray women in this way — what is it then? Because it is most certainly NOT love and respect to show women in such a degrading and contemptuous light.

    • Gorbachev says

      It’s not hate. It’s objectification. Both men and women regularly, aggressively objectify each other when it comes to sex.

      By the way, there was a time when we put socks on piano legs. Did you not go through the sexual revolution?

      Sex is a commodity. Sexuality is for sale: It always has been, and both male and female sexuality is up for grabs. All things are a marketplace, and there is nothing sacred. This is the culture of the West.

      If it’s sexist, this is an artifact of how the attraction between the sexes works out. Men are extremely visual: what turns them on and turns their heads is simple. Women are similar, but slightly different : women objectify men, however, exactly as much, though perhaps not as aggressive publicly. I’ve sat listening to women discuss men: they’re as crass, filled with contempt and judgmental as men.

      These days, it’s common to see well-built, tall, stylish men in ads, often half – naked. Men are also for sale.

      Perhaps what’s at issue here is the commercialization of all aspects of life. Well, there’s a weird confluence of ideas here: at some point, this discomfort with the sexual revolution and the implications of


      reeks of the Taliban and needing to hide women away from men. Indeed, this urge to protect women from The Male Gaze sounds a lot like fundamentalist Islam.

      Want to balance it out?

      Get some men in swimsuits in big ads. Don’t create a Star Chamber of Judges who mete out requirements for advertisements.

      The very last thing we need in this world is another set of moral nannies telling *anyone* what to do.


      Instead of treating women like simpering weaklings, why not treat them like strong women?

      Instead of teaching them to cower, why not teach them to pick up a weapon?

      Instead of shaming men for looking at half-naked women, why not promote better sexual imagery that shows lots of half-naked men?

      Why not make men feel inferior for not having perfect bodies?

      Why attack freedom?

      Balance it.

      I’m all for teaching women how to defend themselves instead of assuming each woman is a useless moral and emotional weakling subject to the whims of every man who walks by because she’s a simpering moral moron.

      Weakness is contemptible. Women have as much power and as much ability to be strong as men.

      And using words like “hatred” is either deliberately inflammatory and therefore meaningless or deliberately misleading?

      Which one is it?

  16. Gorbachev says

    An excellent blog post chock-a-block full of links debunking everything you need to know about The Swedish Model.


    On the Konskriget documentary and the near-hallucinogenic “feminism” in government circles in Sweden:


    And look it up on Youtube: “Sweden’s Gender War”.

    Its a brilliant, award-winning documentary. You will recognize your own wilfull blindness in it.

  17. Gorbachev says


    This article is an absolutely scathing tear-down of the current “sex trafficking” hysteria. It’s completely lucid.

    Anybody with any self-respect will be embarrassed in ten years that they fell for yet another mindless moral panic. Indeed, many people are saying this now.

    Of course, there are others who latch onto moral panics like this because they have agendas – the religious-like zealots in Sweden among them. They couldn’t care less about prostitutes: their agenda just requires that the public go along with their ideological absurdities without much reflection. (female, feminist) Canadian judges threw out the “experts” who testified at several prostitution-related trials and conferences in the past three years, largely because they found their “research” badly done, not compelling, and often fraudulent.

    Among them, Farley.

  18. Gorbachev says

    Your own Stella Mar is well-known in blogging circles for having a near-hallucinogenic story to tell about prostitution, which might be true but has too many convenient tropes and stereotypes to be quite accurate. The following also excellent blog post talks about what likely motivated her story, as well as many others, from those who describe satanic rituals to aliens to a whole series of experiences.

    Those who imagine vast patriarchal conspiracies where cabals meet in small rooms to plot the subjugation of women almost certainly belong in this class.


    And in case you think clicking on links will contaminate your ideological purity, I’ll cut and paste some of the better bits here.

    There are a number of psychological criteria shared by the majority of those who are unusually susceptible to remembering experiences that did not happen in objective reality (including alien abductions, demonic possession, cultic victimization, etc); research conducted on such people has revealed that they tend to share a majority of the following characteristics:

    * They are easy to hypnotize
    * As children they played in a fantasy world
    * They believed in fairies, guardian angels, etc.
    * As children they had invisible playmates
    * Even as adults they spent a significant part of their time fantasizing
    * They often believe they have psychic abilities
    * Most have had out-of-body experiences
    * They often believe they have healing powers
    * They are subject to hypnagogic experiences
    * They have very vivid dreams
    * They have good memories
    * They receive messages from unknown forces

    Though everyone is susceptible to memory distortion to some degree, those who are so vulnerable that they can be readily convinced that bizarre, unusual, fantastic or even impossible things really did happen to them are called “Fantasy Prone Persons”; they make up roughly 4% of the population. Most FPPs are also extremely sexual; many of them can achieve orgasm through fantasy alone, and their false memories usually have a strong sexual element, often with powerful BDSM overtones. Have you ever wondered why supposed “memories” of witchcraft, Satanic ritual abuse, alien abduction and the like often include sexual elements, especially ones in which the person was raped, subjected to bondage, sexually tortured, mind controlled or “hypnotized”, etc? It’s because they all come from the same shadowy part of the brain, and the identity of the abusers (and other particulars of the false memory) are just window dressing. Studies demonstrate that these details depend on the individuals’ beliefs and associates: traditionally-religious FPPs are likely to believe they’ve been possessed by demons or sexually abused by cultists; those with a strong interest in science fiction or UFOs are likely to identify their imaginary tormentors as aliens; and women with an unhappy history of sex work, or who become too immersed in “sex trafficking” porn, remember lurid experiences of vast pimp networks and over a dozen clients a day, etc.

    Incidentally, bizarre stories of up to a hundred clients in a day are not uncommon among “survivors”. Therapists quietly admit that most of these stories are, and must be, inventions and are false – but must treat them as true, because the “survivor” believes them.

    Privately, they usually admit that many of the actual “facts” recalled by “survivors” are perhaps strongly believed, but largely not real.

    Next time you see one of these “survivor” narratives, compare it to the now-discredited accounts of Satanic ritual abuse and the widely-ridiculed tales of alien medical experiments. Many “survivors” report savage beatings, being shut for days in scorpion-filled sewage barrels or being dragged down the street behind a pimp’s or client’s car,

    This is the most common story – ragged behind a car.

    yet never have any permanent injuries to show for it…just as the McMartin Preschool children bore no scars from anal knife rapes, and alien medical examinations likewise leave no marks. Consider the eerie similarity of “survivor” narratives and their convergence since the beginning of “sex trafficking” hysteria, just as Satanic abuse narratives resemble those from 16th-century witch trials and alien abduction stories converged after the release of Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

    There are lots of psychological studies of this kind of thing, too.

    I guess we’re all Evil Patriarchs trying to colonize the minds of women–

    or something.

    Please try engaging reality rather than ignoring it.

  19. Gorbachev says

    Ms. Nasrin,

    From your appearance on the Free Thought blogs, where skepticism is the order of the day, you have shocked and dismayed a large umber of people. Many are women and feminists.

    From disjointed, thoughtless ideological zealotry on prostitution and porn – reminiscent of the worst bigotry in the 1980’s, largely now discarded by mainstream feminists, thankfully, to cultural warfare that has little resonance in the West, to attempts to blame critics and shame them – instead of ever, ever adressing a single criticism–

    I mean, here on this blog space, there are bloggers who have written clear, concise, extremely well-worded commentary ripping apart your comfortable delusions about a number of subjects.

    You’ve managed to parrot the most delusional, divisive and ridiculous almost-religious ideological beliefs, and appeal to the most emotion-laden responses rather than careful thought.

    Those who support you no locally no longer do so so effusively, and there are several who were elated when you arrived who are now publicly quite disappointed. This is not because you’ve shocked them and shown how they’re beneath contempt, not because you’re just too radical. It’s because you’ve singularly failed to use reason, logic or anything but crass appeals to emotion.

    There are rock-solid criticisms of all of your posts both in the comments and elsewhere in the blogosphere. You refuse to even address one single criticism: Instead, you call people MRAs, pimps, and sex traffickers.

    You exaggerate and pander to the worst radical sensibilities: Because passengers don’t wear helmets often, women are considered cheap. How did you arrive at such a facile conclusion? A child could pick apart this argument.

    Those who support you seem to do so out of some sort of hagiographic impulse. Alas, there are no saints or sacred icons.

    An, of course, I’m nothing but a misogynist MRA.

    Let me spell it out for you:

    I have hired women over men many times. I hire for competence alone, never for gender. I was raised to appreciate women as human beings, not as infantile children and helpless, pathetic victims, which is the only way you see women.

    The women around me are strong, independent human beings with opinions of their own and very potent wills. They move in powerful circles and have no trouble defending their own. I’ve seen women start fights, tear men apart in boardrooms, and humiliate both men and women for their own advancement.

    I was taught from a young age, througout the 70’s and 80’s, that women were the equals of men.

    I both expect and give as much equal treatment as I can. I make myself aware of bias and discrimination, and do what’s necessary to balance the scales.

    This is what feminism was supposed to be about.

    Feminism in your book appears to be about infantilizing and marginalizing women and treating them like the worst sort of simpering, weak, incompetent children. In your world, women are like some sort of weak caricature, incapable of defending themselves.

    Dear God, go to New York or Los Angeles or London and tell me American or British women are under the iron bootheels of relentlessly oppressive men.

    For an atheist, you seem to approach these issues with the ideological purity and blind adherence of a religious zealot. I’m not the only one to have noticed this.

    Your quest to identify sexism in circles in bowls of cereal and to exaggerate social patterns out of all proportion,with conclusions like “Men hate women”, are laughable if they weren’t so disturbing coming from someone with influence.

    I as trying to be charitable and put your lack of perspective and inability to see depth or to parse arguments down to lack of cultural exposure to the West – a charity I tried to make, given the lack of other explanations for your apparent cultural blindness – but for this I was called racist. Of course, I’m not the only commenter to have noticed this profound arrogance and lack of cultural depth in your writing. I’d quote a few choice bits from more erudite and careful writers, but you’ll just ignore them.

    You’re so absolutely self-assured, and yet you have a name for all detractors and a means of dismissing even the lightest criticism. What you seek is not an audience, but an echo chamber.

    Your criticism of issues like pornography and prostitution illustrate a profound dislike of sex, generally; you appear not to have experienced the 1960’s in the West, where women stopped being shamed for their sexuality or for expressing it, or even being manipulated by it.

    Perhaps you would prefer to go back to a time when other people regulated sexuality? Obliged women to wear Burkas so that men didn’t exploit them?

    I’m of the concerted opinion that instead of screaming “Bully! MRA! Sex trafficker!”, you should read some Wendy McElroy or a host of other more rational, less religiously ideological”feminist” writers.

    It’s a ridiculous state when a man demanding that women be held to the same standards, be treated as intellectual equals, and be accorded all of the rights and privileges of being adult humans – including, as a consequence, all of the same responsibilities – is called a misogynist.

    Your politics are the merciless politics of eternal victimhood.

    Women have the power to stand up and assume absolute equality with men, and where it matters, they’re doing it. In my industry, media, my former industry, advertising, and in print: Women dominate where the work, and they represent some of the smartest, best-paid, most motivated and most powerful people there are.

    I am surrounded by them.

    You treat women like pathetic, useless children. I’ve seen the raw, human power of women – and I know that they’re fully the equals of men.

    Apparently, you don’t.

    While your tone of abject powerlessness may be appropriate for a place like South Asia, perhaps you need to spend more time in a large Western city where women are quite literally free to be as great or as awful as they want to be in perhaps the greatest degree ever afforded in Human history – though not yet perfectly – before you make radical, unsubstantiated, transparently ridiculous statements masquerading as free or skeptical thought.

    I may sound harsh. But unlike sycophantic admirers, I have no “saints” – and I’m as willing to call out thoughtless zealotry in the most honored activist, the closest activist and the most important, if such a person engages in indiscriminate trivialization of issues as important as women’s rights.

    beause this is what you’re doing: Trivializing women’s rights for emotional shock value.

    it’s cheap and pathetic. I’m just some guy on the Internet to you.

    But a large number of people very quietly agree with me. I’m just brave enough to tell someone this, someone who most people will politely honor without giving you too much thought.

    Consider that, when things are quiet.

    Some advice from a random guy on the internet:

    Try reading some feminism *OUTSIDE* your comfort zone from time to time. It might show you how to treat women as individuals and as humans with agency, rather than denying them essential respect and treating them as ciphers in an imaginary gender war.

    • Deb says


      You sound like the nut-job here. And from your overly long and dramatic posts, you also seem obsessed with Dr. Nasrin. Maybe at times like these when you are caught up in a flight of ideas, you can kindly check yourself into your local psychiatric hospital for some stabilization.


      a concerned reader.

  20. Navigator says

    I have read the above lengthy comments and all I can say is…
    We can all read feminist comment. How about Andrea Dworkin, who said that the basis of all female subjugation is the sexual act itself. And now that we have sufficiently advanced techologically, we can just do away with sex. Want a child? Get a baster baby!
    I, for one, am not willing to do away with sexual love so easily.
    All Dworkin’s writings mean is that you can have wingnuts on both sides of an issue.
    So yes, anyone can cherry pick any arguement they want.
    I still prefer partners with a brain, and a personality, and all the messy negotiation that goes with a real relationship.
    If you like this picuture, well, just go buy an inflatable and some AstroGlide.

  21. says

    underestimation of women by pigheaded males are funny and ridiculous. not only i can easily open those bottles but if needed i can easily tear those bastards apart.

  22. Plop says

    I’m a bit late to answer but he film on the poster is about sexist womanizers and male infidelity, so I don’t really see the problem here (btw in this movie it’s the male which are treated negatively).

  23. says

    I such as the important facts you offer you inside of your reports.I’ll bookmark your web log and check once more below recurrently.I am quite convinced I’ll master quite a lot of latest stuff best suited below! Superior luck for your subsequent!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *