7000 Years ...of patriarchy. Until the radical era

Citation preview

7000 YEARS ....of patriarchy. Until the radical era by Ioana Petra

Dedication: To all radical feminists since the beginning of the movement until now

PREFACE

I started the  blog 7000 years (“7000 ani” in original) in order to promote an ambitious project: a radical feminist novel, probably the first one in the Romanian literature, a novel that will explore, in an original way, aspects related to morality, sexuality, feelings — in short, about humanity — but also about the Western society and culture, which is dominant today. It was conceived as a  critical view of this culture, a culture with good and bad parts. For this, the parallel with other cultures, traditional ones, eventually cultures with strong matriarchal influence, would have been presented. This project was going to push radical feminism further, not only by bringing new critics to patriarchy, also seen from other angles, but also new radical feminist claims. And last but not least, it wants to start the foundation of a new feminist culture, focused on women, on their desires, as free as possible from patriarchal contamination. Women who must discover themselves, the world, and for this reason they benefit from the freshness of the first steps. This project aimed to create a new side of women, a new side of feminism, a much stronger one, more optimistic, focused on women — not equality, meaning on men, indissolubly linked to patriarchy as an image, at least in the Western culture. One of the purposes of this novel is that the reader (woman or man) to wish to be a woman at the end, but in a world built by women for women. By discovering new sides of women's tragedy in patriarchy, the novel will end in a bright atmosphere, but also a

hard militant one, full of hope and full of new perspectives. The message sent will be: the world can and must be different, the solutions exist, they are possible. Women have the right to real happiness for them, the way they see it and feel it, not only to survival. But most of the times, the road is more interesting than the end of the journey. The same here, the approach was more interesting than the final result. The documentation — both factual (interviews with people, especially with women from other cultures) and theoretical (a lot of books of feminist philosophy, but also sociobiology, politics, history etc) — led to the new ideas that changed the original concept, sometimes radically. Knowledge is the biggest adventure when it's free and you have an affective connection to it. This proved to be true in the process of writing this novel, unfinished yet, but very well outlined. With this blog (7000 years), I tried to address everyday feminist issues, feminist events, and some debates, by writing short articles, as simple as possible, and more full of emotions. I don't know how much I succeeded this, but after the controversies they created, the emotional reactions, not only among men —most of them misogynists, but also women, even some (self)declared feminists,  I think they reached their purpose. The discovery of the extremely though and generalized misogyny was one of my discoveries during this process. I recently found an opportunity to publish a book based on these articles, a quite common phenomenon which started with the new revolution in the editorial world, catalyzed by the new printing technologies, the explosion of the internet etc. This is excellent for my purpose: to promote some new feminist ideas without any rebate from the quality and the boldness of the ideas, in a way as simple as possible for the readers. In order to preserve the continuity with the title of the novel "7000 years. The beautiful face of the West", the possible title of this book would be "7000 years....Until radical feminism", but the final variant is "7000 years....Until the radical era". This sounds optimistic. Fortunately, it seems there were less than 7000 years of patriarchy, about 6000, not that this wasn't enough that women's life and history to be destroyed and they are not easy to be recovered. "7000 years" comes from a replica from the novel that refers more to the practice of agriculture and the colonization of Europe.

"7000 years...of patriarchy. Until radical feminism" is a selection of radical feminism analyzes, most of them original, written as accessible as possible, with as few bibliographic references as possible. The simplicity of the exposure — a challenge for the author who comes from the scientific academic world — shouldn't  have anything to do with the simplicity of the ideas and the conclusions reached by the analyzes stemming  from original biological ideas. I wanted to make this book an exercise of creativity, free thinking, courage. I hope things will also be the same for the readers.

PATRIARCHY-HISTORY AND PRESENT What is patriarchy and why does it exist?

t's a question they are looking for answers for a long time. With this blog, I tried to find an answer as close to reality as possible. And I'm still working at this. I don't think I will ever stop. But at this moment I want to cry "Evrika" again, actually, I want to cry louder than another time. And of course, when you start to better understand the phenomena, you feel you are closer to finding solutions. A new feminist revolution might start soon. Why does patriarchy exist? Does it exist in animals? No. Patriarchy doesn't exist in animals. This would be something absolutely impossible. In animals, the society belongs to females, it forms around the animal family, wich consists in one female and/or more females related one to each other, and their offspring. In the monogamous animals, the long-time partner of the female is also included in the family and their offspring live a period of time around this dominant family and they take care of their younger siblings without reproducing themselves (in some Canidae , for example). But patriarchy has its germs in the animal world. Its germs are found in the relationships we see every day when two dogs meet. There is a confrontation and then a hierarchy is established. Because there is aggression, there is fear. Patriarchy is based on the relationships of dominance and obedience present in animals. Most of the times, this kind of relationships are established separately for each sex. But sometimes they are also established between different sexes. In most species, most of the time, females are sexually unreceptive. Any sexual approach is treated as

I

aggression and the male is abused. When she is in heat, the female adopts what they call submissive postures in order not to scare the males anymore. Submission postures are adopted to reduce aggression. They are adopted by lower-status animals, but also by the higher status animals who want to make friends. They say that apes have in common the fact that males dominate females. This is true. But why is this happening and under which conditions? Most of the primate societies (but not only them) are based on a female core. The animal society is female, starting from insects (from bees and ants to primates). In baboons, for example, who are social animals studied as a model for the primitive hominid societies, the females (cousins, sisters) bring a male into the group (family) who they chase away when they no longer like him. We see male polygamy, but actually it' about a male who is accepted by more females. It's what they afford considering the environmental conditions.  Like lionesses. In humans, it's a known fact that polygynous families appear because of a lack of resources. Maybe the females would bring more males if they could afford this “financially”. Males consume their food, maybe females don't want their access to resources to be affected. Let's see for example the lions, where the females hunt and the male is actually fed by the females. Why do they bring them? Probably in order to defend their family from other males, who would eat their offspring, so the females get in heat again. But in the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ) and bonobo (Pan paniscus ), the females are strangers in the group. Until recently it wasn't known why males bring female chimpanzees into the group. Very likely they do this to improve their social position, I proposed. No matter how a female's social status is, it grows when she is in heat and a friendship between a male and a female with a lower status offers him protection. Probably the signs of fecundity have disappeared for this reason (for example in humans). But who makes primatology studies and puts females first? In social animals, females want a higher status and they would have benefits if they look in heat all the time. Another cause would be the low energy (probably in humans but also in solitary species, like the orangutan). The signs of fecundity are energophagous. The fact is that male chimpanzees are protected by their mothers, this is why female mobility between groups is preferred as Frans de Waal suggests in “Bonobo and the Atheist”. Moving male chimpanzees to other zoos

proved to be very risky to those males, who were violently rejected by the new group. In fact, moving females was advantageous. In such conditions, we can conclude that even in our close relatives there is a kind of matriarchy. In chimpanzees and other apes, females are afraid of males, who often make demonstrations of strength. But they are strangers in the group, isolated from their families. The idea is that females can be mastered only if they are isolated, and then bonobo females unite against the males although they are strangers in the group. They also solve problems through sex. Perhaps this is the reason sex is so prohibited in patriarchal societies so that women can't have any agency. Female sexuality is considered something disgusting, miserable, something that causes repulsion to men. Women's agency, mother's agency, destroys patriarchy. Not by accident the female matriarchal idols were transformed into monsters when the patriarchy was established. What is happening in humans? The problem is that women are afraid of men and men are afraid of each other. Hierarchies are established all the time, like it happens in animals, both between women and between men. But unfortunately, women adopt submissive positions towards men most of the times. This happens exactly because they are afraid of men, they are terrorized by them, many women want men to defend them. Fear causes submission and the acceptance of the leader's role of someone stronger. It's an instinct. This must be "the natural order of things" that many women and men were invoking in the past to explain male dominance. The fear is in someone's genes, it's natural, like aggression. The role of men in a patriarchal society is a protective one. This would be the "social" role of men. I heard women saying they feel safe when there are men in the group, a feeling that is completely stranger to me. The man is not a provider like it is understood from the big ignorance of some sociobiologists, but a scarecrow for other men. Any grandmother from a strongly patriarchal society would tell you this, this was something trivial in the last centuries in our society. He becomes a provider by robbery, exploitation, not by production and intelligence. In primitive societies, they talk clearly about the defense women get from men. They walk with their bare hands to hold weapons, to be ready to intervene, while women walk beside them with burdens.

This situation is known in Papua, described by Jared Diamond in "Why Is Sex Fun?", described by Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma in the interview to Alan Clement written in the book "The voice of hope". Even in our society, in the West, they were talking about the protection offered by men in the past. In fact, this was symbolical. A woman was ignored if she wasn't with a man. The difference between feminists and other women is that feminists don't want protection, they don't need “the social role of men”, they don't even notice it. At least some of them. They feel differently, they don't understand this fear of men or the feeling of authority. But feminists, like other categories of rebels, are probably recruited from the people who have the feeling of authority altered from the beginning and probably also the feeling of fear. This could influence other aspects of the instinctual fear. I know women who overestimate their men's talent, but they actually have more talent. They feel proud of their men, protected by their higher status. The isolation of women is the problem, their lack of solidarity. In the few still existing and isolated matriarchal societies, things are different. But we have archeological, but not only archeological reasons to believe that these societies were more wide-spread in the past and that the Europeans would have lived in this kind of societies sometime, and their cultural traces are also seen today. An interview with Heide Gotner-Abendroth, the founder of the study of matriarchal (matrilineal) societies, who made most of the studies on Mosuo in the southwest of China. Women, tells something about the organization of these societies. Mothers have the dominant social role there. The families are formed around mothers who are passing their status and fortune to their daughters. Men live in their mother's house. Children are educated by the mother's clan, the father figure is the figure of the uncle (the mother's brother). The father is known, but he doesn't count too much socially. These societies are more peaceful. More, it's very possible that the germs of democracy could exist there, at least from some points of view. It was believed that democracy would be a democracy of the fist, which came from military democracy, meaning crowds of men armed who wanted equal rights between them. The balance of treats would have led to democracy, to the vote. But matriarchal societies are negotiating the conflicts all the time, they have a big ability to attenuate them and the social, human qualities are very well outlined. Should we believe that everything good in society came

from there? Zoon politikon would be in fact matriarchal. Philosophy, the general inclination to understand the human nature could also come from there? But let's not forget these societies are small, people know each other, for these reasons the abuses would be fewer. This besides the fact that the strength and aggression, but also the virility associated with them, would not be considered values there. In patriarchal societies, the solution to women's fear of men is the association with a socially powerful man who offers them protection against other men. The first steps for the recognition of the causes of patriarchy would be the acknowledge of women's fear of men. This fear must be deconstructed, then the next step is to search for solutions to counteract it. The fear was very valid in the past and it still is today. Now rebel women are marginalized, impoverished, socially destroyed, but in the past, they were murdered, like it still happens today in strongly patriarchal societies. Patriarchy has developed active ways to counteract women's liberation. We are wondering why women still have a precarious position all these years since the earning of the right to vote, to own property, the access to education. The reason is women don't have yet any structures to sustain them, that their antidote to their fear of patriarchy is a patriarchal solution. The antidote to the terror created by men is still a man or a patriarchal institution (marriage, church, etc). But we will talk about solutions in another article.

Patriarchy through the curious, sincere, and intelligent eyes of a former Muslim woman Islam seems the peak of patriarchy and in this world patriarchy comes in many shapes and forms. But the history of Islam may seem surprising, especially in the west, where it is covered by misunderstanding. Contrary to the western legends, but also the Muslim tradition, Mohammed, the prophet, was a political genius, not a mentally disabled man. The western propaganda, many people believe in, says he was illiterate, retarded, with speech problems. Actually, the Islamic tradition supports his illiteracy (making religious revelation credible), although, according to Tamim Ansary, author of „Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes”, being  illiterate in the VIIth century Mecca would have been

“an achievement”, because learning to write was mandatory for all children, boys and girls. He may have been illiterate (being an orphan may have helped), with speech disabilities, but certainly, a very intelligent person of his time. I don't mean he was a good, empathetic or moral person, although he was touched by the pain of orphans and widows. But I can't stop admiring his vision about society, power, human nature, in fact about long term political power. He united the Arab tribes, that were in a perpetual war one with each other. He succeeded to bring peace among these people, as he promised. Peace was his gift for his kind, Islam means peace. And his project still functions, he still rules over a fifth of the world population. He's the prophetical king who reigned over 1000 years, not Jesus. In fact, the power of Jesus started to fade centuries ago. But Mohammed is still very influential. Why? Because he brought a perfect social project, able to assure its own long term success. In fact, he brought a perfect patriarchal model. Strict authority, hierarchy, control over peoples' activity, minds, and dreams. Long before Hobbs, he knew authority and fear were essential for peace. All for peace and...freedom. He promised freedom, not slavery, to all the tribes he and his adepts defeated, with only one condition: adopting Islam. That time, slavery was the fate of the defeated ones in fights. Genial! The great military success of the beginning of Islam was due to the attraction of the political projects of the Muslim community, not the military force and strategy. Long before communism, he promised the same as communists did, and did almost the same they did. Salvation in Islam is not individual, it depends on the community. Mohammed's projects was another kind of community, conceived as global. But he was more successful. Really successful. I dare to say he was a good tradesman, he used to work for a successful businesswoman, whom he eventually married. He knew the subtleties of human nature, he knew what most people want. Most people want peace, silence, a kind of material and mental security, they have no daring dreams, no bold personalities, no strong internal needs toward exploration and selfdiscovery. In fact, they are eager to trade all of their daring dreams, their dream of real happiness, real selves, for a little material, mental security, and a little peace. In fact, he invented surrogacy for all high human mental functions and needs he deceitfully inhibited. He glorified honor, instead of

real dignity, because honor is one of the five necessities in the life of a person (religion, mind, soul, money, and honor).  The crimes of honor are evidence supporting this statement. He standardized the higher human mental needs and found satisfying solutions for most people. And for those dangerous people, a minority, who want more, his system found a solution: damnation. They were against Islam, and they must be punished. Islam controls every aspect of life, in detail. There is no escape. Everything is in the Quran. Admirable. As for women, they were transformed into machines for reproduction, in fact machines producing boys. Their will and personalities were entirely annihilated. They were transformed into merchandise, sold by their families. Because then and a long time after the most important wealth transfer was marriage, women as a breeder were transferred from one family to another in perfect breeding condition: virgin and obedient (brainwashed). If a family has no good merchandise, it has no honor. It's normal in trade. But it wasn't the same since the beginning. As I already mentioned, women and girls were educated in Mohamed's Mecca, his hometown. They were free, although polygamy was accepted. Even Mohamed's youngest wife, Aisha, was a scholar, who wrote about Islam and organized war. At the beginning of Islam, there were female bards who used to participate in wars and write about the facts they saw. But the situation changed, most likely because of the cultural contamination of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and the Sassanid (successor of the Persian) Empire. But the freedom of women started to decrease since the time of khalif Omar. After a period, at the end of the first millennium AD and the beginning of the second, when science knew a wonderful development in Islam, the progress stopped. Why? Because, science wasn't in agreement with Islam, and the Islamic schools needed social support in order to exist. And Islam was the key to such support. Islam destroyed the scientific, cultural and artistic elites. And then its way to success was free. On the contrary, in the poor, dirty and illiterate West, a few measures against corruption ( clans), able to support elite building, paved the way to the modern science and development, as R.I. Moore says in „The First European Revolution: 9701215”. 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali author and former Dutch politician, is the most sincere, crystal clear writer on this topic. She did a wonderful job, not only for the Muslim women, but for all women, especially the ones living in patriarchal cultures. She helps one understand Islam more than other authors. Because she has passion and sincerity and she is a woman. Reading "The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam", a collection of essays and lectures from 2003–2004, combined with her personal experiences as a translator working for the NMS (as Wikipedia explains), helps women understand more not only about Islam, the human nature, but the situation of women in the West. And the truth is, we, westerners, are living an illusion of freedom and empowerment, but our societies share the same framework with the Islamic ones. In fact, a Georg Captivus Septemcastrensis, a Dominican monk in the Xvth century, a former prisoner in the Ottoman Empire considered the religion of the Turks (Islam) just a sect of Christianity. Instead of being horrified by the situation of women in Islam and naively enjoying our privileges, we should focus on the similarities between the situation of women in Islam and in the West. And for sure, there are more similarities than differences. We are living a big lie. Patriarchy is patriarchy. In Islam, it is perfect. In the west is fuzzy, imperfect, deceitful. But still  patriarchy. And we are confused, and that makes us depressed. I think the entire industry of psychotherapy, politics and social sciences, with few exceptions, helps us struggle to find a way in such a mess, discovering the well-hidden truth. The truth is we are living in an Islam full of illusions. We are living in a kind of patriarchy. This system preceded Islam. In fact, Mohammed didn't invent anything important related to women's oppression (including the veil and the genital mutilation, not mentioned in the Quran), as communists didn't either, but he and his followers adopted the best inventions of their time in order to build a perfect theory of mass control. Women in the West shouldn't be virgin anymore, because their function is in a lesser degree breeding, but providing sex. Western men prefer prostitutes, they are cheaper, as long as marriage doesn't function as wealth transfer anymore. Women don't belong to their fathers anymore, they are freelance prostitutes. I never saw, in any book or article, a clear emphasis on the patriarchal nature of corruption. If we admit Islam is a source of corruption and

economic, scientific, cultural stagnation, why we don't draw the natural conclusion, patriarchy, in any society, leads to corruption and stagnation? Patriarchy is a criminal system, build by criminals, for criminals, based on criminal goals and reasons. It is not meant to lead to development, but robbery and exploitation. It levels people, their behavior, dreams, goals, it destroys real, self-made cultural elites. If we want to progress, we should condemn patriarchy in any form. Our laws must combat it. And the first goal is the real liberation of women. They should build their own structures, institutions, and the patriarchal family should disappear. Any sexual relationship should focus on women's needs. Society will look different, for sure. But destroying patriarchy may be the first and most important aim of this species. The liberation of half of the humankind deserves any efforts. But destroying patriarchy may save the entire species, otherwise condemned to regress, as Islam shows. In the west, people use to believe Muslim will emancipate themselves and Islam will emancipate itself, as Christianity did. In fact, Islam may be a mirror, not only of the past of the West, but of its future, too. Because the factors which destroyed the progress in Islam started to act in the west: leveling people, performances, ideas. When the top performances and schools seek for the acceptance and support of the masses, that will happen. Remember the Islamic schools. And mass media, showbiz, even academia in the West crave for popular acceptance. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, writing about Islam, writes about the West and the entire world.

To deny patriarchy means to deny history It's not a secret to anyone that radical feminists are ridiculed all the time. This mockery doesn't appeal to logic, to arguments, but simply to intimidation. The critiques are not objective, they don't have arguments but they are just cheap jokes meant to discourage "weak women", made from positions of authority. A woman who raises issues is ridiculous, especially when it comes to her own life, her own access to happiness and sometimes even to her personal integrity. Maybe because women's voices are ridiculous when they talk about them, about their lives. Why? It's called patriarchy, meaning a culture that

promotes male force, brutality, male violence, a worship of the phallus. In this system, women are just objects, rewards, they don't have other value. If they had human value, patriarchy - which means the confiscation of female humanity and sexuality- wouldn't exist. So, women are devalued, declined from humanity (a kind of pseudo-speciation, proposed as the cause of killing other humans). Sometimes, women are not considered humans. Literally. If they would be human, they would have their own sexuality, and then men would need to face their own real sexual value, which is very low or even zero most of the times. And then, most men would have no value in this free market of sex. So, the solution is that women are devalued, objectified, sold, forced into prostitution in one or another way, depending on the (patriarchal) culture and the historical period. But the most interesting fact is that there is no other statement of radical feminists more ridiculed than the one regarding patriarchy. I won't quote the many affirmations known as clones by every feminist, especially a radical feminists. The idea is that patriarchy wouldn't exist, that it would be an invention of radical feminists. Discrimination against women? The universal answer is that it's caused by education, the lack of culture, a primitive state of mind. But why this primitive state doesn't act by the adoration of femaleness? A primitive era also means cave art and spirituality. Not to mention that matriarchy precedes patriarchy according to most of the historians. Why doesn't a primitive state bring matriarchal values? Matriarchy is natural, it's found in nature, it exists in most social species, but unfortunately, patriarchy has cut the access (thankfully not definitively) to that society, where our female and male ancestors lived. The demonization of the matriarchal mystics and religions are just a few examples of this. Where are the goddesses from the antiquity, where are the female spiritual representation, where is the women's art, where are the stories with women main characters? Don't women have or ever had their own spirituality? Although ancient history lessons still say otherwise. Everything about women, their culture, their sexuality, their real choices, and desires are demonized in one way or another. A free woman is called a witch, a bitch, etc. If even these aren't good evidence of the existence of patriarchy.... But those who deny the existence of patriarchy don't need historical, sociological, cultural arguments, but they simply know that patriarchy

doesn't exist. Just a revelation. That's enough! This is what patriarchy is based on, lies, it's not based on complicated philosophy and real good logic. I want to ask these gentlemen the next questions: 1. Do you acknowledge that the ISIS phenomenon and the Taliban are typical examples of criminal organizations based on extreme violence, whose main purpose is the subjugation of women, turning them into domestic work and reproduction machines? Do you acknowledge that their speech is strongly patriarchal? 2. Do you acknowledge that these organizations aren't new in history, they exist for thousands of years, and that there was no need for the CIA to create them? And also that Islam didn't create patriarchy, but patriarchy created Islam and other patriarchal religions? 3. Do you acknowledge that this kind of organizations (more or less criminal) are formed spontaneously under certain conditions (the neighborhood gangs, for example) and that this is what happened throughout history when the conditions allowed)? We will talk about these conditions that allowed these gangs to be created in other articles.   4. Do you acknowledge that these gangs, these criminal organizations, had a chance sometimes in history (and took advantage of it) to impose themselves in the most inhabited and easily accessible areas and their rules were made culture, legislation, etc? They have built states throughout history (see ISIS). If you don't agree with this, it means you don't agree with most historians. 5. Do you acknowledge that the same happened in Europe? That our ancestors were victims of this system? The ethnological, historical, linguistic evidence suggests that this was the case. Patriarchy explains why the European languages are related one to each other, most of them belonging to some (one) family languages, related languages are spoken from Atlantic to India. The expansion of agriculture would be another explanation, but this occurred long before in this area, and the formation and the evolution of modern languages close to us suggest the fact that the wars, the empires, the conquests are the most powerful force in this process. And especially the expansion of some patriarchal peoples, who were speaking this type of language. The Indo-Europeans were patriarchal, they were nomadic farmers at least at some point. Although, there  is evidence of matrilineal customs among the them, which suggest a matrilineal past. In fact, according to some scholars, patriarchy  arose in different parts of the

world at different time, starting about six thousand years ago (4000 BCE) in stages. As usually, climatic changes are to blame. 6. If patriarchy had been imposed to our ancestors, then does somebody mentions a revolution which would have been removed it altogether? Did this kind of revolution exist? Besides feminism,  which doesn't speak about the existence of patriarchy, yet? No. So, patriarchy is still there, even if in some cases it's more diluted (they were many social changes that affected some patriarchal traits, but increased the other ones, brought new ones). The rules of ISIS, of the Taliban, of the neighborhood gangs, are still here and women become their victims every day. What can be done? A real revolution to demolish patriarchy, to blame it and send it back to hell.

The Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh - or vice versa Sometimes I thought the greatest literary masterpiece was "Faust" by Goethe. There is so much pain, so much tragedy, so much soul in the tragic fate of a person who is chasing happiness, accomplishment, sells his soul for it, but the ending is not on his side. His fate is heartbreaking, the conclusion is, that, no matter where you go, the passions are killing you and they are leading you anywhere, but not to happiness. Everything, the biggest passions, the biggest desires, the biggest sacrifices, they are just chasing the wind, as a song says. It was logical for me to like Faust because cultural affiliation is often imposed on us, especially when we are very young. Faust is the drama of the modern person, a well-known fact by psychologists and philosophers. It seems that postmodernism has solved this drama by giving up any passion, any strong value, any powerful dream, even any clear idea. We are floating, we are emotionally and mentally subsisting, and we are avoiding Faust's tragedy this way. But my favorite literary work of art from some time is the epic of Gilgamesh. It has everything, history, sociology, dreams, even science. And it's not about modern people. As we know, the Jews lived near the great civilizations of the Middle East. Some of them were speaking Semitic

languages, like them, or languages of unknown origin, like the Sumerians. People living at the periphery of ancient civilizations are sometimes the only ones who are telling stories about the greatness of some ancient times. It seems this has happened to the Jews, in the same way, that our Western world is influenced by the rise and the fall of the Persian Empire, where there were the Greeks who were living, as shepherds, tradesmen, and even pirates. Many of the stories in the Bible have their origin in older stories from the area which now belongs to Iraq - Mesopotamia, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates, the cradle of Western civilization. The discovery of the tables from Uruk, where the epic of Gilgamesh was written was an archeological event. There was at least one king with this name in Uruk. But the story says a lot about the world from those times, about what will follow and especially about human nature. Although libraries have been written about the interpretation of the stories in the Bible, especially about the myth of the genesis, the comparison with the epic of Gilgamesh is less valued. The sources of inspirations of the biblical Genesis, but not only this, could be found in this story, which could also have been inspired by other stories. In short, the story begins with a young spoiled king whose abuses have annoyed the gods, who wanted to tame him. The friendship seemed for them the best solution. It seems that the gods were good psychologists and they knew exactly the point. What does a person need? Recognition, understanding and human approach. The frustrations which come from the lack of this human need - well described by Tzvetan Todorov in "The common life"  lead to aberrant behavior. Only if the anti-terrorism experts who find radicalization in any personal problem, that can be classified at this category - would find out that lack of recognition of the immigrants and their descendants is just human.   In order to tame Gilgamesh, the gods made a giant out of clay who came to live in the forest without having to speak and behave like a person. The Bible has been criticized for many inaccuracies. First of all, although the only people in the world were Adam and Eve, at a certain time other people, with whom their children were coupled, appeared in the world. There were probably other people in the world, but Adam and Eve were a divine experiment, just like the giant Enkidu was an experiment of gods. Only that the giant built out clay who was totally wild, rude, didn't need a

woman created from his rib, but a chosen woman who brought him into civilization. This woman wasn't deceived by any biological snake, but from a social snake, meaning a merchant. Because the giant was causing damage, the merchant went to the temple (the place of the courtesans) and found a courtesan there whom she paid to tame the giant. Sex was sacred then, and the courtesans were making sacred sex through temples and they had a privileged status. The courtesans were beautiful and smart women, who were described in ancient Greece then, women who could afford financial independence in the early days of patriarchy, when women hadn't lost the spiritual dimension yet when they weren't completely devalued. “The daughter of pleasure”, as the merchant calls her, arrives in the forest, benefits from sex parties unimaginable for ordinary women ( it was a giant out of clay, not an ordinary man) and then she exhausts him sexually even if the marathon “only” lasts 6 days. The giant is turned into a person capable of living in the civilization by the courtesan. She drags him from the wild and he will come to regret this before he dies, after a lot of adventures. I don't know if anybody else has found in Eve the biblical figure of the courtesan of Gilgamesh. Besides the story of the flood also present in the Epic of Gilgamesh, there could also be the story of the apple, more exactly, the original one. The smart and intelligent courtesan teaches Endiku to talk, to drink beer with a straw, to eat like a person. She civilizes him, she drags him away from the wild, she kills his innocence with the sexual initiation. Although feminists talk a lot about women's fear of rape, I heard few feminists, except Andrea Dworkin, talking about men's fear of women. Although men's fear of women who would sexually exhaust them, who sometimes turn into cats (or vice versa) is a constant from the cave paintings to some rituals in different cultures . The story of Eve can be the story of civilization created by women, who dragged men away from innocence and freedom, from the wild. Women who discovered agriculture (clearly by accident, because they were gatherer, as Jared Diamond describes in "Germs, Guns, and Steel") probably they invented the language too, a long time ago. They educate men, they instruct them, they drag them from the wild every time as their mothers, but not only. They carry the requirements of the civilizations, of living in a society. Aren't there enough reasons from misogyny? Women are horrible because they created civilization, they take men away from nature,

they do this all the time, every day, every man is snatched from nature by his mother, then by other women. Education is pulling from nature. It's interesting how many philosophers and psychologists starting with Jung, but also before, talked about the dark side of ourselves, about the things we would do if society, civilization wouldn't stop us. When I first read about the vision of Greeks about laws as something that stop people from doing evil things, because without them there would be only abuse, I felt outraged. Because I don't feel like I need laws or regulations to teach me what to do, except for special situations, like driving, paying taxes, but I wouldn't do any harm with or without laws. Maybe women think this way. May women have a shadow? Do they need to learn the difference between right and wrong or they feel it? As an Indian proverb says quoted by Amita Bosh in her book,  men need to learn, they need school, women are intelligent by nature. Women know what is right and what is wrong, they feel this, they don't need to be stopped by laws or by fear, but their own conscience. They are not wild, they carry the seeds of civilization in them, as a potential. Women have consciousness, they don't develop it, they eventually develop it in men. If the courtesan, the woman of civilization from the epic of Gilgamesh is smart and intelligent, she educates, in the myth of Genesis, Eve is actually seduced by the serpent, her act is an act of corruption. The misogyny of the worsening patriarchy - especially in some illiterate shepherds - which was preparing the spiritual rupture of women by the patriarchal monotheistic religions, already provides a devaluing description of women. So, their civilizing act is rewarded by the same curse. Only that, the curse of the courtesan cast by Enkidu is different from the curse of Eve cast by the patriarchal monotheistic divinity, it is as different as from heaven to earth, as they say. It's in line with the views about women in different places and at different times. Eve is a corrupt, miserable being and her curse is physical, it refers to her unique role, not as a teacher, not as a woman with her own sex life and desires, but as a mother. She will give birth in pain, she will chase the man being attracted to him, and he will rule over her. You get sick only when you think how women are viewed in patriarchy, how low is their status, how deprived of humanity, of options, they are. The curse of Eve shows the status of women in patriarchy, the true human decline that the civilizing woman suffered. On the other hand, the curse of the courtesan looks

completely different. She is cursed to lose very painfully as a woman with free sexuality, with an agency, with dreams, with feelings. And her loss is even more painful, as she is not being degraded, she is beautiful, intelligent, a woman who can arouse passions, feelings, but especially who can feel them, but she is rejected and she doesn't have access to the men she wants. The courtesan is cursed to be unhappy in love, men whom she wants not to respond to her. It's the biggest ordeal, although a luxury one, even harder than the labor pains. This time Enkidu proved to be a good psychologist. The courtesan is hurt in her human recognition, in her individuality. Because she is a free human being who makes choices, who has dreams and feelings. Not a woman who gives birth, who must pay with obedience for her sexuality, like Eve. She is a woman who theoretically has a choice, but she must miss the luck. When gods argue with Enkidu for his curse, reminding him how much the courtesan taught him, he changes the curse in her favor. He wants all men to leave their wives for her, even if they became mothers seven times. Human sexuality, especially female sexuality is as free as it can be in the epic of Gilgamesh, I wouldn't say modern because women are not so free nowadays. Gilgamesh refuses a goddess because he was afraid she would behave toward him the same way she behaved toward other lovers before him, she abandoned them or even worse. The epic even describes a romantic relationship, but only the dreams everybody has, especially women. Rosalind Miles talks about the sexual sophistication women had in the era, benefiting from oral sex, in "Who Cooked the Last Supper? The Women's History of the World." People from those times knew and understood more than most of the nowadays sociobiologists about human sexuality, about women. This means they were telling the truth, not patriarchal stories. The intelligence of women was very appreciated. There is an innkeeper (a businesswoman), who was walking covered with a veil (an old habit in the area, appropriated by Islam) who is providing some important information. Gilgamesh's mother, a goddess was called "all-knowing". Let's not forget that the goddess of wisdom at Greeks was Athena, who came from the head of Zeus. The intelligence was female in Latin languages, intelligence is represented by feminine words. It's interesting that in ancient Egypt we can find a representation of the Genesis with the heaven-goddess and the earth-god (in the book of Leo

Frobenius "The culture of Africa"), something that suggests intellectual and moral superiority seen by the ancient people until patriarchy took over everything. The mundane, telluric image of women, linked to the natural is more recent, is imposed by patriarchy. We have a lot of work to do to recover the female culture, the female spirituality, the female transcendence. The epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient masterpiece. It tells about the beginning of patriarchy when the traces of matriarchy were still obvious. Men have military power and courage, that's all, besides this they are some savages whom women have civilized and gods try to make them better. On the other hand, women are intelligent, smart, with dreams and desires, sexually free. Matriarchal sophistication, but also matriarchal spirituality can still be seen in society. How it was to live in a world where there were goddesses, where sex for pleasure is sacred even in the temple (or especially there), where giving birth and obedience are not the only virtues of a woman? "Virtue" comes from "man" in Latin, damn it! How bad we became? Western civilization comes from a place where people were dreaming about immortality, about free feelings and passion, they needed friendship and adventures. Just like now, only then people weren't ashamed to say it.

Patriarchy is even where we don't see it One of the most stupid questions is "Why are you a feminist?" Well, you can't accept human rights, social justice - whatever this means to you without being a feminist. It doesn't have to had been happened something to you. Feminism is not some fashion. If you want to compromise yourself, to damage your image, show feminism directly, without limits, without hiding yourself. And you are kidding yourself. People ridicule feminists. It doesn't matter how much suffering women faced and they still face, how much injustice. Feminism is ridiculous. Now I hear about the "excesses" o feminism, of people who give up feminism ashamed of these "excesses", of people who clearly dissociate themselves from the "excesses" of "extremist" feminism. But patriarchy is not something extremist? If "extremist" feminism is on the Internet, on forums, patriarchy is everywhere. We see patriarchy in every day of our lives. Another stupid question is: "How did you become a feminist?". Well, it's easy, by noticing and thinking. I don't have to have been raped in my

childhood, then trafficked as a teenager, entered the world of prostitution and pornography, had an abusive partner, have been raped in a relationship, have been discriminated at work. None of these happened to me, but even so, I have a lot of reasons to be feminist, even so, I have enormously many reasons to see that patriarchy destroys my everyday life. Even the slightest shadow of gender roles express patriarchy . I have talked on other occasions about how big is the role that sociobiology has in this crime disguised as science.  But anything divided on sexes, when it's not pure physiology and anatomy, it's a crime. Any limitations of somebody's actions, preferences, dreams because they belong to one sex is a tragedy. I recently learned about the tragedy of a man who was born a woman in a family with many sons, but who didn't stop yet, they still wanted a son. This person wanted to be a man, she underwent a sex-change surgery. She could not take it anymore and she wanted to die. Still, nobody talked about the real moral author of this tragedy: patriarchy. This woman was killed by the patriarchal prejudices, by the guilt of being a woman. I would also add here a critique of some radical feminists, but purely philosophical, nothing would make me give up feminism. Transsexuals are attacked from all sides, but they are the victims of patriarchy, of gender roles. They should not be blamed, neither sensitive men who are also crushed by patriarchy. The first victims of patriarchy are women, but we all are victims more or less. Men, if they are not very strong and personal so they can confirm the prejudices, or very rude and ignorant, they cannot feel good either. Many people talk about abused, discriminated, raped, trafficked women not as much as it should, but they still talk - but nobody talks about the way patriarchy destroys the lives of strong, educated women, but  also the lives of men who can't tolerate well patriarchy, they don't fit in the image of the ideal man. They don't have to take everything from you, including personal integrity, any chance of success, to be destroyed by a system.  It's enough that your chances of happiness to be ruined. And that's what patriarchy does. Because it's not enough that a person sets herself free - although this is very difficult - it is necessary that all or most of the people whom they interact with to liberate themselves too. It's useless if you don't have prejudice, you want to live a dignified life, if people around you - employers, family, friends - think differently. It's hard to be happy in patriarchy, when you often don't even know what to do for

this. Let's just think about how many obstacles women face when it comes to happiness. Well, if we admit that sex is the most important source of happiness (not family, children, etc) and that it's harder for women to reach sexual fulfillment and the society doesn't take this problem seriously, we can see clearly what chances of happiness a woman has. Men don't invest in their sexual value, at least not as much as women do (for justice, they should invest more, because women are more demanding) and most relationships are, in fact, just for survival ( for resources and social mimetism).  For a free, self-sufficient woman who only looks for sexual fulfillment and emotional fulfillment in a man, things are very bad, because her options are very few in a world where men invest less in their sexual value. This could change, as history shows. In ancient Greece, it was shocking that men looked better than women, for the simple reason they were investing more in their image, even if homosexuality was to blame. But let's not lie to ourselves, women want charming, sexy men, not something "a little more beautiful than hell". Otherwise, they have a headache all the time and they are not happy. I was always wondering what women who have relationships with ugly men feel, how they can have sex with them. Simple, they are disgusted or they don't do it. Or they do it thinking about money. Horrible, anyway. Now, I'm not saying that all people must be beautiful. It's a real problem the fact that mass-media is promoting a dumb, unexpressive, exaggerated beauty, so it makes you feel like you are in a porn movie all the time. The human charm is subtle, and this is something good. The movies from decades ago were still promoting actors - women and men - who didn't look necessarily good, but they were expressive, interesting. This is what I mean. That's just one aspect. Another one is the fact that you have to eliminate some traces of patriarchy in any heterosexual or even homosexual relationship, which is something terrible. The image of the man as a provider is absolutely suffocating for many men, and limiting for women, who are often prevented to have relationships with men who earn less than them, have less social success than them. They are prevented by the partners themselves who feel frustrated. I think feminism should pay more attention to these issues and offer real solutions. We need new models, technical solutions, perhaps even communities to promote other values, feminist values. Indeed, victimization is not a solution, but the real power. I

think the world would be better in feminism, but too little is done for this. I want to see campaigns for the right to sexual fulfillment for women, to see that "the man a little prettier than hell" is not so accepted if he has money or success, to see successful women who managed on their own being promoted, women who managed to be truly happy as they want, not as patriarchy allows them.

The last phase of patriarchy – men's paradise. What can be done to avoid the sexual and emotional abuse from today's world? If someone would do to other ethnic groups what men do to women just because they are women, it would be considered a crime. Women wear the Star of David all the times - which means they are beings who can be abused because they lack strength and support. The modern era of the sexual revolution has, in fact, liberated men from the patriarchal constraints that assumed that, in order to be the superior sex, they also had some obligations. Those obligations were related to the care for the physical protection  (at least outside the house) and the material protection of the woman they were having sex with. Now they have all the possible privileges and their obligations are more and more negligible. They can have as much sex as they want without obligations or with minimum obligations, without offering anything to the woman or offering her money (few compared to the risk she is subjected too) if she is a prostitute. Men's Paradise is now in the Western World, not in matriarchy, where men have no obligations to the women they have sex with, but these women are very free, they have their own fortune in their mother's house, they have self-determination, peace, they are not afraid of domestic violence, they are not dependent on men. Then, in patriarchy, men own a woman (at least one), but they also have obligations to her and especially to her family. Even so, there is a control of their behavior. Even Mohammed was regulating the beating of women. More, all material and social privileges come together with some obligations, meaning they are at least born under the specter of war, of duty to defend their family and territory, to participate more or less to city's life, to obey to some hierarchies and to have a certain

behavior. Moreover, they are often forced to perform hard tasks, patriarchy actually puts men to work, to some dangerous tasks. Now there is a patriarchy in its last stage. Men do whatever they want, the masculine aura gives them social force, power, resources, but they are no longer subject to risks and they don't have obligations to women and their families either. They are freer and happier than ever. But, of course, this comes to the detriment of women, who are limited like in patriarchy, chosen like in patriarchy, they have to meet inhuman conditions to have sex (to be accepted by men) including some that defy their biology (such as the obsession to be thin), but they also must work  and be very responsible like in matriarchy. So women have thus rewards from patriarchy, but duties both from matriarchy and patriarchy. It sounds horrible. Unfortunately, feminism does not really talk about these problems too much. A real liberation of women does not exist, there is just a liberation of men, which has its side effects the pretended liberation of women. But they are thrown into the lion's pit economically, but also socially, emotionally and sexually. Most of the times, they don't even have the poor protection that classical patriarchy was offering them. The material protection they have simply come from the chance to be exploited by capitalism, from the poor rewards this system offers to people who work. Maybe capitalists have done much more for women - while pursuing their own interests - than any other system with the so-called concern for the underprivileged, as some experts claim. You can't just declare equality and then throw some children into the world and say that women are free, they should handle it. It's not like that. I certainly don't want to return to the classic patriarchy, to marriage, where the woman was given by her father to another man, to the family choosing her husband, to abstinence before marriage, to negotiating sex with men, to selling it in a way or another. On the contrary, I want even more agency for women, but more safety. For this reason, social, economic, but especially romantic and sexual contacts with men must be controlled. Not in the sense of controlling the woman, but controlling the man. Not every man should be allowed to interact with women freely, just because he is a man. It's heresy for me to say this now when transsexuals want to invade even women's lockers and restrooms. But men must be controlled before interacting with women, they must have a certain standard of knowledge, a training regarding women's need,

women's problems, but also some emotional availability. Even when it's just about sex, women should check men and certain institutions should exist for this. Women's needs must be explored and satisfied in a completely safe manner. We'll talk about feminist politeness in another section. But this is not enough. Women should not be considered objects to satisfy men's needs, but women's needs should be a priority. It's not enough for women to find their place in the men's world, but they have to change it in their own interest. Agencies to recruit (to check) men for sex, to check and educate men for possible romantic relationships, should be founded. Of course, this is needed when women don't choose the most recommended option for romantic relationships: lesbianism. Women must have a real sexual and romantic agency. But for this to happen, women need material and social security first, they need women's solidarity that offers them jobs, they need the satisfaction of their primary needs, so they can now move on to the other needs in Maslow's pyramid . Now, women are not really sexually and romantically active because of their basic needs - safety and survival - are not really satisfied. One of the biggest nonsense said by socio-biologists is about men's higher interest in women's beauty and women's higher interest in men's resources. Women have higher standards of men's beauty, they are more demanding, but also very sensitive to beauty. But they can't afford this luxury because, most of the times, they have to satisfy their basic needs of survival and safety. The satisfaction of these needs is not sexy, erotic, but it's all they can afford. Now, women not only risk being raped, beaten, murdered, but especially exploited financially by their male partners, and a woman's sex life and romantic life is inherently subjected to major risks. In order to have access to sex and to a romantic relationship, a woman must deny her nature, be passive, mutilate herself in one way or another (losing weight, wearing high heels), wear uncomfortable clothes, she isn't allowed to be herself. But even so, she still has the major risk of being underrated because she is a woman, subjected to emotional abuse, treated like an erotic object, without concern for her dignity and feelings. The solution is that many women declare themselves real agents, real beneficiaries of the services that men offer, so they should make choices, they should put conditions, they should be selective. Thus, institutions that would govern the interactions of women with men in women's interest and created by women, should be founded.

GENDER VS. SEX Lesbians - the real women

hird wave feminism has distorted feminism. It broke it into pieces that no longer have any connection with the initial goal of feminism, women's liberation. In fact, the new wave, as there have been said before, have reinforced the status quo in subtle and perverse ways. Pornography, the sexual using of women by men without any problems of conscience, became moral under the pretext of women's liberation. Even the idea of a woman means nothing anymore since transsexual men who dream themselves as women can claim they are women just because they want to be women. As if being a woman was just a dream, a role. Can you claim yourself to be transmillionaire, trans white or trans-European citizen? No, because you would have problems with the law if you did this. Those transsexuals are victims of patriarchy, of gender roles. They represent a legacy of the cultural influence of gender...Another proof of how important culture is in inventing people's needs. The patriarchal society, in all its forms, denies the nature of women, it turns them into dolls to satisfy the tastes of men, not human beings who can live to search for their own happiness, to fulfill their own desires. I once saw a comment online, related to the role of women: "They are made to give us birth, to raise us, to take care of us". What? Are women not made for the search of their own happiness? Are they made for others? I also remember the passage from "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville about how the Americans from the first half of the nineteenth century saw women's equality. Here, the raising of young women equal to men, educated the same in their families of origin, was praised. But

T

everything was changing when they were getting married. The author even used the expression "the toil of matrimony", meaning the slavery, suffering and the effort of marriage. Under the pretext of their responsibility and the importance of their activity, they were working very hard, they were taking chances, but they had no rewards. They had no political rights, they were even praised for not demanding equality like the European women, for not wanting to own properties and especially because they didn't ask for pampering. The author emphasized that in Europe some women are pampered and their men don't see them as equals, while the responsible American women were praised for this and considered "equals", although the bosses were still men even in the households.  Sure, the chastity of the married women was also praised as if it was a social value. The personal tragedies of the prostitutes didn't matter, as long as the social order was maintained. This was written in a book that talked about democracy and freedom...Still, the loss of the American men compared to the European men was the fact that women, who were so strong and active, were not ready to please them anymore. From any point of view, women were valued only by their economic importance in a men's world. Like a resource. Unfortunately, things are not much different now. Yet, there is still a hope in this world where feminism belongs to the past. Lesbians. Once at the forefront of the feminist movement, they may still be a hope. Of course, the last wave of feminism also distorted lesbians and their culture. Now "lesbianism" only refers to sex, to sexual orientation  (a notion that comes from scientific research and has the origin in a questionnaire, without knowing its real coverage), as Ann Fausto Sterling states. Now lesbians, at least in Europe, but not only here, are often confused, many of them consider themselves queer, meaning unclear regarding their sexual preferences. They are also very tolerant about transsexualism and they accept their inclusion in the LGBT movement. In other words, they adhere to the usual propaganda, including to the biological one, about "brain sex", which is supported by little information. But it wasn't the same in the '70s. Lesbians from some countries like the USA, but especially Australia and New Zeeland, where there are large communities of lesbians, who are often affiliated with radical feminism, have a totally different culture. But something essential about them is the fact that they are the real women. They are the most honest women, they

say what they want from life, from a relationship, they are not what men want. They really are "liberated from patriarchy" or at least they are trying to be. They want passion, deep feelings, they don't accept the disconnection between feelings and sex, that not only men, but also women accept in patriarchy. Actually, most women's sex life would be impossible without that disconnection. When you read the book written by some lesbians, who are radical feminists and butch, you feel a deep touch of female identity. Me, at least, I found myself in their ideas, in their feelings. Their demands have crossed my mind when I was a teenager. I wanted exactly what they wanted and deep down my soul, I still want what they want. But life has separated me from those desires, which were considered impossible or difficult to reach. They want to be free, to love freely, to look and to behave comfortably. Butch women are sensitive beings who often have deep and passionate relationships, strongly reject "feminity", the female role. They never had relationships with men, they were always lesbians, they have never accepted the female role with what Andreea Dworkin called the "heterosexual corvee". So, they don't use any makeup, they dress comfortably, without high heels and other instruments of torture. About 5% of lesbians are butch, but they are often oppressed by other lesbians who internalize the patriarchal values and they objectify butches. Butches, who hate to be identified with men, just want to be free, they don't want to look like men, they don't play roles, this is what they actually hate. Lesbians, especially butch, want and they are ready to offer passion in relationships, not sex, sexual torture, sadomasochism. Lesbians engage quickly in a relationship and their relationships last for a long time. This is what most women want, don't they? Free, passionate relationships that are evolving quickly? This is what we lack from heterosexual relationships, don't we? As I have said many times before, the price of heterosexual relationships is women's freedom, dignity, and identity. Most of the times, you don't have any chance in a heterosexual relationship if you don't deny, hide your feelings, at least at the beginning. All women should separate themselves from the patriarchal values, they should analyze them, understand them. Nothing of what female sexuality means doesn't match with patriarchy, with the relationships where female monogamy is imposed against women. Women get into patriarchal relationships most of the times because they don't know the alternative,

because of the social pressure, or for some privileges. But, as lesbians say and heterosexual women should agree too, most of the heterosexual relationships are boring, dull and without passion. This is the best case when they are not downright abusive. Unfortunately, men control the resources, and women don't have anything to do but sell their lives for survival. A change should be made here. Women are not anything that they appear to be in patriarchy. They have to discover themselves, lesbians are the first step. But only the first. If we want a heterosexual relationship, it must resemble a relationship between two women, especially butch, but with a man involved in it. If possible....But women should have choices. What has the last wave of feminism done? It has liberated...men. White, heterosexual, Western men. They got much more from women and they gave back much less. Women couldn't negotiate anything, not even sex. As I said before, the situation of women in the West is worse than the situation of women in Islam from some points of view. Sometimes I think about the institutions that existed in the past and offered women some kind of protection. Maybe men who wish to enter women's lives need a recommendation. The fathers' institution, which is at the origin of arranged marriages, should be replaced by the institution of girlfriends. To be welcomed into free women communities and to have access to sex and affection from women, men should enter there by recommendation. The risks for women would decrease a lot. On the other hand, men's concern for romance disappeared completely. Although perhaps it is was rare in the past, it existed. It was a form of care and interest about female sexuality and affectivity. Maybe women, from a certain point of view, expressed themselves more than now. Of course, I totally reject the submissive role, the chastity and the interdiction to initiate relationships. In some countries, like Russia, gay propaganda is punishable by imprisonment. If I made propaganda for lesbianism there I would probably go to jail. However, I think the ideal relationships for a woman is between two butches. A man should give a woman what a butch can give her in order to have a relationship with her. Anything else is toxic.

What it means to be a man

In most cultures, male sex is considered the norm from the beginning. The woman is a particular state of humanity when she is considered human in all her functions. People are called "men and women" not "women and men", although in almost any group - when selective abortion or selective infanticide techniques are not used - women are the majority. This is not because normally more women are born - in reality, fewer women are born even without these criminal inventions - but because women live longer. In humans, women are the basic sex, they are biologically better built, more reliable on the long-term. Females live longer in almost any other mammals too, like rat females, mice females and other primates, where the difference in longevity between the sexes, expressed in percent, is even higher. In the groups of primates, as they get older, you will find almost exclusively females. Considering the fact that female sex is considered the basic sex in humans (female development is constitutive, for the male development additional factors are needed) why do we relate to men? Because of patriarchy, in which only men exist, women exist only in terms of their utility in the world of men. Women are what men want and feel, not what they feel they are. This cultural aberration is shown very well in the ugliness of the trans cult. This is, in fact, a modern adaptation of patriarchy. Gender is there, sex doesn't matter anymore. Women are something shameful, they should be erased. But the female gender role can be adopted by anyone. I have nothing against transsexuals, they can manifest themselves freely, they can enjoy life, have relationships, have consensual sex with whom they want, but they cannot be women. Being a woman means more than the female role in patriarchy. And women are not what men think and want them to be. This time I will make a cultural exception, I will describe men in terms of a woman, relating to women, to what they feel, to what they want. How does a woman see the fact of being a man? How is it to be a man in the eyes of a woman? I hope these exceptions will become more frequent and a female cultural model (or more of them) to be imposed in society (in different societies). Fist, what is sex? How does it appear in evolution? It's a known fact that bacteria are asexual. But the notion of "male bacteria" exists. It's about the bacteria that donates to another bacterium a fragment of DNA. The one who donates is considered "male", the one who receives is considered "female". The bacteria do this all the time, they "donate" small pieces of DNA in the

environment that confers them resistance to antibiotics, the ability to metabolize certain substance, etc. Very generous! But if two bacteria come close to each other and one of them donates  a large fragment of a bacterial chromosome to the other, the donor is called " male". A similar phenomenon happens in Paramecium , protozoa. Genetic material is donated from one to another by conjugation. Here the donor is also "male". If we assimilate this phenomenon with sex or with its ancestor, we can say that sex would come from the transmission of genetic material horizontally. Who is the "male" bacterium? A bacterium that was itself exposed to certain environmental factors. An experienced, adventurous, generous bacteria who has the key to solve certain problems and offer answers to other ones. Then that should be the female and the other one the male. At least in terms of mammals.  Females have more genetic material. The Y chromosome - extremely small  - has very few active genes only during the embryonic period. It's true that one of the two X chromosomes is activated in females too, but apparently not the same in every cell. If one has a defective gene, the other one is functioning, this is the reason the illness whose genes are coded by the X chromosome is not so severe in females. Being female means more, meaning more information. But returning to the history of the evolution of sex, we can find simple animals who are, most of the times, asexual, they reproduce asexually. In more special, precarious conditions, they reproduce sexually. Of course, individuals are hermaphrodites. Let's see for example the freshwater Hydra , a being as primitive as regenerable and longevous. This is the almost a microscopic creature which has that amusing oral-anal orifice. When the Hydra lacks resources, it reproduces sexually. When it is "happy", it reproduces asexually. This could tell us what sex really is, how it appeared. Sexualization,  like cell specialization, biochemically comes from a lack of resources. On the other hand, the sexualization and the exchange of genetic material described in bacteria and Paramecium - which are unicellular beings, but classified as animals - have something in common. The information exchange is actually the same response to the crisis, through which more experienced beings give their excess of biochemical "wisdom" to others. Eventually, the same excess of genetic material - which encodes something about the environmental crisis - or the protein excess (which is somehow encoded by this genetic material, as it appears in specialized cells) would be about the

same answer. Sex is an exchange of genetic material and cellular specialization that is also transmitted to others, not just to you. It's something generous. Who says nature is selfish when bacteria give us so much trouble with their "generosity"? And so much help... But what are males in this equation? Let's move on to the Caenorhabditis elegans worm, the actual guinea pig of genetics. This microscopic worm (often interesting things are not seen directly) is hermaphrodite, like everyone at its stage. The difference is there are two sexes of this species: hermaphrodites (XX) and males (XO). This kind of sexualization is called androdioecy and it's very common in plants and animals. In animals, it is an order of magnitude more prevalent than gynodioecy,  where there are females and hermaphrodites. The plants are different. The transition from hermaphroditism (and vice versa) to dioecy (different sexes at different individuals from the same species) happens many times in animals. But the transition to androdioecy is more common in animals than plants. And more often,  when the transition from androdioecy to hermaphroditism occurs it's about androdioecy, meaning the hermaphrodites replace the females and they coexist with males. Similarly, when the transition to dioecy occurs in hermaphrodite species, it's also about androdioecy  In other words, in animals, the male sex is more often only male, while hermaphroditism is tied to the female sex. As you can see, even in worms, males have less genetic material. Even in humans, what we call “true hermaphrodites” are genetically females in fact. Males are a lack, an exaggeration of some functions in the detriment of others. In species like Caenorhabditis elegans , males are very few, most of the individuals are hermaphrodite. Perhaps, some individuals lose a lot of genetic material. They are some rare mutants. A study published in 2015 in Nature seemed to confirm the current prejudice (very simplistic and very primitive) about sex. In  Caenorhabditis , male worms would prefer sex to food. In an environment with salinity, that indicates the lack of food, male worms would stay, while hermaphrodites would leave it, if there is the possibility of sex. Sex beats food in males, but not in hermaphrodites. We don't know how pleasant sex is in worms, neither much about their "social" life. But we are often told about the huge amygdala of the male mammals (humans), which would indicate their great inclination for sex. But the amygdala's primary functions are related to emotions (fear). A large amygdala would indicate a permanent terror, a great alertness to

environmental factors. And this seems to be very visible. Men always seem more interested in the environment, in the potential dangers. A study shows that men instinctively evaluate - even on the streets - the potential dangers which came mostly from other men, they quickly measure their strength with them. They are paying attention to taller and stronger men. How would this look like in women? How would it be if women instinctively compared themselves on the street with tall, corpulent and strong women? I don't think somebody does this and those women are not most feared in normal conditions. Why does this happen? As we can see in bees, but then in other species too, including most of the mammals, males are chased away from the group. In bees, males also have less genetic material (XO). Why does this happen? Maybe because they don't have another role than the reproduction one, and by chasing them away the consumption of resources is avoided. Society belongs to females and their offspring, if parental care exists. Chased away, probably in an area with few resources, they fight among them for resources, but also for mating, which often means for them an entry ticket to society, even if it's for a short time, or their only reason to live. The obsession of sociobiology with the genes, with their survival, their transmission, is, in fact, the obsession of some patriarchal men not only to have children (meaning to own children, something that gave them a high status in the past), but also the obsession of reproduction, as the only reason to exist.  But it can be deeper than that. Maleness is parasitic in essence. As the androgenetic sex determinism suggests, males have the capacity of displacing female genetic material, producing only male clones, as in some shellfish. Fortunately, this phenomenon is very rare in nature (but present in some highly invasive species including ants and freshwater clams), but in fact is shows the reason of maleness.  This strategy seems very successful for a short time, but it leads to a population collapse. Maybe maleness does it at a lesser scale all the time, it displaces female genes and alters female inheritance. Maybe in the past reproduction meant coming close to females, to the full members of society, who actually could offer them solutions to adapt, food and defense. How should men feel at any time? A biological metaphor is that they would suffer from continuous premenstrual syndrome, which would be the last

case scenario. To be a man, always vigilant, always comparing yourself with others, always in danger, could be the equivalent of a permanent state of terror, where you don't have any choice, where the moral dilemmas are commonplace. If you have some moral sense, if you don't immediately swallow the patriarchal ideas that absolve you of guilt, you live burdened by illicit passions, dirty desires, criminal thoughts. You have no purpose, but you can do harm at every step. As a man, having sex is often a crime, especially when it's forbidden, but if it's not, you know that women don't want you. Peace and relaxation are rare, you are afraid of other men or that you will be refused by women. Your choices are too few, sometimes they don't exist without violating moral laws. For women, it takes patriarchy, cruel discrimination to make them feel guilty. They have fewer chances to do harm just with their existence, with their nature. Men's twitching is often seen on their faces. By contrast, women are exactly the opposite, if they don't take patriarchy seriously or if they don't know yet its painful limitations. Being a woman is something superior, something free of the effort to adapt to fear, to moral misery, to powerful animal instinct. Being a woman is the supreme freedom and humanity. The freedom to be the human being who can exercise her typically human functions. To be a woman is the supreme wisdom, it's purity, it's reason and feeling. Not accidentally in traditional societies, women were considered to have occult, paranormal, spiritual powers. Women are closer to what ancient consciousness imagined to be the gods. Not just the procreation, maybe not primarily the procreation, created the aura of divine beings in women, but their concerns, their thoughts, their feelings. In fact, man is closer to nature, to animalism, he is mundane and feels miserable. At the beginning of patriarchy, these facts were known better than we can imagine today, and the patriarchal propaganda worked hard to reverse the values. But it never fooled everyone, neither then and or now. As Valerie Solanas said in "Scum Manifesto", men want to be women. Their life is disgusting. They probably want the female serenity, they want to dream, to feel relaxed. Maybe, not accidentally, more men commit suicide, although women have to face the injustices of patriarchy.  It's hard to bear yourself if you are a man.

It's amazing what qualities patriarchy endows them, how many women are crazy for their partner's qualities, in what light they see them. Why is this happening? From fear most of the times. Physical strength, then the power patriarchy makes them brighter. Women want their protection and they want to be quality protection. In reality, men are insecure beings with a great pressure on them, which makes them corrupt. And, first of all, they are impostors.  Only passion for women, sensitivity to female charm sets them free. I have always wondered why there are still heterosexual women who if they have any idea what men are - don't want money, protection or the simplicity of a relationship without major emotional involvement. They probably dream about the great attraction and passion some of the men can feel. But this is something rare, most of them are not capable of that. Men's liberation means turning them into women, at least at their behavior and appearance level, In advanced societies “the effeminacy' of men occurs, males look like females and they provide parental care in monogamous societies (as monogamous as they can be in humans), but also in animals. She and he-wolf are pretty identical, the same for pigeons. But that's not what it means to be a woman, it's still much more. Only that, to learn women's language is the only way to communicate with them, to live in their world. In our world where equality is a value - and this is something very serious - we can't deny that there is a strong biological inequality: women are superior to men. It's not a secret, it's something extremely easy to notice by anyone. The only problem is that the primitive society we live in makes violence (patriarchy) a value. Men have violence/ fear on their side and this confers them all the qualities. Women don't have social support through violence and for this reason, they don't matter. It's hard to admit that society is based on fear, that people, especially men, are afraid first of all, they are dominated by fear. Fear also paralyzes patriarchal women. The cult of the phallus is the cult of fear, of violence. But now we need another culture. The time of the crime, of robbery, of terror, has passed if we want to move forward. Another culture would start from the deconstruction of masculinity, from the fall of the male idols and the rise of the female ones. It's not difficult at all, we just have to stop being afraid, stop making from violence a virtue and from the lack a gift. Male sex is a lack of the purest degree, the struggles of lack and of recognition create masculinity. Femaleness is freedom, completeness, serenity, durability.

Men are to blame for all  the evil in the world I heard this from a man, not from a woman. Men know best who they are, how horrible they can be. And they often reach their potential. See any history book! What is the most difficult for them is to recognize this to themselves first, then to others. But they invented all kind of notions about the evil in them. "Sin" is a notion invented by men. I don't think there was any female religion that contained this idea. It's impossible not  to become horrified by your male condition, if you have at least an outburst of consciousness created by society, more exactly by the women in society.  The sin, the repression, the gloom, but also a lot of other notions are actually hiding the pain of the male becoming frustration, the pain of male humanization. Getting rid of the pigskin, the wolf skin or other beasts', the legends talk about hiding the real face of the men. The man needs salvation, not the woman, he needs to be saved from himself, from his nature. In reality, the woman is the one on a white horse who saves him, starting with his mother, then with any human contribution to social values. Women are humans. The "Nietzsche's Superman" was a woman, women don't need all these. Because this is the way they are.  They don't need initiatory journeys, they don't need liberation or salvation, they just need to be themselves, to discover themselves, without the male shadows flying above them and threatening their physical and psychical integrity. Men need more education, more attention in order to become human. They are time-consuming and energophagous in order to somehow fit into society. Because they are not made for society. The parents pay more attention to boys since they are very young for the simple reason that everything works harder with them, from learning to disciplining. Because they are lycanthropic, their fur is pulled away from them during many years. And this is called education. Women, including mothers of boys, don't know this. As Louann Brizendine said in her book "The male brain" it's more difficult for the boys' parents. That's because their brain seems to be different. Less human, I would say, accepting the interpretations and data from this book, which is rightly considered to sustain gender stereotypes, to sustain “neurosexism”. If we believed this studies, which are obviously sexist, as Cordelia Fine says in " Delusions of gender" (and they will be thrown away like other outdated

studies about the brain), we could conclude that men are less human, that they are born this way. Aggression, violence, lack of empathy, necrophilia, the struggle for hierarchy, the sexual obsessions, all these accepted as masculine, are just inhuman, toxic for other individuals and for society. They are horrible behavior problems and on a social scale, they are premises for some crimes, for a strong corruption and rude social state, for stopping progress. Why would women still want to produce and care for men, if this is what men bring them, if this is what they are? Easy. They have some absolutely extraordinary qualities, they have space abilities, abilities that the "poor women are missing" and men can save the world with them. That means we must accept them the way they are, we must nurture them, sacrifice our lives for them, because we see well that we can't live without them. Actually, this is the problem with the logic of “neurosexism”. I repeat. If they are so horrible from nature, then why should we still give birth to them, raise them, accept them between us? Because they have undeniable qualities. Meaning they are superior to us the way they are. What????!? As I already said, their "superiority" is invented. They are superior in strength and their ability to create criminal bands to terrorize us, to steal what we produce. And they attribute all their qualities from here. It's a well-known fact that their higher potential to learn mathematics is a problem of the Anglo-Saxon culture, where we can find the greatest gap between women and men at mathematical abilities. This is normal, women and men really believe this there. I heard this aberration from them online. Since I was a child the girls from my class were better at everything, including math. I know a lot of women who are math teachers (I had only women as teachers) and most of the women I know are engineers. Most of the women in my family, who graduated a college, are engineers. This is because in our culture this bias doesn't exist or it's very weak. Communism has helped a bit. Or a little more. It's something different with women and mathematics, with anything repetitive. Mathematics bore you at a certain point, not because it's difficult, but because it doesn't bring anything new. But this doesn't mean you cannot learn it and reach performance, if it's necessary. But if you afford it, you prefer something more creative, which is often more financially risky. Creative people like creative jobs, no matter how difficult they are. And maybe sometimes middle-class white women can afford to do this. They can afford this risk,

but only under certain conditions. If they don't afford it, this means there are more courageous women who are taking chances. And this is what I think. Women are more creative, it's harder for them to tolerate constraints no matter what kind of constraints, including to learn something only for performance, which means social acceptance. Men do this because they don't have a choice or they can't do anything different. This is also a possibility. And I don't think we should keep men, continue to create them only because of mathematics and for rotating objects mentally, even if they would do this 10 times better than women. As already seen, women can do everything and we prefer a not so fast developing engineering (if this was the case) rather than the social evil and the suffering they bring to us. We are not talking about wars, about inequity, but only about the stress of marriage, which make women sick and shortens their lives with 1.4 years, as even Brizendine quotes from a study. Men are to blame for all the evil in the world. Their inner conflict, their frustrations can be seen at the level of society. In any harm, everything started from a man, from one of his frustrations, from one of his injustices, from his attempt to make other people slaves, especially women. Of course, the world wouldn't be perfect if women were in power, but at least it wouldn't be so evil, so simple, so brutal. We don't know how much of the male behavior is socialization and how much is from nature, probably the most are socialization. But we know the results, we watch the news, we read history books. We can see every day the pain men cause to women who are disappointed by their behavior, if they are not tortured and killed, we see their ability to make slaves, the injustices they inflict into society, their wars, the corruption they are spreading, the patriarchy they are promoting, based on aggression, not on real talent, on their ability to create real progress. But we cannot talk of democracy in patriarchy, which is the marginalization and slavery of women, simply a generalized corruption. Where the world would have been if patriarchy had not appeared! Many alternative solutions to violent ones would have been found, the progress would have been unimaginable. The first crisis of globalization The first crisis of globalization was patriarchy. Matriarchal societies, at least in this part of the world, were forced to be dominated by the military one to

survive. Patriarchy has wounded the world enormously. Here you cannot say "We don't make patriarchy" because others are always near and they destroy you. See for example Lebanon which was destroyed because they didn't invest in the military. A society was patriarchal or it wasn't at all if it was exposed, it was forced to become patriarchal. Patriarchy is injustice, corruption. Half of the population is in slavery, they work hard, they create goods, but they can't enjoy anything. You can't say patriarchy brought something good for most of the individuals and for society. In a virulent discussion, a misogynist told me that patriarchy has defended women from the Mongols. That's right. If there wasn't patriarchy in Mongols, women from here and from there didn't have to suffer. But like in Monsun, a well-studied matriarchal society, the luck was that the middle class of free people were somehow less patriarchal, more matriarchal. Because they had nothing to share. Patriarchy was for the elites, as we can easily see in ancient Athens. It was always for the elites. This means free people outside the elites have maintained some characteristics of the ancestral way of life. Some of them have been perpetuated until now. What did patriarchy do good, if we can say so? Well, it created the population growth, women were forced to give birth against their will, it brought slavery, it forced people, especially women, to produce more than they needed. Otherwise, the military pressure, the hierarchies, the devaluation of the human being, terror. We can say not that patriarchy brought progress, but the progress was made in spite of patriarchy. But progress was actually made when society became better, less violent. What progress does the mafia make? The progress, as I said before, is related to what misogynists call "effeminacy". Progress was always made by some women and men, some women have always produced food and everything it was important, especially other humans. But only when people could enjoy what they had produced they started to produce more, to innovate more, they started to produce something more intelligent, more creative, so they can enjoy more. It's not a coincidence that the West has the highest rate of progress and women's status is the best.  Nonviolence, the rewards closer to reality, the recognition of the merits leads to progress. Patriarchy has prevented all these, only when patriarchy became weaker — at least from some points of view — the

progress took place. But let's not forget slavery has always been with us and it always has new forms. We are lead by criminal organizations from millennia, the structure of our society is criminal from millennia. And these criminal organizations are made of men, even if they include some women, the core is male and the relationships between their members are based on hierarchies, aggressive cooperation like the games of the boys from kindergarten. The humanist philosophers tried to reduce this type of relationships and values, but without pointing to them. Men and the gangs created by them, but also men who behave in the spirit of criminal bands, to male hierarchies are guilty of all the evil in the world. Men have an inherent, innate evil, we don't know how much, we have no un-biased studies we can trust. In some cultures, masculinity, this innate evil, is rewarded more or less and it grows more or less. Only the understanding of this aspect and the inhibition of what the pseudoscience now calls "male brain" could change the way things are.

The true face of homosexuality and heterosexuality Love sells, love is sold to us, but, as they say, it's like ghosts, everybody talk about them, but few people have seen them. The recent petition for the inclusion of the traditional marriage between a man and a woman in the constitution of Romania should bring into question what are homosexual relations and heterosexual relations. And especially what is the connection between these relationships and love, but also what marriage is actually, what the patriarchal family is. And what is tradition? In fact, patriarchal heterosexuality has to do with possession, wealth, property and especially the use of women's uteri, but also the use of their work as slaves. It's about women's enslavement who are sold, bought, used as objects and deprived of their human functions, especially the sexual ones. Unmarried women are asexual and after marriage, they are sexually passive. So, they don't have a sexuality. Even in the Western World, women are not sexually active if they are not seeking men, choosing men, initiating relationships with men, searching for their own pleasure and satisfaction.

Patriarchal homosexuality and heterosexuality But what is homosexuality? As in patriarchy women don't matter sexually and men are sexual beings, what is left for them to satisfy themselves? Some members of society who don't have a high status, who were not considered citizens (for example in Greeks), but whose abuse is punished less than the abuse of women. They don't have a uterus, they can't give birth, they don't belong to anyone, they are nobody's property. It's about young boys who, in Ancient Greeks, when they were unfledged, they didn't have full rights yet. More, with the teacher's authority (in Greeks), or with a cleric's authority (in Christian, Judaism or Muslim patriarchal religions) they can be attracted and used. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, where men were searched for rape, not women, has another meaning. So homosexuality at its origin in patriarchy is an abuse of authority and power over a man with lower status, who was very young most of the times. This type of homosexuality exists nowadays in Islamic countries, too, but it's a taboo subject. For example, young boys attend parties, where they can be abused at will by the wealthy men in Afghanistan, as the author Jenny Nordberg says in " The Underground Girls of Kabul". In Iran, they say that most men from the working class in Tehran who look good are gay. Meaning that they have sex for money with whoever they find, as  Ramita Navai the Iranian author of "City of Lies" says. Homosexuality is punished differently in this country, the passive one can result in the death penalty, while the active one only in 100 lashes. Like in other cases, we could say that what is actually punished is poverty and misery, the lack of status. Probably this is partially true, but it's actually more complicated. This is because the seducer is often passive, an older man with authority, but still passive. But this doesn't mean he is not abusive. Liberace - as they show in the movie dedicated to his life - is was an extremely abusive lover, but most of the times he was passive. The lover whose life he destroyed was active all the time because of his traditionalist education, as the film inspired by Liberace's life claims. Even Romanian literature speaks about homosexuality, about its beginning. Panait Istrati has a gay character in "Chira Chiralina" who tells his story. Abused by a lot of mature and wealthy men, he develops this "vice" - as he calls it - along with a strong gynophobia, but only sexually.    He can

develop romantic feelings for a woman, but he cannot have physical contacts with her. A lot of men have gynophobia, it's something almost universal, but at a different level. Let's not forget that Freddy Mercury, a famous homosexual has left his fortune to a woman when he died. Freely chosen homosexuality, as we see it, doesn't exist in countries like Afghanistan. Neither heterosexuality. The experience of women in Afghanistan is downright traumatic. Their disgust of men's touches is unimaginable. When asked if they have ever been in love, most women deny. There is no real physical and psychological intimate life for them. They just exercise their gender role. Their desire to give birth to boys, that provides them legitimacy as wives, is just some kind of job duty. It has nothing romantic. Actually, they are just avoiding a punishment - the punishment for not having children or giving birth to daughters - they are not looking for a reward in their intimate life. This is the real face patriarchal heterosexuality: all kinds of rape and abuse. Unfortunately, homosexuality is something similar in these societies. No wonder some analyses claim that the acceptance of gay marriage strengthens the institution. In fact, it settles the same kind of abuse between a person with status and wealth and a vulnerable person. No wonder there is a big age difference too in classic heterosexual relationships, but also in homosexual relationships. Something different about homosexuality, beyond political correctness. Now the topic of homosexuality is highly politicized. Lesbians and gays have often different political positions, when lesbians don't declare themselves queer - a term that dilutes gender and gender role, but actually also dilutes sex very much, according to the critics made by radical feminists. Homosexuality was seen differently in older anthropological studies from the '50s-'60s of the last century. Let's not forget that homosexuality has only recently disappeared from the mental illness category, where it still appeared in the 70s. The old studies placed female and male homosexuality at the periphery of "normal" sexual behavior, meaning heterosexual. It is generated by the lack of a suitable partner of the opposite sex, to what people return as soon as the conditions allow it. Homosexuals would be gay or lesbians more from necessity than willingly. It could be added here that their reasons would be economical most of the

times, like the ones from heterosexual relationships. But I think this conclusion is not universal, although it deserves to be taken into account.  There are probably many types of homosexual and heterosexual relationships in different societies. It doesn't matter if it is innate or not. I find this debate totally naturalist and liberal feminist. Gay men argue the "born this way" version. Lesbians - if they are radical feminists - talk about a choice they make given the fact that women deserve more feelings than men. There would be no other choice for the free and dignified exercise of women's sexuality in patriarchy - I agree with this with very few doubts. But what is most important when it comes to human sexual behavior? In "The Human Zoo"  Desmond Morris talks about all kind of sexual fetishes and homosexuality is considered one of them. People's sexuality is complicated if they are free, it's crazy to think we all want and we all like the same things, except it is imposed on us. A difference should be made between the sentimental relationships of any kind, the relationships made by material interests - most of them in the West - and the strict abusive ones imposed in patriarchal societies. But we don't even have words to describe them. Maybe we should have, maybe we should redefine romantic sexual relationships of cohabitation between people. And to regulate them in the interest of their protagonists. But the main difference between sexual relationships between people is being abusive (patriarchal) and non-abusive, non-imposed - which are of several types. If we signed a petition, it would be for free, non-patriarchal relationships between people. This would include homosexual relationships, some of the most usual ones. If there are men who are afraid of homosexual rape, they should fear of patriarchy, to fight against it. In patriarchy, homosexuality is rape, like heterosexuality.

About female (and male) transsexuality in patriarchy People talk a lot about transsexuality, but especially transgender, meaning a person feels trapped in a body of the opposite gender, that they belong to the other gender. I don't know what is the frequency of this kind of transsexuality, which leads to mutilating surgical treatments, which were

contradicted by specialists (who don't make a fortune from this issue) before the third wave of feminism, before the idea of gender was imposed. We don't know its frequency in the cultures that talk less about gender, which have weaker propaganda about this notion. It's not difficult to verify, and a correlation is too easy to predict, no sports book would bet too much on this. But what nature says about this issue? Like in other cases, where horrible, immoral experiments have led to important scientific conclusions, there is also a source of information here, that ironically comes from strong patriarchal societies. The book "The Underground Girls of Kabul"  written by the Swedish author Jenny Nordberg clarifies very well this phenomenon. The book is very well documented, not only journalistically - because Nordberg is a journalist - but also from a medical standpoint and from the point of view of feminist theories. It's about a phenomenon described in strongly patriarchal societies, such as Afghanistan, Iran or even Albania. In Afghanistan it's called "bacha posh" (probably in Dari, a Persian dialect very prevalent in this country). What is it about? It's about the patriarchal need to have sons because in patriarchy only men inherit the social rank, the name, and the fortune. The same need also exists in matriarchy because women inherit the rank and the fortune, but girls can be adopted for this purpose there.  This clearly shows that the assumption of sociobiologists that females, because they invest more in their eggs (the genetic material they pass to their offspring), they are less sexually promiscuous than men, is false. Nature shows that females adopt children in humans, like in other species, especially when they are free. Adoption in patriarchy is forbidden in some cases (because the rank and fortune should be inherited on the male line). Adoption means investing in non-related children, foreign genes. So, women in patriarchy are not less promiscuous because they invest more in their eggs, but because of fear, which is obvious. But in patriarchy - as we already know - things are worse. So, in some cases, if a family had only daughters, one of the girls (the third or the forth born) gets the role of a boy, at least until the birth of a son in that family.  She dresses in boys clothes, she is free to ride the bike and to climb trees, to spend time with boys and men, with the male relatives, etc. So, this is not what she feels, what she chooses, the role is assigned to her by the family with strong patriarchal mentality. It's interesting that she can't give up that

role when she becomes an adult, especially if a boy was finally born in that family. Women who have seen how it's like to be a man would do anything not to return to their role as women, defined by one of them as the situation when someone is a master of your life.  This experiment clearly shows what happens with transsexuals if not always, at least many times. The difference between the transsexuals from the West and these girls is that Western people think they are making a choice. But the doctors and the medical and cultural propaganda might choose for them. The experiments with those women who were randomly selected by the order of their birth to play the roles of men, show what actually the male and the female brain is.  In fact, women can do what men do, but men can't do what women do. Even an Afghan woman, a former bacha posh, interviewed by Nordberg says this: "we know how it is in their places, but they don't know how it is in our place". Women can be men, but men can't be women. Masculinity can be easily adopted, but femaleness not. Not only women, but also men think so. It's interesting that even physical strength changes, these women, at least a few of them, who manage to remain in the role of a man to the end, are stronger, they have a different attitude, they are hard to distinguish from men. It would be interesting to find out how many trans women exist in countries like Afghanistan, if men are claiming to play women's roles elsewhere in the West, where women are somehow emancipated. These experiments answer many questions about the phenomenon of transsexuality. Would it still be necessary in a world without gender? A young Afghan politician says with sorrow that, in a normal world, she wouldn't dress her daughter like a boy. Maybe in a normal world people wouldn't be transsexuals. Why would you need to have the gender role of another sex, if these roles don't exist? Why would you need this, if you can do anything? Even in the past, transsexuality was still about gender role. There were male occupations and female occupations in the past, possibly in a different manner they are today.  This is true in matriarchy, too. Women and men were sharing different resources. The fact that the jobs assigned to each sex were exactly the opposite in different cultures, that's another story. Sex exists, this fact is obvious, but gender is indeed a social construct, a cultural construct, but especially an economical one. Actually, in our culture, people don't really know what sex is, and what we think about sex

since we are children is actually about gender. If we didn't know the structure of the clitoris until a few years ago, we didn't know about the mechanism of erection until the late '90s, then what we know about sex is almost everything that children know worldwide: gender attributes. Children don't know the difference between the sexes, but they know very well who is a girl and who is a boy judging by the clothes and the attitude, as Fausto Sterling says in "Sexing the body", as we all remember from childhood.  More, if they find out about the biological differences, they continue to assign the sex of the person more on clothes and attitude (gender). The adults are not very far away from this. The phenomenon described here suggests that all the assumptions about transsexuality, but also about the normal sexualization and about the sexualization of the brain before birth and after birth, about the influence of the sexual hormones, leads to serious contradictions and the "born this way" hypothesis, promoted mostly by gay men, does not stand. But what matters the truth? It's a fact that society needs two sexes, for gender roles, for inheritance, for politics, for exploitation, as Fausto-Sterling points out. Most sex-changes surgeries take place in Iran, meaning that gay men become women to avoid the death penalty. A man can't be effeminate, this would be the destruction of the idea of man, so he is forced to become "a woman". But this is what women want if their sexuality is free, not for survival, "effeminate" men. The problem is that women are not important at all in patriarchy. The idea that homosexuality and transsexuality exist because of patriarchy seems to become obvious. Does something like this exist in the few matriarchal societies? How widespread is it? Female homosexuality, lesbianism, is a normal response to patriarchy, to male sexuality, to male domination, to the impossibility of a female normal sexual life. Although there could also be lesbians who adopt lesbianism to avoid the female role in patriarchy. The exaltation of masculinity, as shown in Yourcenar's works,  associated with lesbianism in everyday life, could be signs of the same phenomenon, some kind of female transsexuality, but more gentle. Also, male homosexuality varies between the masculinist cult (in passive men) and male abuse when women are, somehow protected from these abuses, as objects of strong men. The Bible describes something like this in Sodom and Gomorrah. Men who were avid of male orgies, refuse virgin women, they only want the men who are guests. The virgin women, the

daughters were requiring a certain type of relationship, that men were not requiring. The cult of masculinity could be somehow responsible for these behaviors, if not in all cases, at least often. If some gay men, especially the passive ones, but not only them, have a cult for virility and a deep disrespect for women, for what is woman-like (as often seen, and as often shown from Andreea Dworkin's analyzes, in "Intercourse"), more surprising (or maybe not) is that former bacha posh women still admire men and prefer their company unlike women's company dominated by small talk. But they don't understand that female small talk comes from a total lack of perspectives, from the limiting of their universe, from the strictness of the gender role. The female gender role in patriarchy is dehumanizing, for those women the development of human mental functions, of their own thinking, feeling and human dignity is denied. Patriarchy turns them into monsters and feminism should admit this, like it admits that patriarchy turns men into a certain type of monsters, who still have the right to dream, limited by their though role which is also imposed to them.  What can be done for patriarchal women, for other victims of patriarchy, like gays and transexuals, who are followers of the cult of the phallus? Feminist psychotherapy, but also a feminist, anti-patriarchal revolution, that can give them the chance of a life free of political, material, social a spiritual viruses of patriarchy. A life which would be really free from the toughest and the most miserable system in history.

A new trap of the gender - neutral means male A new trend appeared in nowadays feminism — the so-called trend of neutral pronouns for any person. It seems that the trend started in Sweden, but it also penetrates other English speaking countries. Now some men, but also some women started using the pronoun "they" for the 3rd person singular, the same way that "you" was originally the 2nd person plural, but it transferred to the 2nd person singular via courtesy pronoun. Now, nobody uses the personal pronoun from the 3rd person singular "thou". That's because people don't care about someone's sex, so they cannot distinguish between women - who are discriminated as soon as you find out they are women - and men. This is simply hiding the (biological) femaleness. This is the same as what we do every day — rebuilding

women, "rebuilding"  everything about them, so they no longer look so... women. Because what is female (I am trying to avoid "feminine" which refers to the patriarchal construct) is bad, shameful, this is why it's discriminated. So we use to makeup, we disguise, we rebuild the femaleness because the natural one is trivial, dirty or whatever you want to name it.  But this is nothing new. We don't call a woman "woman" but "lady", we focus on something else, not her sex. This was the custom in the past, it wasn't nice to say "a woman called" — although you heard a woman's voice on the phone, damn it! You had to say "a lady" not "a woman". You saw a lady, not a woman. Feminists had to impose the use of the term "woman" for any adult female person. Some people are reluctant to call an 18 years old woman "a woman". This happens in the communities where they don't know anything about feminism. Well, that person is an adult, she has an ID, she votes, she is a woman! Because women were granted the right to vote. Women, not ladies! But if we want to hide women, it's not difficult at all. What is difficult is to make them visible. And any attempt to hide them is a big trap. The female gender should be more outlined, this is what some feminists are doing with what is called "gendered communication" — meaning they use the female form for "doctor", "minister" etc, because in the past the jobs for women were the housekeeper, maid, laundress. For the educated women who were teachers, doctors, ministers — although it was very difficult for women to have these jobs in the past — the male form of the noun was used. The maid often meant housekeeper. It's a chance that some languages have this possibility, that there is a female form for "teacher" and "doctor". Let's think about linguistic precedents. For example, in the languages where animals are generally neutral gender, if a person sees an animal she/he names the animal "he". I was amazed when I found out that in English the animal is not named "it", but it has gender when you come close to it, and that gender is male. In Romanian, my native language, where animals have all kind of genders, the lizard, the fox, the otter, the viper, the fly, even the shrew, have female gender. When you see a lizard, you admit she is female, especially in children, then the variety is male. The same with a fox. I remember a clip with a fox who appeared to some Russian fisherpersons who were fishing. The men who were fishing said  "Krasabitsa" meaning "beautiful" as in “beautiful woman”, although it was possible that the fox

was male. The fox is considered a beautiful animal in many cultures and "foxy" means something beautiful. But I don't know some English fisherpersons would assume an unknown fox was a female. It would be interesting to know how the grammatical gender occurred if their appearance reflects society. In many languages — such as Chinese, Hungarian, etc — there is no gender. I don't know how Chinese people are approaching other languages which have gender, but it's proverbial how Hungarians do this. Their jokes about gender agreement in Romanian are famous. When it comes to a feminine noun, Hungarians replace it with masculine pronouns and adjectives. They said about a female colleague "Don't get him outside". They said about another woman "He is good". Sure, it's difficult to learn a complex notion like gender, when it doesn't exist in your language. I don't turn into misogyny a psycholinquistics aspect. But its effects on how femaleness is perceived are real. Femaleness is easy to erase for whatever reasons. Femaleness in patriarchy is removed anyway. Again, I don't know how gender appeared in grammar. But I would like to study this. But my hypothesis is that gender appeared in matriarchy. Ancient languages, such as some African languages have many other categories, but I don't know if they have gender. The most spoken Chinese language (Han), as I said, but also the Finno-Ugric languages, have no gender. Because Indo-European languages usually have gender, this is what makes us, Western people, think that gender is common. It seems that it's not. Other languages which have gender and they are very demanding about gender agreement, including for verbs, are Hamito-Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew, etc) And if the Indo-Europeans apparently were already in patriarchy — at least in the historical times since when we have a few documents — we are surer that the Arabs and the Jews were in a matriarchy. Indeed, the biblical hard patriarchy, but also the Islam, culminating with Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia appeared on the ruins of some matriarchal societies, whose living cultural fossils still exist (the Rabbinic law). The Bible is an epic of the transition to patriarchy mainly from military reasons, it is in fact the history of patriarchy. When your neighbors passed to patriarchy and they are threatening you, you don't really have a choice. In matriarchal societies, the world is actually divided between women and men, in male field and female field, in female jobs and male jobs. This is

what researchers of these societies say. Are gender roles actually matriarchal?  They probably are, in order to secure the resources for women and the resources for men. Female jobs and male jobs are different in different matriarchal (matrilineal) societies, sometimes they are exactly the opposite, but they exist. In patriarchy, everything besides domestic work, giving birth and a few other things, which are devalued, are male. The language reflects psychology, it reflects philosophy, it reflects spirituality. We are enough that in Romanian, but also in other Latin languages, when a group is made of women and men, the pronoun that names these people is a male pronoun. This means male prevails over female. This happens in patriarchy. In conclusion, neutrality is a trap, it erases women, the same as transsexuality, so it's best that women are explained, their qualities must be highlighted. I would add that feminine is not the lack of masculine, but something else, something more complete. The new feminist theories have to redefine femaleness and maleness with the recovery of female spirituality.

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN PATRIARCHY-HUMAN TRAGEDIES Lies about our life - the family

mos Oz, an Israeli writer who was on an unofficial list of candidates with big chances to win Nobel Prizes for literature, wrote about families, as he declared. He wrote about an institution with big problems that still survives for millennia, despite criticism. Oz said that he would have preferred to be a fly on the wall of a family than to fly in space. Families are fascinating precisely through their problems, their complexity and the malfunctioning of the relationships between the people involved. The families are like diseases, they have many symptoms, many complications. But there are people who have a passion for diseases and for their more or less hidden mechanisms. But it's one thing to write about what Makarenko called a form of prostitution and it's a different thing if you want to put this institution on a pedestal. I would add that it's a form of forced prostitution because the freely chosen prostitution, practiced by free people without pimps, offers more freedom and human dignity than the family.  I found out later (probably my information are incomplete and distorted even now) that women are raised for marriage in some cultures, especially the ones which are strongly or less patriarchal, as if it was the most

A

important moment of their lives. In these societies this is normal, women don't have their own wealth, they don't have their own social status, their only chance to a somehow safe life is to become officially the slave of a man - meaning a person who has wealth, social and even legal status something she misses. A "slave" is not an exaggeration, considering the fact that in slave-owning societies the slaves were just the inferior members of the family. But what is strange is the fact that, even with the empowerment of women in the West, women still dream of being brides, they still consider marriage to be a success in life, an achievement. Women still believe in family, they still believe in this institution where they were oppressed and deprived of human dignity. It was expected that, after their empowerment, women would do everything, except wanting to get married. When you have money, you have a job, you have an opportunity for social and material success, why would you still get married? The answer could be for sex and romance, to satisfy necessities that are absolutely human, such as the need to consume good sex and to cultivate deeply human feelings. This is true, we are not denying these necessities, but the family is not a good place for this. Statistics show that the family is the place where women very often are beaten in the worst case, and where they are financially exploited in the best case. What else could be the place where women have to wash, iron, cook, clean, just because they are women? More, they say “you don't need a wife if you are able to do all these”. Why are women still entering these institutions? Because they don't have money, they don't have a place to live, even if they work, they can't afford to sustain themselves in poor countries like mine, but also in the most developed countries. It's awful, but it's somehow understandable. It's not understandable when they do this because everybody is doing it, because you must have a family.... it's like you must join a local gang because everybody does it. If you live in a sordid neighborhood where most of the young people end up in jail, you have to do anything to go to jail, too, so you don't feel marginalized? It's the same with the family. Only that family is even worse for women than a neighborhood gang, often worse than jail in a civilized place. Still, why is there so much hypocrisy at all levels, how can family still be credited, when it should be blamed like the mafia or maybe even worse? We

would all be horrified if we found out that somebody owns a slave, but we easily accept the family and, to some extent, forced prostitution. But no, the family is respectable, children are raised since early childhood with the "family values". Why aren't the mafia's values (which is still a family), the values of  Al Qaeda's fanatics valued in the same way? In the last case, there could be more real loyalty, more ideals, more values than in the traditional family. I don't think anything could be done to change women's status until the family will be changed radically. Real women's empowerment will lead towards the change of the family, as it's already happening. It's like communism, Perestroika inevitably leads to the collapse of communism. But first, we should be aware of what family is and what it was before. All the propaganda related to family and "family values" should be condemned, if not even prohibited as profoundly discriminatory. Of course, we cannot condemn romance, sex and all the dreams we make when we have great feelings for another person. But all these don't mean family, but something else. Something that should be invented and developed by every person, especially a woman, depending on her interests and desires. 

Therese Desqueyroux or the crime of  the marriage of a smart woma n Resuming the idea that feminists - especially those who are feminist since very young - don't understand other women who obey and support patriarchy (when they are not in desperate situations), I want to mention one of the few movies that describe the tragedy of marriage from the perspective of a smart woman who discovers freedom. Now people are very aware of what marriage is in fact (traditional family, like some people tenderly call it, including the initiators of a petition that supports it as a special mention in the constitution of Romania, as a reaction to a possible legalization of same-sex marriage). Speaking of the traditional family, what tradition is it about? Patriarchal? If it's about matriarchal tradition - and the remains of matriarchal culture exist, they were described by anthropologists in this part of the world - then this is

very well. Historically this tradition is longer and more enjoyable for everyone, women and men. Maybe matriarchal men are also closer to the masculine nature, free and without obligations to their partners and to the children born from their relationships. No wonder they oppose the pressures from outside to move to patriarchy, as the scholars who study this cultures say. They probably opposed in the past, too, but the patriarchal men were superior in terms of military force. As I said before, it seems that the Bible describes the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. But returning to marriage, it should be downright prohibited as a relic of the worst human rights violations. In patriarchy, women are bred like cattle for mount and procreation. As human beings, their will, intelligence, physical strength, sexuality are removed, so is everything not related to their patriarchal role of cattle who must mate with just one bull. They are actually sold, their fathers are raising them as social and material currency exchange. Then they enter their husband's stable where they are literally tied in strongly patriarchal societies. They are not allowed to leave the house when they want and how they want. Sometimes they are not allowed to leave the house unaccompanied, like in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Perhaps a factor that led to the great economical social and scientific progress from the West are these matriarchal remains, which were present especially in lower classes even since the Ancient times. Women from Pericles' Athens were prisoners in their houses only if they were noble. Women from the lower classes were really free. They could work, they could travel, they could argue and fight back. Centuries later, in industrial Europe, the bourgeoisie limits women's freedoms again. Compared to the 18th century, women's situation suffered a setback in the 19th century. The bourgeoisie, often Protestant, also influenced by the Jews' culture, who were their business partners and rivals, has deteriorated.   The movie and the book "Thérèse Desqueyroux" written by François Mauriac speaks about such a  bourgeois family. The action takes place in the South West of France, in the 20s, in a region covered by pine trees, which had a great economic value. A bourgeois woman with a considerable fortune (consisting of pine forests), marries a man of similar condition, without any special mental or physical qualities. It's a marriage of convenience, without passion, but it's not felt like a tragedy, at least at the

beginning. Soon after the honeymoon, Thérèse is asked to mediate with her husband's younger sister to give up a not recommended relationship with a young Jew from the area. Besides religion - because the families were Catholic - the Jew came from a family that had serious diseases. She accepts, but this negotiation - which came from her dedication to her role as a wife and it would have increased her status in the new family - has completely different results. When she is already pregnant, she meets the Jew. A strange kind of friendship is born among them, a friendship based on the opportunity of dialogue at a totally different level than the one with other persons around, especially in her family. Thérèse had been recommended by her sister-in-law as being more sensitive, understanding more about life, seeing details and being more tolerant. The Jew treats her as such. He has no problem to give up the relationship with her sister-in-law, whom she offers the only moments of passion in her life - that seems as boring as it can be. The Jew writes her a simple letter, in which he says things that he says he would not have said to Thérèse. It would not work with her. Thérèse has a revelation. She understands who she is and she discovers the tragedy of her life. After the Jew leaves his home to study, a more philosophical correspondence begins between them. He sends her books that she begins to understand. But her attitude changes. She becomes totally apathetic. Motherhood doesn't change her, on the contrary. She doesn't take care of her newborn daughter. Although it doesn't show, she begins to make efforts to achieve her independence. She doesn't divorce because it would have been impossible because of religion and because of the community. She doesn't react to the devastating fires that destroy large areas of pine trees. She could have provoked them, although things are not clear. When her husband becomes ill and a potion of arsenic is recommended to him, she fakes the recipe and she gives him big doses. She poses as a faithful wife. His condition worsens, but he doesn't die. Eventually, she is suspected, but the desire of the husband's family to avoid scandal at all costs leads to her exoneration. Her fight for freedom continues. Her life becomes a torture, so much that her husband doesn't let her leave until her sister-in-law's wedding, for the same reason of social convention. Her sister-in-law becomes what the Jew had predicted - a woman who easily accepts her fate without fighting back.

Thérèse's health condition deteriorates. The suffering turns her into an infirm. But, in the end, her efforts are successful. Perhaps also impressed by her condition, her husband promises her to let her leave, to come back only for family events in order to preserve the appearances. Thérèse goes to Paris, where she is very happy. In the last scene of the movie (starring Audrey Tautou), she is at a table in a cafe outdoors with her husband. Resigned by the new situation, he calmly asks her why she tried to kill him. She is looking for an answer: "I wanted to have my own pine trees". He doesn't believe her, especially because she had more pine trees than him at the beginning. But she doesn't tell him that marriage and that kind of life was, in fact, a crime, something unacceptable for a woman, something that only rudimentary women without deep feelings and thoughts can accept without suffering until death. She doesn't tell him that she tried to kill for freedom, so she can live, so she can save herself. That the life of a married woman is not a life.

What is worse: marriage or prostitution? Radical feminism and the 2nd wave feminism consider prostitution and pornography (prostitution registered on film, tape or paper) crimes against women. In patriarchy, female sexuality is recommended as submissive, and women have to be submissive all the time, and their sexuality is simply a romantic reflection of their forced submission. Andrea Dworkin and other 2nd wave feminists tried to ban pornography, outlining its effects on male sexual behavior. Now radical feminists (as few as they are today) oppose legalizing prostitution, against the strong lobby of pimps and other males in the sex industry. But some prostituted women remonstrate to radical feminists that they forget about marriage and heterosexual relationships, which means the same, i.e. selling yourself. Prostitution is not worse than marriage and dating, the only difference is the social stigma, they say. It's true, nobody can condemn prostitution without condemning the legal prostitution, supported by state and church, other patriarchal institutions, i.e. marriage. Radical feminism is about smashing the patriarchy and patriarchal relationships, institutions, etc. In patriarchy, women are born slaves, they are meant to be men's servants and sex slaves. Women were

sold like cattle and they still are in some traditional patriarchal societies. Most of them were sold into marriage by their own fathers, as still happens in Afghanistan, for example. In such societies prostitution is banned, as described in the Bible, although prostituted women were mentioned in this book of the Jewish people. There were free prostituted women, who sold themselves, no pimp was mentioned. But in other ancient societies, like Greece or India, women used to pay a kind of protection tax in order to marry, and its name was dowry. The institution of dowry survived until recently in the West and still survives in India. Poor women couldn't marry, and they often became prostitutes, as in Victorian England, but also all over Europe. A woman should have paid for her safety and respectability, her place in society. Marriage was only for some women, the others got no protection, no status. But in ancient Greece prostitution was everywhere and in every form. There were the courtesans, intelligent, educated and wealthy women, able to have free relationships with men (at least sometimes), but there were also poor prostitutes and porneia , female slaves bought for brothels in Pericles' Athens. So democracy and female sex slavery were in good relationships, as we see, since the beginning of democracy. The idea is patriarchy has different positions toward prostitution in different places, but none of these positions had anything with women's wellness, but with different ways of sharing and exploiting them. Marriage means a woman for every man, although the wealthiest men could afford more than one (up to 10% of them in polygamous societies), and this institution was invented in order to pacify men, warriors, by providing them women. When a woman is sold, she's a slave, she has no rights, she can be beaten, killed, nobody cares. But when women pay for being married, as in the West, they have a little more rights. And history confirms this idea. So, if a woman has a little economic agency, by her family or herself, her situation is a little better. And in some cases, her agency is to become a courtesan. A wealthy woman, even a courtesan, has some power and freedom. In this case, going into prostitution was a chance for a woman. And it could be entirely her decision. It was an option in some patriarchal societies, but not in all, as I already mentioned. Money or wealth, in fact, women's access to property,

had liberating effects. But where women had no access to property, this was not possible, as it wasn't in the case of slaves. Transferring this analysis to the present situation, things look a little different. Most women have no wealth by themselves, men earn more than women. Most of them engage in relationships with men for money. Most of them are in fact forced into prostitution. And there are "the most prostituted" women, those who don't pretend something else. They simply are the most sincere of all women. They don't pretend they like their partners, to sexually satisfy them, to have them around. The only thing they like in these men is money. If they had their own money, they wouldn't sleep with these men. But would do married women? No. Prostituted women risk more than most married women, although in some cases, being married to a man who is dangerous for prostitutes is riskier, they are forced into worse business with men, but at least their conscience is cleaner and freer, they have not to pretend all the time. Maybe men hate so much the prostitutes and they are violent toward them, not only because they can, just because prostituted women are vulnerable, and nobody cares about them, but also because these women tell them the truth, they confront them. Married women lied to them, are more submissive in this respect, they flatter them, they make them believe they are better than really are, and some women don't feel only sick or contempt for them, as prostituted women openly show it. No, radical feminism doesn't praise marriage, its interest in prostitution is only a fact of emergency, prostituted women need protection now, but marriage is the same crime as prostitution, in fact, another face of the same crime. And some married women are in even a bigger physical danger then prostituted women. Although prostitution is a consequence of marriage, marriage is now a form of prostitution and it was during the history of patriarchy. In some societies, it was forced prostitution, in others, women had a kind of agency in selling themselves. So, marriage should be condemned like prostitution. And there is some initiative in this respect.

What happens when a woman says what she thinks The  TV series "Mad men" presenting the advertising industry in the early '60s in the United States brings forward the striking sexism of that time. On the other side of the iron curtain, things were a little different, but not very different. There were almost as many women engineers as men engineers (which is even now a shocking fact for Americans), but they were also working as crane operators, tractor drivers, professional drivers. Even if they didn't have much representation, women were practicing all the jobs which are considered to be "masculine". More, although military service was not compulsory for women, they were learning how to shoot and the female students were even makings some kind of military service training. But beyond all this, women in politics - as false as politics was - were very few in power positions. The communist factories were run mostly by men. But let's return to the TV series "Mad men". I read an article written by a journalist who asked her mother if the situation was so bad. Although her father considered it was an exaggeration (like men think nowadays, too), her mother replied that it was even worse. She also mentioned a scene from "Mad men" where a woman confronts her boyfriend and asks him a favor about her job. She succeeds. That journalist's mother says that, in real life, she would have lost both her job and her boyfriend. Social intelligence was essential for women then and it still is now. I found out that the messages from women are not seen as exactly what they are even now. A business proposal is a business proposal, not a masked sex proposal. A sex proposal coming from a woman can also look like a sex proposal. For women is more difficult to deal with their desires, with people. Nobody expects from them to behave naturally, to say what they think. If they do this, they are shocking and sometimes they are sanctioned for this. Patriarchy is something horrible, something that infiltrates in everything. Also, as I said before, patriarchy is based on women used as prizes, as slaves, on the exploitation of women. Actually, the situation has not radically changed because women are nothing else but better paid slaves nowadays, apparently more respected.  The situation is the same at home.

The situation will change when women will want to be happy, not only to survive and they will succeed this or at least they will have opportunities. Abandon hope all of you who enter here! But any advice which is given to a woman is referring to professional success. If it's about marrying a rich man, this is also considered a professional success. For women to be really happy, meaning to have a happy personal life with a man they choose for their personal pleasure, it's too much. This is how liberation would begin. Not with campaigns against domestic violence, but with campaigns for sexual liberation, for the free choice of partners. How many women have the first step in a relationship, not just accepting relationships with men who initiate them? This is still a taboo, but this would be a purpose of women's liberation. The career is for happiness, but the personal life is also for happiness. Your career would create a higher value for you and would increase your chances to have a happy personal life. This is not happening in reality because men are still in control. There are few successful women for many reasons, most of the reasons are social and we already discussed about them . In fact, women's efforts for social success and for professional success are different, they are not going in the same direction, like in the case of men. Or this is happening at a very high level, difficult to access for most women, if it's happening. This means that as a  woman you must have much more money and success in order to be appreciated and to have access to happiness in personal life, like a man does. Again, a campaign for women to realize their own problems, to look for partners who share their feminist values would be necessary. Feminism communities could be created, at least virtual feminist communities, where women could impose their own rules, where men could be accepted and allowed to look for women only if they learned the feminist way to see things. There are still tough nuptial rituals, which are inaccessible or very painful for free women, with uninhibited behavior. Men do not want women who say what they feel, they want women to abstain from this. If you don't abstain in a relationship, at least in the beginning, you lose everything.  You win when you learn to abstain, but be careful not to be caught with lies,

because you are not allowed to manifest yourself neither directly, nor in another way. "Abandon hope all of you who enter here! " all hopes of dignity, all hopes of freedom. You have to be very good so you don't get caught, or you must give up on yourself so you can be happy. Even now, it's very difficult for a woman without social skills to be happy. In fact, to be honest, there is no happiness for an intelligent woman in patriarchy. Because women learn from childhood that they must have the opportunity to have access to a man, men have many chances to find women who can make them happy, at least until a certain level. Only if they are very intelligent and they have a critical way of thinking and a sense of justice, they would want something different. There is always a patriarchal woman who has more chances than a feminist. Actually, only strong men want something different, but if a woman wants something different than a strong man, then her ticket to unhappiness is ensured. On the long term, this is a crime, women learn to lie and if they have dignity, they are destroyed. The TV series "Mad men" received the following critics: the men from the show are not punished for the way they behave with women, it's a bad example for them and for women. But unfortunately, this is the truth. Women's sexual "liberation" did nothing about this. In fact, all it did was to make all women available to all men - as they often say, it devalued women even more. It has brought insecurity and unhappiness for women most of the times. It also led to the standardization of women. Even the courtesans in Ancient Greece, during the times of Gilgamesh, had more chances than now to be appreciated. Although most courtesans in Ancient Greece were recommended not by their culture and artistic skills, but their ability to be agreeable and submissive, at least in the time of Pericles, some historians claims. If all women offer sex and submission, smiles and agreeableness, what need do most men have for real sexual freedom, for intelligent discussions?  Bread and butter for everyone! For free!  The so-called freedom is for all women, but in fact not even for those who could afford it, who have enough resources to continue the race for sexual freedom. Paradoxically, men from societies where sexuality is not free have more patience, more understanding, they invest more in women who are not so sexually available. These things were known, the methods of protecting societies from crimes were better in the past. The dangers were forgotten,

but they always come back. Sexual freedom should be assumed by women for their own benefit, not for men's benefit, like it happens now. This problem would be solved if women made claims. But the third wave of feminism has done a great disservice to women in this regard. Family or career? It's nearly impossible to have bot h Now women have to choose between career and family, career is the safer option most of the times. If they have a family, their career is irremediably damaged. Women tend to give up to their husband the investment in their career, meaning women give to their partners more chances to succeed, at least at the beginning of the relationship. The piece of advice of a successful woman to marry a man 20 years older than her (I saw in a magazine), so when he already stays at home she can invest more in her career sound horrible. But what can you do if you have the boldness to prefer younger men? Another advice is to have relationships with men of lower material and social status, with less social ambitions, I would say. And I think this is the ideal solution if the woman is ambitious. It's a solution used by women since Ancient times. Roman women in Plautus' comedies were criticized for the fact that they were marrying men with lower status, so they can manage their wealth by themselves. I find this an acceptable crisis solution. But why are women the ones who must have complicated strategies all the times? Why they can't just try to taste life? I think we need campaigns to make people more aware of these problems. But what can be done in a world where prejudices are horrible, where even some psychiatrists are terrorizing women by telling them that the lack of a family and children - who were sacrificed for the career - would bring them to the psychiatric office at 40 years old?    Women can be free and happy, professionally and personally fulfilled if society allows them. But not in patriarchy...A woman's pursuit of happiness begins with the dream of dismantling patriarchy.

Women's complaints

Everything women do is bad, everything they say is cheap, trivial, irrational and unimportant in the best case. When it's not something stupid, a banal triviality, what women do and say is dangerous. Women are the enemy, the monster. Because they are vulnerable, nobody defends them. They are the ideal scapegoat. Among annoying women's habits is lamentation. They say women are complaining, they are victimizing themselves instead of taking action. You take action if you have what to take action on, where to take action if you have conditions. Just like I hear some people talking with disgust about social "assisted" people, some dangerous human beings who are doing nothing but consuming the resources of people who are really producing. Really? But I want to know from the terrible people who produce what would they do in a country where they can't sell their great skills, where there is no business environment, where there are no jobs, where business can't be done because there is no market, there are no resources, you can't produce or sell. You can't find a job, you can't do any business no matter what initiative you have. I'm not saying that it's not a good thing that people try to rise from poverty anywhere they live. To maintain people in a state of moral and economic misery, endless humiliation, is a crime. But most people would not want to be poor, assisted, but they would want to own something, to be useful, to have dignity. But it's very difficult to get out of the state of dependency, of extreme vulnerability. For this, people should be helped, encouraged, even if this means more efforts from others and more resources than it first seems. Women are in this situation most of the times. I mean poverty is feminized everywhere, although women are working everywhere, they are producing everywhere, but what they produce is stolen from them, their work is more or less devalued and unpaid everywhere. Their access to rewards that really bring strong emotions, such as social prestige and sex, are minimal. If you are a sex object, like women are considered everywhere, you don't really have access to sex, to sexual gratification, because a vibrator doesn't have something like this. It doesn't choose, it doesn't have fantasies, desires, dreams. All it can get is a power outlet. In this horrible situation - which unfortunately isn't recognized - women are complaining, they are lamenting. And this is wrong. Really? Why? What would gentlemen want to do? Not to say anything, pass through the misery of life with stoicism and dignity, waiting for death, as Nicolae Filimon in

"The Old and the New Parvenus" recommended to the women who are neglected and regarded with suspicion by their husbands. Church also did this all the time. Yes, I know, this is what men want for women, to shut up, not to speak their minds, not to say what hurts them. Because it bothers them to hear this. And because they don't want to change anything anyway, because any change would be the end of their privileges. As Andrea Dworkin said, women from men's dreams are catatonic or dead, when alive, women are appalling (“Intercourse”).  Also, complaining means asking, realizing what you are missing, at least trying to do something about it, speaking about your situation. Complaining is an important step towards liberation. To complain means to ask for more from life, from your situation. Men don't want women to ask, they want them to receive what they are throwing them, to be satisfied with their situation, which is from God, or more recent from evolution. If men are right about something, they are right about the idea that women should take action. What happens when they do this? Well, it's nothing new, they get burned at the stake, they are hysterectomised, they end up in psychiatric hospitals, with a lobotomy and now they are ridiculed and threatened. Women's action is appalling. Women are meant to be silent and to endure, not to change their situation, not to claim their right to life, to dignity, their right to happiness. Whatever men would tell you, whatever they will ridicule you, complaint, lament, identify your problems! It's the first step, an important one! Your life is not normal, it's not from God and neither from evolution, it's from patriarchy. This is where your ordeal comes from! And sure, it's good to take action! But before you know how to take action, it's good to make plans, strategies, something you cannot make if you don't know what your problems are, you don't speak about what hurts you! I mean don't complain in front of other women, in front of men who don't listen to you and don't care about you in the best case! But don't become resigned in any way, no matter how painful the alternative would be!

The failure of romantic relationships patriarchy is to blame

There is an entire industry when it comes to romantic relationships. They say that women want romance more than men, although some studies show that men fall in love more. This is normal, they  have whom to fall in love with. The sexual value of most men - their attractiveness and their performance tend towards 0 most of the time. As I already said, women want romantic relationships because, except some privileged cases, they can't afford to have sex outside the romance with a man who is not in love with them. Because this kind of sex expose them to all sorts of other problems, first of all emotional problems, but also physical ones, which sometimes go beyond their personal safety, their integrity or even their lives. Men are dangerous, especially in patriarchy, where sex becomes an act of domination to an overwhelming degree. Men dominate women through sex, they see things this way. This is because the positions from sexual intercourse resemble the positions of dominance in animals - as ethologists say. Women are dominated through sex, according to men, they are conquered, they belong to them during sex. But let's not forget, this is men's vision about sex, not women's. Strong women, especially some feminists, have great difficulty in assimilating these absurd ideas. From this point of view, sex should benefit from feminist analyzes, new visions about sex should be imposed. But let's return to the subject, women want romance because they want safety first of all. Because men try to dominate, intimidate, emotionally abuse women all the time. Only love can make a man less dominating to a woman (as Pierre Bourdieu says in “Masculine Domination” in fact in this situation she can dominate him.  Romance is the key to a safe relationship. Then there is the human need. Because women often have the superior human functions like imagination, complex feelings, reason and morality more developed than men, they want complex, sophisticated feelings, complex and very personal relationships based mainly on romance, as a symbol of a powerful and exclusive, but complex human desire. I don't see any reason for women to have heterosexual relationships, besides the satisfaction of the sexual pleasure (which is temporary) and romance.

But most relationships in patriarchy involve material and social survival, so it's not about romance. Because women are innate more socially independent, as society is naturally built around them as social beings (although patriarchy somehow perverts this issue), they want more from a relationship than men - who want sex and domination. But men especially want domination, which comes from a great internalized (biological) marginalization (discussed elsewhere). Men desperately want a place in the society that naturally belongs to women. In the industry of romantic relationships, which includes dating websites, so-called women's magazines, but also in the industry of psychology, which is deeply misogynistic, there are a lot of pieces of advice for women that actually make them more submissive and support compliance in patriarchy. There are huge aberrations about romantic relationships, such as the "scarcity principle" (to offer a little, so the partner won't be satisfied, meaning to trick him) and others like this. This is nothing else than the "ballet" of animals who are entering the territory of another animals, and they must have certain attitudes and positions to avoid aggression. As a feminist article notices, the advice given to women in women's magazines are similar to the pieces of advice which are given when negotiating with terrorists.  The truth is that romantic relationships are something almost impossible in patriarchy. Every woman, no matter how independent, how feminist she is, knows  that the milestone of a honorable feminist life in patriarchy are romantic relationships. For this reason, many feminists turn to lesbianism, as the only honorable option to have a romantic free equal relationship. Every woman has terrible traumas from the so-called romantic relationships in patriarchy, actually from the search of a romantic relationship. You try searching from something that doesn't exist. You try to get the passion, the desire and the strong and exclusive dream of someone who considers you an object, who considers himself superior to you, who devalues you even more if you act like yourself and who becomes psychologically dangerous (I guarantee this), or even physically dangerous if you don't approach  positions of obedience. The personal life of a conscious woman, who wants

romantic relationships (the only consistent relationships from this kind of woman) in patriarchy is a trauma. Heterosexuality is a factor of maximum risk, if not necessarily immediate physical danger, at least psychological danger. But if we were  told the truth, if we didn't consider males' moodiness normal, if we didn't consider normal to be devalued, to dance the ballet, to become victims, if we didn't assume the misery of the relationships, everything would be different. Unfortunately, it's not. Even radical feminists the most "bad" feminists have a high tolerance when it comes to romance, to male behavior. The myths about the sexual dimorphism of the human brains (not that there wouldn't exist, but it's not as described, not in the sense that we must accept this) contributes to this drama. These tragedies occur because we are not told the truth, and even if we have an intuition about it, even since high school  or even earlier, everything starts to dilute with time, we start to hope something that it's not true, we forget and we think it would be different in our case. But it won't be different no matter special we are. Men are still themselves, we can't do anything to them. And patriarchy  is still patriarchy for us, as it is for other women. The truth is that the emperor has no clothes, women do everything, they have more mental and affective abilities, they are more resistant, stronger, more ambitious, they can have everything without men. Men only have physical strength on a short time, this is the only thing that can make them something different, can make them gods, as some women see them. They don't have anything besides this, they are pathetic most of the times. First, women are told that men's affectivity is limited and this makes them go away, disappear, something sinister that women have no reason to accept. On the other hand, women are conditioned to look for them, to chase relationships. Why would they do this, why would they invest in this carousel of horror? If women would learn that they are everything, that men can be their lovers in the best case, they can only provide immense pleasure for a short time, but very rare, that men's responsibilities are limited, that men's strength is

limited, women's life  would change. Heterosexuality wouldn't be just a trauma. This would be the first direction, the truth about the emperor without clothes who only has his  brute strength and the ability to make gangs with others like him in order to terrorize societies at different levels and in different ways. The second direction, in the same time with the first, not separately, if men want relationships, they must learn to join the society, not as saviors, but as persons who apply for this quality, as applicants for citizenship. And the requirements must be created by women, met by men. For this purpose, the accidental relationships, that women  have in the search of romance, must disappear. Men must qualify for the position to have relationships. In this regard, special tests would have an important role. Special organizations for the mental protection of women, but also matrimonial agencies highly specialized to recruit only men capable of living with women, could be founded. Most men are harmful to women, so they have no place near them. As I said before, women are in a greater danger now than in the past, although the arranged marriages were leading the way to many abuses and they were against women's freedom. But at least young women were theoretically protected from harmful men then, at least there was a principle of protection, at least the danger was recognized. Although the real reason behind this protection was the sale of women. Now women are thrown into the wolf's mouth, especially the young ones. A very interesting phenomenon is the campaign with “real men” who defend women, they don't beat them etc. This is, in fact, the mechanism of patriarchy, there is nothing new here. Women are forced to accept relationships with men in order to feel protected from other men who are extremely dangerous. But women cling to those knights, they don't choose, they don't develop their sexuality. Women don't have to choose for survival, but for happiness, at least for pleasure. Sexuality is often for survival, for peace, not for pleasure, for personal development, for exploration. Women have to demand a lot from life, but it is difficult for them when even the

survival is problematic. The growing of the luxury of sensations, of the desires of women would lead to the true liberation.    In conclusion, patriarchy is to blame for any romantic relationship destroyed, just because it makes women too responsible in relationships, it limits their actions in the same time, it stops them from initiating relationships, but also from expressing themselves freely, while men have an honor without any reason, meaning they must not appear in horrible instances, in instances of weakness, when in fact their horrible instances are innate. Not to mention how women are valued as monuments of submission. In matriarchy men are lovers, women have their existence insured because they are the inheritor of the wealth, they can  afford to have their own sexuality. Maybe there they know what men can offer, how responsible they are and how strong they really are. This truth should be known in our society, too. And women must learn to ask from men what they can really ask, knowing the truth, without sacrificing their sexuality and their feelings. Women must impose their requirements. If you want to have a relationship, to be accepted in women's world, don't try with naturalistic text like "boys will be boys" or with the adapting of the women to male psychology, which means the same thing. Meaning, "you do as I say because I am superior, because I am a man”, no matter how stupid, primitive, insensitive and brutal I would be. We admit that men are dragged into relationships, they have no place there, but we don't make compromises with the ones who want this. They must obey the requirements and they are punished for their mistakes. Men must cede power, actually women must take power. Women are not socially, humanly dragged the way men are. Society belongs to women, it was created by women, around them. Unfortunately the extreme poverty, the struggle for survival for which sexuality and feelings are often sacrificed, makes many women betray themselves, to accept unacceptable conditions. Patriarchy would have disappeared a long time ago if women would not have been betrayed women, if most of them wouldn't have been accepted

patriarchy and the inhuman conditions of relations in patriarchy, just because they were afraid. But something can be done at least in the areas where women are not terribly impoverished, uneducated and highly colonized. It's a starting point that we should not miss. The future will belong to women or there won't be any future. The crisis of masculinity is seen everywhere. Masculinity is the root of all evil in the world.

Does romantic love exist or is it a patriarchal construct? As a radical feminist, I agree with some Marxist analysis, such as class antagonism. Men's class exploit women's class. Men are born as masters of women, they must dominate, women must obey. Women are born and raised to satisfying men, to serve men, to be useful in their world. Women don't have their own culture, political power, they are, in the best case, accepted in men's world, in the world of men's needs, where they have to make room for themselves, but they can't make their own politics, even now when women's equality is stated in many constitutions in the world. Because it's difficult to build freedom on patriarchal structures. Even the word "equality" includes reporting to men, to what they are, to their status. Women may want something different, they would create a different world with other values. We will discuss later where this phenomenon comes from historically. We will also discuss the mechanisms which maintain the status quo. Like fascism and communism, which are also derived from patriarchy, patriarchy has its own propaganda, its own revolutionary stories. More, patriarchy has its own religions. The lost paradise of the Islamists is, in fact, the lost paradise of the domination of women. In the North African countries, like Algeria, where modernism has penetrated, the frustration of young poor men came from women's freedom and the expression of their sexuality, but also from poverty and social marginalization that was not offering them access to women. That led to the Arab spring. The hard patriarchy is their lost paradise. And religions speak about patriarchy, about patriarchal relations between women and men, like a paradise. In the patriarchal rhetoric, as feminists say, among the mechanism of propaganda

there is also romantic love. In feminist circles, especially radical feminist, this idea is well known. Although I am a radical feminist, I deny this issue. First, let's ask ourselves what romantic love is and if patriarchy, patriarchal writings from the religious ones to the secular ones, indeed mention it and encourages it.  But first, let's define romantic love, let's differentiate it from love itself, like the one between mother and child, relatives, etc. I think there is an essential difference between the two, a difference that appears in literature and philosophy. This is what love between relatives, mother, and child, then brothers and close people who live in a community is: it's an attachment that can become very strong. But this attachment doesn't reach paroxysmal levels, it doesn't inspire, it doesn't produce profound changes in selfperception and the perception of the world. How many parents did I hear they have killed themselves because their children left them or even died? How much pleasure does this attachment produce? What people want and dream more: to be parents or to feel and provoke romantic love? Of course, this happens when they enjoy material and social independence. The love between relatives, including between mother and child, is an attachment that also exists in animals. Probably the other forms of attachment phylogenetically comes from this one (or vice versa, was there a first attachment for the colony, or for the child?). Sure, in humans it's stronger and more complex. But it's an attachment that we don't give a dam. There is the word "friend zoned", a word that some men use when women want to make them friends, meaning to have for them an attachment like the one for relatives. Could this mean they are offended just because those women don't want to have sex with them? Maybe sometimes this is true, but friendship must not be thrown away, as they say, especially for men. The attachment for the natural family with its surrogates like friends and community doesn't inspire us, doesn't make us lose our minds, although there are frustrations, betrayals, etc in these relationships, too. Romantic love is something different. It's more than an attachment. We can say it comes from sexual behavior and this is partly true. Even if the role would be reproductive, its madness would make animals and humans overcome dangers and reproduce. Animals have interesting, laborious, complex and sometimes risky for survival rituals, for choosing a partner. Usually, in nature females choose. Meaning always! Without patriarchy this

would happen in humans, too: women would choose. And they do this whenever they can. Sex means choice. Especially for females, who usually have to choose. They all reproduce, but there is competition between males from access to reproduction. In this behavior, there is a more individual involvement, a higher individual expression than in pure attachment. In sex, there is a lot more freedom, personal expression. Sex involves strangers. It can be normal to offer a much better mental reward, when facing greater dangers, overcoming the fear of strangers and aggressions barrier. We don't know how much animals are satisfied by sex, although it seems that many animal species also have orgasms, including female bonobos and dolphins. But in humans, sex is certainly a better pleasure than having children. Studies show that sex is a source of happiness and that the unhappiest people is single people who have children. Children are a survival insurance for the old ages and a way of making clans and alliances in most cultures, especially in the poorer ones. In other words, their goal is survival. The goal of sex is pleasure, although sex leads to procreation, to the survival of the species. However, at humans, the goal of sex is, most of the times, pleasure itself, not procreation. In strong patriarchal cultures, there were and there are still women who prefer having children to sex because the access to real sex, to pleasure, was forbidden to them. For many women, children were and still are a way to make small clans, colonies, to bring friends and families in their lives (they say "make your own family"). Sure, this is also true for men, but for them, it's about possession, especially in patriarchy. The family is a property for men, it's still a clan made by themselves, but a clan who offers them social power outside . The attachment that appears between animals, between humans and their dogs, between people who come together by chance in the most sordid environments, also appears in the family relationships that are, at least said, controversial - so I don't use harsher words! People talk all the time about the Stockholm Syndrome, about the paradox of the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, between the hostage and the attacker. Maybe the human need for attachment can be satisfied with any human being from nearby, even if this is the aggressor.  The victims of sexual abuse, girls and boys, persist in the act that brought them so much suffering by going into prostitution or accepting further

abuse. And also by producing it. People attach themselves to anything or anyone when they have no choice. What choice is there in having children? What choice is there in bringing someone completely unknown into your life, a stranger whom you know nothing about, you know less about that person than you know about an aggressor or a dictator. And you bring that person into the world - a person who can become anybody or anything - just because they happened to grow in your uterus, or in the uterus of the woman you own, no matter what circumstances. The attachment exists, nobody doubts it. Some people call this attachment love. Indeed, patriarchy encouraged a lot of attachment between mother and child, although it was clearly mentioned that the children were property, without anyone noticing the contradiction. They still don't see it now either, although there are people who love their car very much. Women had this duty because they were forced to be birth machines in order to offer sword fodder and to form alliances, clans. Motherhood was praised in Christian countries, the Marian cult was very important. If maternal love is so uplifting, there is still a mystery why women consider access to contraception more important in their lives than the right to vote. If this love is so pleasant, why anti-abortion laws are the foundation of patriarchy, of the right-wing policies ? In hard patriarchal societies, motherhood was the only value of women, the only way to express themselves and their only purpose. Luther said that if women die when giving birth to a child, very well, they did their duty, this is their purpose. The question is if patriarchy makes the same apology for romantic love. The answer is NO. Romantic love is criticized. Romantic love would mean freedom, the woman's choice, but also the man's choice. But the real choices would not take into account the alliances and what that clans want for children. Women, in particular, are forbidden to have initiative, to choose, to have real sexual desire. They must obey their husbands, meaning to have Stockholm Syndrome, not to dream and not to chase the men they really want. If patriarchy would encourage or glorify romantic love, adultery would not be punished by stoning. Patriarchal women don't speak and they censor their thoughts regarding romantic dreams. Patriarchy does not have much imagination, the patriarchal propaganda films and stories are false, embellished, vulgar, like the fascist and communist ones.

Romantic love is a drug, at the border of the sublime, and patriarchy has nothing to do with something like this. There is nothing sublime in obedience to the patriarch. Even if we would reduce romantic love to sex, to an evolutionary consequence of sex, it would still be a form of affection older than the maternal attachment. The intimacy for reproduction is older than maternal behavior, than the care for the offspring. But anyway, romantic passions resembles the effects of a drug, it's a form of addiction. Sex offers a lot of pleasure, the effects of this pleasure can lead to changes in the perception of the world and of themselves, but romantic passion is much more than that. The answer to the question if romantic love exists is simple: have you ever felt something like this? Then it exists. Unfortunately, it's very rare in reality and because of this, because of the high expectations, when romantic love is involved, it can provide much disappointment. This is because very sensitive people, people who have a very strong conscience, who may come to feel something like this, are very rare.  But it still remains an ideal in the Western culture. They say it was invented by the troubadours in the Middle Ages, which were influenced by the Arabs after the conquest of North Africa. In Arabs, in older times, the relationships between sexes were freer. This suggests that romantic love is historically related to freedom of communication, not the rigid patriarchal structures. Maybe it was culturally imposed in this space - even if it comes to a (re)discovery - although it's probably much older, although it's encouraged and supported differently in different cultures. This feeling has little to do with the survival of the individual or the survival of the species. It's a from the category of art, dreams, of the sacred, one of those human behaviors that seem unnecessary, but they make us human. Primitive people make art, they have a kind of proto-religion, meaning a look beyond the objective reality, they create stories and songs. Romantic passion resembles art making, seeing the transcendental in a human being, which makes the discovery of the transcendental in yourself possible. As I said before, sex and pleasure can also be accessible in childhood, people masturbate, but romantic feelings arise in adolescence when people get a strong consciousness of their own body and of their own person at a social level. Sexual attraction is like a drug, it can have this kind of functions - to discover the transcendental, to actually see something different than simple images of reality.

Some Eastern cultures say that the divine revelation occurs through sex. Maybe sex is not even needed. Drugs and religion, revelations about nature have gone together throughout history. Animals consume drugs if they have access to them. It's hard to believe that primitive humans didn't discover romantic passions, too, even if it doesn't look exactly like in the Western World. The study of matriarchal societies (matrilineal actually) and the behavior of financially and socially independent women gives us the answer to the question "Is romantic passion a patriarchal construct?". In matrilineal societies, women usually have a free sexual behavior. They have lovers with whom they have relationships for specific periods of time. They are searching for free sexual pleasure. It is believed that when sexuality is free, passion, jealousy like in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, should not exist. Unfortunately, things could be different, like even the science fiction novel mentioned is suggesting. The possibility of sexual exploration can lead to romantic passion in some cases. Romantic passions involve jealousy, as they say. This would mean possession, which would be linked to patriarchy. Margaret Mead describes the traditional societies as very calm, with free love and without jealousy. However, some newer information seems to reveal that there are passion and jealousy in those societies, too (e.g. Samoa). Jealousy must not involve possessiveness, but the desire for exclusivity involved in a very strict exclusive choice, but of course, a free choice. In the hard patriarchal society of ancient Greece, where most women, besides some luxury courtesans, were ignorant, isolated and just reproduction machines, this feeling was often between men. This feeling of affection between people with a high intellectual and affective value, but somehow equal, was described by Platon and other authors (platonic love). Although in Sparta, homosexuality was very common, despite the general lack of culture and the similar education of sexes. Anyway, equality and free communication was a condition for this kind of bonding. This feeling was probably between women, too, as it is suggested in the case of the poetess Sappho, but it happened earlier when women were freer. If romantic love is invented by patriarchy, so by men to fool women, then what relationships between lifetime lesbians, especially butch, are supposed to be? Some sources from inside these communities show that relationships between lesbians are passionate. They enter relationships when they fall in

love with other women, they are not just simply looking for partners (hiring them). This is a patriarchal model they strongly reject. Perhaps patriarchy has used romantic love in some cases (and in a superficial way), as something women want, something that would exclude their patriarchal status of simple employees of men if not even slaves of men. When the troubadours were singing this feeling, they are making women dream, feel they are something different, have what they want. Sexual pleasure, associated with sexual behavior that can inspire them, is what women can ask from men when they are free to choose. What else could they want if they are not deprived of the material means of survival, of the social status, like they are deprived in patriarchy? Females want nuptial dances and strong interest from males. If it's exclusive, this is a proof of strength. When they are lesbians, they want the same from women. Romantic passion would be connected to sex, meaning that free women want it. Men would also want this if it was not in competition with their social status in patriarchy. Patriarchal women also sacrifice it for their social status, if not even for survival. To deny the existence of this feeling means to deny some typical human behaviors, to deny humans' tendency to have extraordinary sensations, to live beyond the wish for survival and reproduction. The return to utility, to simple animal interests, is its enemy.

Are there any heterosexual romantic feminist relationships? This is a difficult question if we want something really romantic. In some articles, I talked about this kind of relationships, described in movies, but the question is if romantic love would be compatible with radical feminism. Can a woman feel passion for a man and still be feminist? I mean a radical feminist, against patriarchy, not post-modern 3rd wave feminist, where any internal contradiction is possible. Yes, if there isn't any patriarchal submission involved in this relationship. However, we are not going to discuss what her chances are not to be disappointed, destroyed by this affective investment .

Can a heterosexual man feel passion for a woman and this feeling not to be patriarchal? Yes, if he is not infected with patriarchal domination. Is this possible? Most of the romantic stories are sexist, they are literally disgusting because of the way they treat women. Sure some famous authors (most of them) are from this category. Mircea Cărtărescu - a famous Romanian writer -  is no exception. His book "Why We Love Women" is a monument of sexism that makes every feminist feel sick. However, is there this kind of passion from a man described in literature? For something like this to exist, this man has to have a strong moral conscience, to overcome the patriarchal prejudices, to have a lot of critical sense, to think with his own brain, or...to live in a feminist world. A big source of disappointment for women (feminists) is that they believe there are enough conscious and intelligent men who are able to appreciate a woman as a human being, not as a decorative or social object, as I said before. Unfortunately, this is what most of the relationships are, almost all of them actually. If feminists would realize since childhood what is going to happen to them (and some girls realize this, but not 100%) they would commit suicide. Women are, more or less, purchased, hired, accepted and then, with a little luck, actually with a lot of luck, their image might humanize in the eyes of men. And when there is passion, in the beginning, this passion is a superficial, animal-like one, no matter how nice it would be masked through fantasies. This is not a passion for a human being. Because women are not human beings first in the eyes of a man who is going shopping or who plays a role of a human resource recruiter. Women in patriarchy are no more than merchandise or possibly more or less qualified workforce. This is what men are educated to see women. If something changes, it's an individual change, there is nothing cultural to save women from this assessment, weighing, measuring as objects. Indeed, the passion for a superior woman, who is admired for her intellectual and moral qualities, appears, as expected, in a science fiction (!) novel written by a cultured, interested in history, author. It's about a wonderful work, presenting possible alternatives to the real history "Guardians of Time" by Poul Anderson. In the same book, written by a man, you will find female sexual fantasies with attractive men from the past, whose fossils make women dream. It's interesting that men from the last glaciations age really seemed something

worthy of erotic dreams. Women from the future, from the periods of time when they were free, were returning to that era of snow and had affairs with them. But most importantly, you will find a feminist utopia in a more distant future, where men are the plebs and women are the ruling class. It's a utopia almost clear to a woman's mind. At least for me, this (not very distant) future seemed obvious from my childhood. Women were more intelligent, more moral, more powerful, ambitious, it was logical for them to rule the world. Only the brutality and primitive state of the species has held back the development of this society. In one of the stories about travels back in time that change history, there is the passion of a man born in that society dominated by women, a man who is not very attractive, short and a little fat, for a superior, strong, intelligent and courageous woman, who is presented in an impressive manner. The woman is not described as a fantasy, the focus is not on her looks, but on her gestures and her attitude when she is making decisions, when she wants things strongly. The woman is not passive, she is a mountain of desires and insatiable ambitions. Especially because the story is about the geological birth of the Mediterranean sea. That woman has in her spirit unleashed passions similar to the geological forces from the background of the action. Maybe this story doesn't make women dream to be in the situation of the heroine, but the relationship, which we can hardly call it that, can make women foresee a possible model (the only one?) of a non-patriarchal passion of a man. He is overwhelmed by admiration for that woman's qualities, especially for her intellectual and moral qualities. She looks at him almost with disregard and denies him any influence on her decisions, even if it's about saving her own life. The man behaves shyly and without any patriarchal authority. But there is no reason for him to do this if women are not involved in exclusive heterosexual relationships, which are patriarchal. The man is free to have feelings, with decency, to dream, but he is not free to limit a woman's freedom by any means. And it's about a really free woman. His feelings are emphasized by the lack of his sexual value.  The only sexy thing in this man is the way he feels. The woman, although the focus is not on this, looks good, maybe in the sense that she is well built by nature. Women often look better than men because nature has invested more in them. They are better built and their symmetry and delicacy are signs of their natural power. Men are often more modest human beings. I

think this is obvious. Physical strength gives them the qualities they are endowed within the collective imagination. Beyond it, in a feminist world, only sexual attractiveness or the depth of their feelings can arouse the interest of a woman. As they rightly say that any science fiction story talks about the present, we can wonder if there is any allusion about reality here. About the reality of each of us. The non-patriarchal romantic passion of a man cannot be anything else, but a passion linked to a very deep feminist thinking. This might be the message. Or a possible female and male archetype in a world dominated by women? How non-patriarchal passions looks like, if you ever met something like this?

Valentine's day and the princess's dream On February 14th it's Valentine's day, a commercial holiday that opens the way for a long series of spring holidays, all of them turned into commercial holidays, even in Europe. Probably their origin is pagan, being related to spring, the resurrection of nature and fertility. But time has passed, history passed over these holidays and the politics also has reflected in them, not only the economics. Now it's assumed that Valentine's day is lover's day. On this day, people are faking the state of sexual passion for an amount of money (presents, invitations to the restaurant, etc). Sure, sexual passion has nothing to do with the presents and the restaurants, with romantic dinners, which are recent cultural constructs.  The passion is manifested on the country road, on the field, among ruins and wherever it has the chance. But when it doesn't exist, we are using symbols which are well-established in a particular culture to fake it. I can eat at a restaurant in semi-darkness with candles on the tables with anyone, without feeling romantic thrills. The presents made on this day can produce anything, but romantic feelings. Yet, what are we celebrating on the 14th of February? The history of culture and society is always with us, the history of Western society and culture in this case. Although it's obvious that the passion is present in people from many cultures, if not from all the cultures, a cultural value associated with it is present only in the West and nowadays it's imitated by other cultures.

Considering the decline of Western culture, we don't know if this will go on. But, for now, Western culture is still up to date. Where does this celebration of love as passion come from? They say it was invented by Provençal troubadours from the Middle Ages. And it was culturally imposed with songs that they sang all over Europe. But why did something like this happened? Why were these songs so popular? As usual, it was a market, a necessity. And here is where history comes in. No matter how atheists we are, we must admit that the West is a gift of the Christian religion besides the wonders of the antiquity, which are also a little reflected in religion. Why did this happen? We all know what the European middle ages was, in what circumstances the Crusades occurred. The misery in Europe, from the purely physical one which is present everywhere, to the moral one, meaning generalized violence, the lack of values, crass ignorance, a kind of sciencefiction dystopia placed in the last centuries of the first millennium was its brand. The Arabs and any invaders were attracted by this Eldorado mess. And who was thinking about saving the world then? The Church, of course!  Maybe they just wanted to save themselves, but they took some measures - which we call now anti-corruption measures - that have changed the world forever. So few, but so effective! The Church wanted to create order in this apocalyptic story (who say the apocalypse has come and passed?). So they set some clear though rules for people to be accepted under their protection. One of these rules was referring to the strictly monogamous marriage and conditioned by the membership of some social class, but also to the transmission of the heritage.  Needless to say that, before this, the inheritance and the class were patrilineal or matrilineal according to the (criminal) interests of the members. Things have changed now, the nobles, the knights to be respectable were no longer allowed to accompany themselves with any woman as they wanted and when they wanted, but only with respectable ladies with social rank and fortune. It was about legal relationships because the habit of illegal relationships has continued all this time, there were also books speaking about the rules of behavior between people from different social classes, involved in these relationships, relationships denied by the church, but European people could not do without them.  RI Moore writes about the measures - which we now call anti-corruption  in "The first European revolution". Among these rules, there was also the

celibate of the priests, who didn't have this restriction at the beginning. The idea would be that these rules have changed the European society by creating conditions to search for performance, to cultivate creativity, to create new sources of income. Let's think that in a noble family only the eldest son was the heir of the title and the fortune, the other ones had to search for other sources of income. On the other hand, they could not take what women they wanted when it came to legal relationships, who gave birth to heirs, they could have legal relationships with any woman with a certain status and fortune. The younger brothers were leaving, they were doing what today we call a career, either in arms, politics, arts or culture. New necessities were being created. At the same time, women who were eligible for legal relationships were few and valuable and men had to wait a very long time for them in some cases, they had to wait until they were obtaining a suitable status for themselves. The noble and extremely valuable women - who probably have inspired the princesses in European fairytales – those cherished socially valuable women men were dreaming about, because they could show them in society with the approval of the church. Besides the fact that they were wanted by nobles, who had access to them, they were also the object of the dreams of other men, some of them with the possibility of artistic expression. The church made that some women in Europe were seen by men as something else besides sexual objects and incubators for babies. Their attention was precious. Complaining against some feminist analyses, but also sociobiology analyzes (pure aberration reflecting historical ignorance and ignorance of any kind) the girls' dream to consider themselves princesses is not about doing nothing, but to be women who are wanted, cherished, not despised and unimportant, like ordinary women. The princesses were the only women who mattered. What would a woman want to be then? A princess or Jeanne d'Arc, who really changed history? Or an extremely smart nun who was reading and spending her time with philosophical contemplation? Was being a princess the only chance a woman had to exercise her sexuality without being despised, humiliated, dehumanized? Has this changed? Not really! As women don't have enough political power, social power, enough resources they are mostly sex objects, even now. Men have more power anyway, much more power and they are imposing their sexual culture. A poor woman, whatever qualities she has, she is still

considered a prostitute, a being who can be abused, humiliated because she doesn't have social support which can offer her protection. She needs much more to be wanted, cherished. Sure, only in this case, her inherent qualities matter, as they mattered in the Middle Ages. The ugliest princess was more valuable than the most beautiful servant. It's the same now, only that the princess' status is diluted. You still need money, some status given by the professional training, etc, which actually denotes economic power. The collapse of the Middle Ages led to the devaluation of the rank of the family membership at the expense of money, fortune. This is the main change. Although feminists and sociobiologists from nowadays would be surprised, things were very simple in Balzac's time for example. A woman's value was measured in money. If she inherited a big amount of money, she could turn overnight from a prostitute into a valued and desired woman. This is well described in "Scenes from a courtesans' life" (Splendeurs et miseres des courtisanes). Men were and still are in love with the status of a woman, with her social power conferred by her family, in fact by her father. No matter how beautiful, how intelligent she is, a woman is a prostitute, if she doesn't have the necessary social rank. This is very well noticed in poor societies. A woman really has the right to sex without being humiliated, she has the possibility to choose, only if she has a  fortune. Why do women want to be princesses? For this reason! Not because they would like to be inert dolls. The princess is a very desired, cherished woman who is not humiliated, at least not in front of her. The princess is courted, not the prostitute. Only the princess' feelings matter, only her feelings are spared. Any self-made woman from any liberated society knows how things work and what the real price of being self-made is. As if something like this existed for a woman. I'm not saying that women don't do extraordinary things, but their rewards are not great, whatever they do. What are we celebrating on Valentine's Day? It's a day when women think they are princesses and the troubadours are singing odes to them, they think they are something different than usual. Is this good, is this bad? It's probably good because at least women are dreaming that things could be different, that they can at least be treated differently, that their feelings matter. Did the church contribute to women's empowerment with all these measures? They probably did. Even if life became a bigger hell for most

women when the importance of the Church decreased. During the industrial revolutions, poor women without a dowry had big chances of becoming prostitutes. The dowry was a protection fee, without it the woman was very vulnerable. It's the same now. Few people know that the reform has destroyed women's status. The Marian cult, the cult of maternity, was abolished and women were terribly persecuted. Many witches have been burned then. The church was no longer protecting women, they were allowing sovereign misogyny. On the other hand, this holiday should remind women that, although there are men who fall in love with women based on their qualities, these men are extremely rare.  Most men don't fall in love with the beauty (fertility as they say) of a woman, her intelligence, her morality, but her status, her fortune, meaning her father's power. Sinister, but true! Cinderella is a very successful fairytale that inspired a receipt an entire category of soap operas is based upon, just because it depicts a special situation when a dream most women have could come true.  But this happens only in fairytales.

FEMINISM- NEW PERSPECTIVES A critical view on feminist achievements on the 8h of March

he 8th of March is women's empowerment day. We don't talk about the origin of this day. This day has always been blamed for its socialist and communist origin, although the suffragettes started their work before that. Most of the suffragettes were women from the middle class and they were accused of lack of support for the struggle of the working class and for the fight against racial discrimination. The misogyny related to the supposedly bad influence on the leaders by some women was added to the association with the communism in a former communist country. This means women were considered to be negative, they were defined by their sex, while the male leaders were good or bad, they were not defined by their sex, they had individuality. Now the 8th of March has turned into a celebration of the female role, something extremely disgusting. When we were kids in school, especially during communism, we named the 8h of March "Mother's Day". I spoke with educated women with a doctorate who believed that the 8th of March was women's day, in fact mother's day. This is incredible! This is what the woman is: the mother, the mistress, someone who receives flowers today as a recognition of her miserable, demeaning, dehumanizing role. A being defined by the utility of her uterus and vagina and her ability to be submissive, a tool of the man! This is the female gender role. And this is true, the 8th of March, which should be a day of rebellion against the

T

gender role, has come to celebrate it. This happened because of ignorance, political manipulation, starting from communists. Including Stalin, who returned to the traditional role of women after Alexandra Kolontai – a Russian communist who was Jewish - had been promoting the model of the free, sexual active woman when Lenin was in power. But this happened for a short time. The Georgian cad, former Czarist spy, the biggest Caucasian killer in history (Mao had more victims), took care that people, especially women, returned to the status of an object, even worse than before. Feminism was considered a bourgeois, retrograde ideology by the communists. If the suffragettes would see what the 8th of March became today, they would roll over in their graves. But we must celebrate this day the right way! It is women's situation better than it was 100 or 200 years ago? I asked women, most of them radical feminists (women who speak English most of them Anglo-Saxon) what is their favorite invention, which invention made their life easier because it was invented for them? The answers - very similar - were surprising. For these women not birth control pills are important, but small technological developments such as electricity, water, some appliances. Nothing for women, nothing special for them, women were simply helped with everyone else. Birth control pill has helped men so that women could be more sexually available (not sexually free). And their effect on health is not the best, some people even associate them with the increase in some cancers' risk. The conclusion: the industrial revolution brought nothing special for women. One could say the situation of women somehow has became uniform. But perhaps 100 years ago the best life of a woman could not be compared to the life of a woman from these days. Now it's a big deal that women don't sacrifice their time, their personal life and their career for children. A woman who has a child doesn't even have time to breathe. As Cordelia Fine said - who had orders for her books after the birth (she has written a book before giving birth), when you have a little child at home, you can't even make a shopping list. Something like this would have been funny for a French woman of the 19th and 18th century from certain social classes. In France, it was a trend that women from the upper class returned to the social life and parties immediately after giving birth, like Elisabeth Badinter said in "The Conflict: Woman or Mother". Paris was full of nannies, rural women who were breastfeeding the children of the noble women and not only their babies. Some children, who came to the countryside were cared for several

years by these women. This is true, it seems that this excessive attachment to children is something new, is a social construct. Is it connected to the countering of women's empowerment? Even during the times of Queen Victoria, they said that it's good to look at the children, not to listen to them. In a world where philosophy meant something, nobody was speaking about the great happiness to have your mind occupied only by little children, by their basic needs, by their behavior. A woman who was avoiding something like this was not a denatured mother, she was a normal person. Another issue was that women, at least some of them, were free of the burden of domestic work. Today it's hard to imagine women who don't have this concern, at least partially. Now they are talking about the great privilege of burden sharing. But when Virginia Woolf was talking about a room for herself, a place where a woman can think, be alone, she didn't know how it feels like not to have time for yourself, to be a part-time housemaid, nanny for all your life. Are we wondering why the suffragettes were women who had money, time and space, who enjoyed little human pleasure, who were living in nice houses? Sure, some women's privilege meant other women's misery, those servants' misery. First, their life was improved by technology. Physical works became easier. These women's life - who were poor farmers in the best case - improved after the industrial revolution, after passing through a sinister period of time, a period of hard exploitation and moral misery. But, on the other hand, every woman's life started to look like poor women's life as a status, all women were considered servants, not queens. Indeed, royalty - however humiliating it may have been - was offering a female role, even if he was inferior to the king's role. This happened when the state wasn't lead by a queen, like in the British Empire. Now, the supreme role in a state belongs to a man most of the times, there is no female leader role. When it comes to women's sexual life — besides Ana Karenina's tragedy, who had the right to have lovers, but she crossed the line too much when she wanted to legalize her relationships — Balzac describes the sexual life of French women from high society. It was something natural to have a lover, it was something obvious that a woman was a sexual being with an undeniable right to pleasure. Who would read novels with complex analyses of the women's soul now, when female characters in action movies are reduced to pornography in the best case? Now women are seen as sexual objects, forced to perform oral sex, as I saw

recently in some misogynists' comments even on Valentine's Day. In the past, the prostitutes were playing the roles of a queen, as much as it was possible. Now every woman is reduced to a porno star. Things are even worse now regarding the recognition of patriarchy. But the steps to the transgender illusion were made a long time ago when women declared themselves equal to men in patriarchy. You are not equal in a system made for men to oppress you. However, in those times the oppression of women had some limits. Men also had financial obligations to women, from the obligation to support their wives (sure, if they could get married, if they had dowry) to the obligation to provide compensation for a woman who had an illegitimate child with him. Sure, these also exist now, but women are told they can handle by themselves. Indeed, women are producing more, they are doing more, but their reward is not fair at all. Those times, at least it was known that men were sharing, women were doing all the hard work anyway, but theoretically, they didn't have to get exhausted with hard physical work, with toxic environments, etc, which were men's job. Although there were women and children working in coal mines in the British Empire and not only. Now, the single mothers are raising their children by working hard at a job, with the little financial help they are receiving from the absent father, when he exists. Because this is the way things should be. By being “equal”, they don't have the right to enjoy life. Actually, they only have obligations. I don't want to deny the progress that has been made. All of it is due to feminism. All of it! But I want to show that some things have been lost, and new feminist analyses should highlight the historical and sociological causes of these loses. In short, the status of women is related to their free, guaranteed access to resources. The animal groups are organized around females and the way they exploit the resources. Then, in matriarchal societies, some jobs, some material resources (such as agriculture, fishing, etc) belong to women. I guarantee this. In the past, women who owned properties, who had a guaranteed status — by birth, indeed — enjoyed some freedom, respect, social position, some influence in history. You don't have freedom of thought without access to resources, without security, without freedom. You are just a being reduced to survival. So, in these conditions, let's not wonder why women haven's destroyed patriarchy yet, although they have the right to vote. This didn't

happen because most women are very dependent on men, on patriarchy. And there are fewer women than 100-200 years ago who are really free. If you work for somebody else, you do what they say, you are not really free. Mrs. Merckel is a tool of patriarchy, she is there as a tool, not as a free woman. All these would have been something trivial in the past. To say that you free yourself sexually through prostitution or that you are free because you can sell your workforce in a different way would make an Athenian from Pericles' times laugh. I think this would also make a farmer from the 18thcentury laugh. What I suggest is not a return to the past, but an understanding of the lessons from the past. And the solution is that women understand their situation and make their own living through access to resources for themselves. But they need to understand the situation, so they can do this, they need female solidarity. A super-technologically advanced and socially complex matriarchy is now possible. It's normal that women will want to have daughters whom they will pass their social status and wealth, this trend is already observed. But what women must claim is access to resources.

Why human rights are not enough? Why do we need feminism There are people, especially males, who claim the concept of human rights is enough in order to protect women's rights. If we apply these rights, women will be OK. Beating, raping, discrimination at the workplace, street harassment, etc is against human rights. Yes, it's true. But we should take into account that all the public institutions are creating for men by men, ignoring women's need for millennia. Moreover, during the last two or three centuries, the male power was getting stronger, and the so-called democratic revolutions, partly initiated and largely supported by women, deprived them of political power even more than before. At the core of this system is the patriarchal family. If you ever participated at a wedding or civil marriage, you saw why feminism is still needed. Family, as well as marriage, is the base of society. every institution is built

around family: church, school, state. And family means husband and wife (this is the order people are asked about their will of getting married), not wife and husband. It is a male arrangement, not a female one. It is about a man's need and sexuality, not a woman's. When at the core of society will be a feminist cell, based upon female needs and sexuality, we can speak about human rights. An alternative solution will be enough. Gay/lesbian marriage is not an alternative, they are the same pattern with changed names. Taxes, privileges, social support, education has the family as the starting point. Families are supported, not mothers, not mothers with children or matrilineal family groups. In such conditions, women will be forced to get married, the dependence on their husbands will persist. They will be raised in order to be desirable wives. They will ignore their real sexual needs and choices. They will subordinate their dreams of social and professional fulfillment to their goals of being married. Or they will pay huge prices like given up personal, affective happiness. But this is a luxury price. Most of the time, their lives, body integrity will be jeopardized because of their dependence on their male partners. In such conditions, equality means being equal in a system conceived around men for men. It's like talking about equality for African people in a system that keeps Apartheid or about equity for Jews in a fascist system. Patriarchy is like fascism and Apartheid because patriarchy enforces gender and gender roles. Men and women have distinct jobs, distinct goals in lives, distinct fates. The same rules as in fascism and Apartheid. The patriarchal family and sexuality are imposed on women, it's not natural, it's a burden and a duty for them. It's slavery. Prostitution is a by-product of this system. The family itself is a form of prostitution. There is no real sexual freedom for women in patriarchy. They sell their sexuality for survival. We can speak about real equality after we will condemn patriarchy like we condemn fascism and Apartheid after we will recognize the immense evil it inflicts into women. And we will juridically condemn any patriarchal manifestation. When we will have laws against any patriarchal gesture, the way we have against fascism and Apartheid. After we will encourage institutions based on female sexuality and needs, we can speak about equality. But now women have to explore their sexuality to find out what they really like. As I already mentioned, the

classical heterosexual family is toxic for women and they prefer something else, I think of various models of family. A recent study suggests most women are bisexual and lesbians, but never what we call "straight". We can talk about equality after a lot of new institutions will be built around the female-based familiar groups, like female school, church (spirituality), science, and even state. And patriarchy will be recognized as a crime against humanity. Now the most important religions are patriarchal and support male domination. Now science is sexist, patriarchal, it reinforces gender roles and proclaims them as biological, like religion. Sociobiology is now more powerful than religion in some media, and I think, more toxic. In conclusion, equality is a bad joke, not a myth, it's an offense against female intelligence. Human rights are not enough, because "human rights"' means men's rights. And we need feminism just in order to speak about equality. In the future.

About women and feminism - obstacles made by ourselves It is a well-known fact that women were often the main enemy of their own empowerment. Yes, they often opposed to emancipation politics. In his attempt to modernize Turkey, a bastion of secularism until today, Mustafa Kemal disbanded harems and banned the Islamic veil, still a valid measure in public institutions. Only that some women returned to harems because they didn't know how to live otherwise. Just like the Aborigines from  South Africa are regretting the Apartheid. But that's not all, it's not only the inability of a person who was educated and lived in prison to manage to live in freedom. It's much more. It is a tough ratio of costs and benefits that some of us make, contrary to the belief of idealists and humanists, who are always a minority but once well represented among those with access to education and the ability to express their ideas. Idealists and humanists start from the premise that people have dreams, they want what is better and nicer for them. They were lucky that their  ideas have been imposed on others, who were less honest, with a broader, but  also less honest vision, or on people who didn't know how to write or who were busy with other things, like making money and they didn't have time to write philosophy to defend their interests. This happened

in a particular historic moment. Now the situation would have been different. In reality, it's not like this, people are not like humanists see them. Most people want to live in the matrix, they don't want to have problems, they just want to survive, not to bother with ideals. Women are not an exception, especially because their efforts for fulfilling their dreams are even bigger for them, given the existence of patriarchy. Some women's desires for empowerment, to occupy important positions, to work outside their homes, to make changes in societies, to be appreciated for their brains, not for chastity and appearance, are threatening other women's chances to survive, not to be happy. Imagine you are a woman with no special talent, who cannot reach professional success, but who looks good. Will she want her beauty to be appreciated less than her intelligence? No. Imagine you are a woman without talent, but who is not particularly interested in sex. Will she want people not to put any value on chastity? Chastity is what she can sell, it's her insurance for a better life. Men, the feelings a male partner can have for her, are not as important for her as they are for other women. Feminism, in its classic form, the one started the struggle of the suffragettes, the desire for social, political, material success, addresses a minority of women, just like the desire for social success achieved by merit addresses a minority of people in society, women and men. The "original" feminists were the sisters, the mothers, the daughters of the liberals who were followers of a hypothetical meritocracy, people who wanted a society with equal opportunities for all, where people would be able to fight to change things and the success would be achieved solely on merit. Such a society would be wonderful, although it would be very difficult to achieve, but would it please everybody? We rightly believe that oppression is bad. And it really is. But if it's not very painful some people find advantages in their situations. We forget that besides the suffering brought by the deprivation of freedom, besides the possibility to satisfy our needs - whatever they may be, basic needs or not there is the suffering caused by the struggle to satisfy them. When some needed require more energy consumption, more stress, to be satisfied, for some people it's easier to give up on them. Not to mention the society that oppresses, that makes things impossible or very difficult to achieve.  This is about patriarchy, but things can also be transferred to other situations. But

sometimes it's harder to change the situation  or to fight for something better than to adapt, to find small things that make the situation seem sweeter. This happens to many women in patriarchy. Related to their current situation, many women find (or just feel?) that the fight to change the situation, even if they succeeded, the result won't be favorable for them.  The rewards would not worth the efforts. So, they prefer to remain where they are and to create a system to obtain advantages from the current situation. Let's consider for example a large number of women in Muslim cultures, whether they are in their countries of origin or immigrants in Europe, who are wearing clothes that attest their religious affiliation. You see young women with their head nicely covered by a headscarf, with very long dresses or coats that reach the ground, not to mention the women who are completely covered, from whom only the eyes can be seen, many times covered with intense makeup. Their number is much bigger than 20 years ago, for example. What signals do these women send? Modesty? Modesty is more obvious to women dressed simply, without makeup, who are denoting activity, friendship, naturalness. Contrary to what it's believed, there is not a single word about the "Islamic veil" in the Quran. But it seems that it writes about modesty. A feminist may be more religiously correct than a woman covered with a veil, but wearing a lot of makeup. It's interesting that the veil is something very old,  long before Islam. The epic of Gilgamesh talks about a woman, who was an innkeeper, who walked covered with a veil. The veil was worn by noble women, but not by slaves or by the women from the peasantry. It was a sign of distinction. Women were wearing transparent, elegant veils in the West, too, until recently. The empress Sissy was also wearing something like this until she was murdered. Rich women were hiding behind the veils not only not to be recognized, but also to appear to be something different, to mask their flaws, for example. I could believe that women who are wearing religious signs are signaling the availability to provide chastity. Far from being modest, they are more sexualized than the women dressed casually. They are drawing attention to them, to their sexuality which they emphasize and capitalize it more than other women, perhaps even more than those who wear summary, sexy clothes. The feeling is that they want to say how precious their sexuality is to them, how expensive it is, and therefore how hard they negotiate it. The

chastity of a sexually mature woman is a kind of obsession for her own sex, for her own sexuality, which is not natural. The chastity is a self-obsession and a sexual obsession. It has nothing to do with modesty. I remember a dialogue from "Gervaise" by Emile Zola. A working-class woman says with modesty that she is no lady, so she doesn't need to claim that she doesn't want to make love. For that woman from the second half of the nineteenth century - where people from the working class had free sexuality, unlike the bourgeoisie - the displaying of the chastity was a form of infatuation. Maybe it was the same for rich women from Mesopotamia who were wearing a veil. Their elusive sexuality was something rare, expensive, inaccessible to all men.   Personally, I would feel embarrassed to make a point about my own sexuality, this includes the obsession of rape. It would seem to me strange to believe that men want me so much, even aggressively. Women who want to sell something else, who want to attract with something else, namely with their intelligence, their morality, and their sensitivity, don't outline their sexuality by hiding it, therefore by making it expensive, precious. Some feminists are like this, many of them. As I have said before, many women are not very enough represented by the modern feminism, and I am referring here to the adepts of radical feminism, the only real feminism, which takes patriarchy into account. These are heterosexual women. But women who highlight their chastity, beauty, etc are still women. And they must be somehow understood and represented. It is true, the third wave of feminism is dedicated to them, to those nonfeminist women, even patriarchal women, who hinder the development of radical (anti-patriarchal) feminism. Returning to women in Islamic cultures, we might speak of some kind of empowerment. These women actually express their sexuality. They value themselves in their own way. We cannot expect all women to behave in the same way. Maybe these are not so uniform as the Western one. Maybe people are not forced to behave all in the same way. Maybe the castes are expressing themselves in this way. Maybe the castes have something good when they are not vertical, but horizontal. People are different, they identify differently, they have different interests, they offer different things. We might think that the increase in the wearing of the veils is some kind of female empowerment in some cultures? It seems amazing that there are Muslim feminists, that some feminists convert to Islam. Sure, if it's a free

personal choice, we can think of the possible advantages. When it is the case, and we know, there is no free choice in wearing the veil in most cases. Maybe these women have a strategy for social success. Of course, we cannot speak of sexual success when sexuality is not free and exploratory. But some women have little interest in sex with men. And there is no wonder why. The sexual value of most men is very small, not to mention the psychological dangers, but even the physical ones. Does this make free sexuality an advantage to all women? In a patriarchal society, even a mild one, no. The honesty of expressing ideas in Ancient times gives us some clues. If you are not a courtesan, meaning a smart and charming woman, with a  highlighted and rewarded sexuality, you don't have many advantages. The frustrations, the devaluation, are granted for women in societies that encourage sexual freedom, if not even traumas, psychological traumas or even physical traumas. Do they encourage sexual freedom or they impose it in the interest of men? Probably the second option. I'm curious if there are so many young women who are suffering from anorexia or obesity in Islamic societies, meaning they are obsessed with their own appearance, with their ability to be physically attractive, to cause quick erections. There probably aren't. Sexual freedom is for courtesans, the other women must have alternatives. Different, varied alternatives that can be marked in different ways. But with one condition: women's freedom. The forced Westernization of Iran during the Shah's dictatorship which produced so much suffering was also oppression. In fact, the class hatred and envy played and still plays an important part in the events in Iran, whose authors were inspired by communism. Is the obligation of all women to be sexy, to be capable of sex for all men, also oppression?  Sure it is! Eventually, the society in Ancient times was more complex, at least sexually. The difference is that now women can fight patriarchy, but of them don't do that. There are short and long term interests, and most women (people) are not able to have long term projections of their survival and happiness. Radical feminism requires a higher level of conscience.

Women's liberalism, how much does it help? Liberalism is one of the most beautiful ideas that have ever been released. From my point of view, the most beautiful idea is, of course, feminism. But

feminism comes from humanism, it's humanism applied to women's problems, a humanism led to the extreme, to its roots. Radical feminism, the recognition of patriarchy and its abolition is, in fact, the real humanist revolution, which will free all people but, of course, first of all, women. Liberalism is indissolubly connected to individualism, meaning the individual herself/himself matters. The individual is important, the individual must become fulfilled, not the group, the tribe, the nation, the family, etc. The individual doesn't sacrifice herself/himself for the collective wellbeing unless she/he decides so, unless her/his conscience dictates so. Now we are going through a time of so-called neoliberalism, which in my opinion doesn't have much to do with liberalism. In fact, this is some kind of return to wild capitalism, which is actually a type of robbery, slavery, corruption. A certain type of people has always wanted this type of capitalism. This kind of people had times of glory and worse periods of time in history. One of them is the one called wild capitalism, where people were uprooted (by some people's robbery, their lands were taken and many of them have migrated to the city where they were turned into proletarians), exploited, dehumanized.  The industrial revolution, made with huge human sacrifices, had led to a decrease in the average height, but also to the decrease of the average lifetime. Most of the people's life became worse for a long period of time. But that didn't happen because liberalism was bad, because the private initiative wasn't something good, but because a certain kind of corruption, of legislative vacuum, has led to these phenomena. Nowadays neoliberalism invokes individual choices for personal solutions in any situations. Everyone has the chance to do what she/he wants, to make her life as she wants. About feminism, liberal feminism is now the trend, which is controversial, especially as regards to its attitude towards prostitution, which is a so-called choice. As a woman, I strongly oppose this idea. Prostitution is not a choice, you can see very well who practices it: poor women, immigrant women, women who were abused in their childhood, most of them without education. Is it a contradiction when a woman is a radical feminist and a liberal at the same time? No, it's not. You are a liberal when the conditions are liberal when chances are for everybody when merits really matter when there is no discretionary division of the resources based on the membership to certain groups. However, the conditions are not really more liberal now than they were a few decades ago. The chances are not equal, it's a law of the jungle

where the most corrupt and the most immoral wins. See Donald Trump who used to play dirty and he was teaching his disciples to play dirty in the great success show "The Apprentice". And that's not power, that's not progress, on the contrary, it's the destroying of progress. It's not the misery which created progress, but the progress took place in spite of it, and this shows how important freedom is, even when few have access to it. We have to admit this and, first of all, we have to acknowledge patriarchy, the systematic discrimination of women, their exclusion from economic, political power, from important social rewards. Women live a segregation. They are a class easy to identify, like people of African descent in America. Are we wondering that those people are often Marxists? It's not that I agree with Marxism, but they cannot believe in liberalism because liberalism doesn't apply to them. It's a bad joke to tell a black person that she/he can build her/his own life if she/he comes from a ghetto. No, this is not possible. And this is also true for poor, uneducated women of any race from every country. On the other hand, if every woman doesn't have the chances of a man, could she believe in liberalism? Yes, she could believe that something like this can be built, not that it already exists. Not that we proclaim it and it exists. No, but it can be built. How can it be built? First of all, by actively helping people get out of poverty and humiliation, so they can have a chance to build their lives then. This is the way to make people think liberally, believe in meritocracy, in individual initiative. Does it work? The experience of some countries, such as the Nordic countries, shows that it works. Poverty,  humiliation, marginalization leads to the destruction of some lives, to dehumanization. The poor people are not really political beings (see the experience of some very corrupt countries, some of them ex-communists, such as the voters of the Social Democratic Party in Romania), they no longer have dignity, dreams, they just want to survive. Sure, they don't even have initiative, they no longer have the necessary calm, imagination, and power, not even the necessary knowledge. And indeed, capital accumulation is essential for large projects, and any kind of commerce leads to capital accumulation. But without private initiative, without some people's dreams, ideas, desires you can build Saudi Arabia with capital, but not progress. Most women are not political beings because of their particular condition. Besides poverty, they are facing the lack of awareness of their own

situation, patriarchal education, they are educated to be slaves. Again, I confess that I don't understand what women who are not feminists want. The same way as I don't understand very well what Afro-Americans, gypsies, etc feel. You can't understand, there are aspects of education, from your own experience that you cannot possibly understand, although you realize them most of the times. But it's easy to anticipate that, if many women are poor, uneducated, marginalized, without chances, this affects any women, any woman's chances of success, her life's quality. This happens because women are perceived as a class both on the labor market and on the personal life market. It's absolutely sinister the fact that there is prostitution, that women can be bought, even with 5$, as I heard 3 years ago. It means this is a woman's worth, this is where her price starts. Prostitution is a crime against women. Three years ago (2015), Ireland adopted the Nordic model for punishing prostitution. Even if this wouldn't lead to the eradication of prostitution, at least society's attitude towards women would change. Women are not for sale. It's a crime to buy them. The devaluation of women, caused by poverty, marginalization, and lack of dignity of many women caused by patriarchy, has created all kind of myths about women and men, which I think they should be studied. Beyond the sociobiological aberrations, which are important — as I already said — only from a psychoanalytic point of view, there is also the urban culture related to the sexes. Women are educated since they are children to know how difficult it is to find a man, how many women remain single. For this reason, they must look and behave perfectly. Why? Because there are many more women than men. I even found some people's statements saying that there were three women for every man. What? There was a third world war? There are more men than women on our planet. Sure, there are more men than women in the Chinese, Arabs, Indians, but this happens because of patriarchy which devalues women from birth and before birth. In some places, such as China, the lack of women is so important than women from other countries from the area are kidnapped to become wives for the peasants. Women live longer in developed societies, so the surplus of women doesn't consist of very young females, especially that more men than women are born naturally. About 106 men are born at about 100 women (it seems that pollution would have changed a bit the ratio, but more men than women are born everywhere).

Women are not more numerous than men, but for every woman who has demands, there are other women who only want to survive and who affect the decisions of the ones who have a choice, at least to some extent. Women are devalued because some of them live very badly, because they don't know they have a choice. If they really have it. All women, including the educated ones, from the middle class, who have some choice, are devalued because they are women (meaning cheap merchandise). What is interesting and it should be studied is the fact that women are devaluing themselves. They don't know that their value of the market — as miserable as it is with women who can be bought for 5$ — is much bigger. It's interesting how little self-confidence women have, how much they value some relationships which they don't realize how valuable they are for the men involved in these relationships. For market reasons, of course. I don't invoke feelings. A feminist who wants to financially support her partner, a lover of a rich man who doesn't ask him anything material, she satisfies his sexual fantasy with a sincere passion, a very attractive woman who has a relationship with a 10 years younger man who refuses to work — these are "jewelry" on the sex market and their partners' benefit, not them. I am sure these women would no longer see things like this if many other women could be political and sexual beings, if they had access to choices. First, we must tell the truth: it's not liberalism, it's patriarchy.

History of feminism seen differently, how can we change the world? Who were the first feminists and what did they want? Who really helped the feminist movement? There have been feminist ideas that criticized the status quo related to the situation of women for a long time in the Western World. Marie Gournay, Montaigne's adoptive daughter (XVIth century), Ninon de l'Enclos, who were criticizing church and society for the role assigned to women, really lived by their own rules. But, these are women who could afford financially to do this, who have certain material independence, essential for freedom of action and thoughts, then and now. Mary Wollstonecraft (XVIIIth century), Marry Shelly's mother, about whom I have been talking before, is an important figure from

the history of feminism. This was before the French Revolution, where many women participated, some of them had very important roles, but they have become the main losers of this revolution. Women's situation and their political representation have deteriorated further. The bourgeois revolutions, starting with the one in England had this unwanted and surprising effect. This fact is illustrated very well in Rosalind Miles'  book  "Who cooked the last supper". After Napoleon came to power, women's rights were reduced more, here the connection between militarism and the possession of women, present throughout history, was very visible. Napoleon wanted to ensure for the brave soldiers the right to women, whose rights had to be restricted for this purpose. The bourgeois revolution liberated men, offered them rights, including rights on women, this was probably a right, too. Women apparently were not humans. Even the philosophers of these revolutions like Rousseau, although they said men and women are equal, talked about different roles for women, who had to be weak and passive, created for the pleasure of men. A critique of Emile's work or about education (Emile ou De l'education) was made by Wollstonecraft in "A vindication of the rights of women". Male feminist allies in history It seems hard to imagine that there weren't any men who wanted intense relationships, which excluded gender roles. For a person with a conscience, happiness seems unlikely with somebody who denies their nature, freedom, and who is, in fact, a non-stop employee or even a slave. It seems incredible how immoral people can be to accept to exploit in this way all the mental fibers of a person. This is without a doubt, the toughest and the most perverse form of exploitation. Women were the first victims of what was later called dictatorship that handcuffed even people's minds. No matter how despotic a tyrant could be until then, he had no deal with the person's mind, with what she/he is doing in their spare time, at home. But there is an exception, women. But this exploitation becomes more and more institutionalized in certain classes. But what happened? What made women's destiny become even worse? The answer might be the mentality, the level of consciousness and the manners of the class that came to power: the bourgeoisie. The description of the American society of the early nineteenth century seems to offer a possible

answer, without the author saying this. The book "Democracy in America" written by Alexis de Tocqueville is very suggestive. The nobles, with their injustice and harsh hierarchies which they were imposing, had more elegant manners, the highest degree of culture, more refined tasted than the bourgeoisie. The situation of women in America, a bourgeois state by excellence, with not very cultured, refined and elegant people, was typical for the middle class. Women didn't have political representation, independent economic power and they were treated emotionally austere. Beyond the mass guillotine that prefigured the modern genocide, the bourgeois revolutions made the position of women even worse. Still, there are exceptions. John Stuart Mill, the father of modern liberalism, seems to be such an exception. But many of his feminist ideas seems inspired by his wife, Harriet Taylor, whose intellectual superiority he recognizes. Still, he signs "On Liberty" alone, and her name is about to appear on other works. However, Mill remains an admirable figure of the history of feminism. We wonder how many men were like this in that era. Nietzche speaks about the "donkeys" who taught women to ask, who drew attention about their slavery and bondage, harming women and society in this way. It seems something impossible to describe today, but the philosophy of Nietzche was against the changes of circumstances, against the empowerment of the weak, including women. But it seems that these "donkeys" have done very much for women, for the change of women's situation. Ambitious men, from the rich class, with a good sense of justice and empathy. There were and there still are men who want, at least for some women, the best things in the world. Is this the true measure of feminism: does he want a woman to be the richest, the most successful person in the world? How many men are like this? Very few, because real empathy and conscience are rare. especially in men. But still, they exist. If they have important positions, if they have influence, they can change things. Against patriarchy, alternatives, allies, strategies Feminism is against patriarchy. But if we want to destroy patriarchy, what do we replace it with?  Sure, a society where people, regardless of sex, have access to rewards based on merit, a fair society. This is what they claim now, but the patriarchal structures remain, so nothing changes essentially. The real sharing of resources is patriarchal. If we destroy patriarchy, we can

wish without shame, without apologizing, a society dominated by female values. In this world, maybe there would be more women with a dominant position, with power. But there would also be men who would promote and create such values. This is politics, people can ask what they want and fight to change the world. Would men want to live in such a world? Even since Ancient times,  it was a well-known fact that women have something to offer. "As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors ". This is what a Roman senator and historian, Cato the Elder, was saying. A women's world would be more intelligent, more subtle, more powerful. No energy would be lost with patriarchal bullshit.  This world would have less glitter, it would be more moral, more profound, more correct, maybe sometimes less fun. Patriarchy was imposed by the sword, by taking advantage of some favorable factors. No other species knows patriarchy. Any animal society is organized around females and family relationships between them. Ants and bees are clear examples. But even animal species which seem dominated by males, in reality, they are not. In some species with high sexual dymorphism, in which polygamy exists, females are the ones who choose a male for reproduction and for defending their babies from celibate males, and when they no longer like the male they chase him away. Men are afraid of other men, men have a natural fear of other men. I saw a study showing that men looked at other men on the street with fear, measuring their strengths. This is something instinctive. "The Art of War"  by Sun Tsu speaks about the lack of discipline in women. Women are atomized, they are not disciplined, they are not afraid. On the other hand, men have the phobia of marginalization, because they are very marginalized in general, they have big strong rewards for their success and big punishment for the lack of it. This motivates them. Then, they also have a big sexual lust, with an object, a name, a face. They are attracted to women, they don't have an impersonal lust, like women, who can satisfy themselves very well or even better alone. These are real problems. In society, people are moved by motivations. What could direct women to other women, make them find support in other women? In fact, the same motivations men also have the desire for power, ambition, the desire for quality, inspiring and romantic sex with men. The modesty of

the feminist demands, if you are a feminist and you are ambitious, is striking. Reading the comments from a feminist group it seemed incredible to me to see what feminism has become, especially the third wave one. Most women were defending their patriarchal situation, which they were trying to find some kind of dignity and social acceptance. A sweeter patriarchy, in which women to serve men sexually in a more pleasant way, to serve them in all respects and to be more appreciated for this.    Feminism was and it still is an idea for women (and men) with high consciousness, who think a lot and have dignity and empathy, it's not for all women, the other women are content with what they have. This is the reason so many women have opposed and there are still women who oppose feminism. Miles says that no other form of emancipation has met more resistance within their own group that women's emancipation. Maybe feminism is an intellectual elite idea, sure the intellectual elites are from all classes, all ethnic groups, all cultures. I think black feminism and workingclass feminism are the most penetrating. In this situation, „elite” means “the most advanced”. Any culture can be elitist in some respect, where its knowledge are the most advanced. If suffragettes could see what the third wave of feminism has become, they would roll over in their graves. Feminism has started from women with vision, with consciousness, who wanted more from life for them and for other women. Some of them already had money and financial freedom. They didn't need to serve men for survival. These women are the chance for a change nowadays, too. It seems absolutely incredible for me to say the same as Emma Watson, but at another level. Men with consciousness, with empathy, men with extraordinary human qualities are our allies more in this endeavor of cleaning the world of patriarchy than most women who want to keep their jobs in patriarchy, including the one from home. If a feminist world is a real, philosophical value, it is normal that anybody with a high power of moral understanding will adhere to it. Sex doesn't matter. Unfortunately, feminism made patriarchal feminist unions flourish. But the progress doesn't come from there. It comes when you want more from life when you are not satisfied with what you are given. Patriarchy was based on men's fear and discipline, on their access to easy rewards, such as rape. What else is sex with a woman who doesn't want the man? Women don't have men's fear and discipline, that the hierarchy is based upon. Patriarchy was for all men. Feminism is not for all women. Not

the radical feminism, at least. But all women benefit and will benefit further from feminism at the end of the day. The support that feminism has depends on a lot of the social class, the degree of culture, but especially the conscience of the individual, rather than sex. This is my conclusion I reached after the contact with people from other social classes and other cultures. No wonder there are Africans who care less about their peers than people from the Western World with a higher consciousness. Women's situation depends on the environment where they live more than any other factor. The poverty, the level of education and culture are factors that aggravate the discrimination,  but the consciousness level, the level of understanding of the phenomena and people is always the most important, although historians, political science specialists don't take it into account when they study this type of phenomena. But women, all women would benefit on a long term from the abolition of patriarchy. It's hard to be rationally convinced, but the abolition of patriarchy would be more useful for the less advantaged women first. Even if they don't realize this now, if they were free, they would not choose to be married, dependent on men. They would have different lives altogether. First, women should get used to very successful and influential women. Women should learn to respect other women, to believe in other women, to trust other women, to have more trust, more expectations from other women, but not from men, the institution of family and other patriarchal institution, like the church. However, women have the advantage of passion, of its durability, the complexity of desires. The hierarchy between women also exists, and this should be learned, respected. Successful women should be respected, women should understand that salvation comes from there. On the other hand, women have the advantage of inherent safety, social security. If they have strong and complicated desired, these desires could be luxurious. Women are the freest human being, I repeat. Even though probably not many of them are driven by strong, instinctual, desperate needs, there are more women than men animated by complex desires, by sophisticated and full of not immediately useful passions, which can provide a long term vision. Motivations gain. A feminist world would be the most ambitious possible world, more ambitious than a masculine world. And the progress in this

world would be faster and more durable.

The psychoanalysis, feminist critics Psychoanalysis was considered an obstacle for women's liberation. When feminism has made great progress, here comes Freud who tries to put female sexuality at its place — meaning the submissive one. A fatal attack! The status quo was saved. But this doesn't mean that psychoanalysis doesn't have good parts, too. Sure, a defect clock also indicates the exact time twice a day. Not all psychoanalysis is an aberration altogether, but only the part with the sexuality, as suggested by the recent reading of a reference book "The human nature" written by a British psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott. It still focuses on the spiritual size of the people, this means the emotional, imaginary reflection of all the sensations, the necessities, the impulses (pulses). And, of course, it's difficult or impossible to transfer to humans what you see in animals for the simple reasons that humans do this, they are reflecting everything in their inner world, which is populated with images and strange feelings. People tell stories, they need stories to cover their feelings, their natural impulses. The psychoanalysis — patriarchal reflection But when it's about sexuality, Freud, and his disciples screw it, by presenting their patriarchal vision as a scientific fact. They invent the "penis envy" and they suggest that women are incomplete beings who became sexually fulfilled by becoming dependent on men. A simple contradiction of the prediction of this hypothesis is the fact that now there are more trans women — meaning men who want to be women — than vice versa. Where is the penis envy? Sure, now Freud and his disciples felt into disuse, in reality, women are complete beings, including sexually, men admit a lack and a dependence on women. Women have everything they can, including a small penis, much more sensitive than a big one, while men don't have a small vagina. More, women are more complex biochemically, sexual female hormones come from androgenic hormones, so they are a later stage of synthesis. Sure, even

males, including the stallion, who is considered the symbol of virility, is synthesizing oestrogens, female hormones, but in a smaller amount. Women are more complex, more complete both by their nature, both biochemically, genetically, physiologically or whatever you want. This is the reason they live longer. It's obvious that they have more reproductive functions, but not only this. Remember that intersex people are genetically females. So daddy Freud, your problem is patriarchy! (Freud was Jewish, and his pacients were mostly Jews, at least at the beginning. He transfered his highly patriarchal fantasies into science, as well as some Anglo-saxon scientists transfer cultural aspects into sociobiology). Women don't have a penis, but even you admit they use the clitoris in the same way! I would say better. So why would they need a penis? Well, to scare the world with it, to threaten in order to get social status, a social status that comes from fear, the fear other people feel. The penis is a weapon, not an object of pleasure, like the clitoris — the super sensitive and effective penis, perfectly miniaturized, a technological jewel. Although defining the clitoris as a kind of penis reflects a patriarchal vision. Men are biologically, reproductively and socially incomplete. They are the ones looking for women's society, the society which, in fact, belongs to women/females. They have been chased away from there, they created violence, hatred, competition and they have sporadically entered female society again only because of them. It's about the males who are chased away from the group by the females and, at a certain time, they face the competition among them, the marginalization, the dangers, and they come back to be part of females' groups, if not for reproduction — which doesn't require their longtime presence anyway — at least for defense. But this also lasts for a short time, most of the times. The evolving males have increasingly formed their world of the damned. Its outburst led to patriarchy in humans. This happens starting from bees — who are chasing away the drones, who are good only for reproduction, who are accepted in queen's bridal dances only for a short time and they let only females live — continuing with the primate and the lions, who are accepting a male in a group of females  who are relatives, a male whom they mate with (not exclusively), but who has the role to defend them from other males, who eats their offspring or simply kills it. The sociobiological mythology assumes they do this so that females would mate them, so they can perpetuate their genes. So this means lion and ape males mysteriously

know these are their genes, while people from traditional hunter-gathering cultures don't know this. Very interesting! It seems that learning how children are conceived was a great discovery in history. Rosalind Miles, the author of "Who cooked the last supper: The Women's History of the World" has much to say about this subject. It seems that since that moment men understood how children are conceived and they started the kidnapping of women. I think they needed patriarchy before, this wasn't necessary. So, modern scientists do nothing but transfer what they feel to animals, to other people, to society. But animals don't feel this way, neither do people from traditional cultures . For example, there is an African culture where sperm is considered good for the children from women's uterus. They don't know how children are actually conceived, they have a vague idea of the cause and effect in this situation. So, lion males and males of other species (primates like macaques)  can't know what is happening with their genes. Indeed, they are killing cubs who are already there because they kill cubs, they kill weak animals. And then the females go into heat. Maybe there is a cause and effect: without cubs, they go into heat, they mate with males. But it's the only way males are accepted in groups, it's this is the only way they can mate, something that makes them feel better, this is sex in animals. But, on the other hand, males feel better in females groups than in males groups, although other males want to take their place all the times, there are battles for power here. Males were created for sex, as you can see in Caenorhabditis worm. Actually, that's what made them exist. They sacrifice other things for sex, in fact, they sacrifice their survival for sex much more than females. This could make them have a sociobiological view. But I assure them that women think differently. They want to live. And I think society should have an ideal of survival, not short time reproduction. Psychoanalysts say women start masturbating with male fantasies. This is not true, they may not even know the difference between men and women when they start masturbating. But they know it gives them pleasure. Women don't need men, men need women, even imaginative. Pornography is the proof, while women can masturbate without appealing to images. Women don't need anybody to be satisfied, a known fact in many cultures, even the most patriarchal, like Afghanistan. Women are complete,

independent, that's why their sexuality is confusing when in fact it's very easy: masturbating, then lesbianism is the key to pleasure. Psychoanalysis and matrilineal societies The traditional societies that are performing female sexual mutilation know more about female sexuality than Freud and his psychoanalysis. Women don't need men sexually. They need an attraction. On the other hand, the psychoanalysis starts from the idea of the patriarchal family.  Psychoanalysis is based on the boy's jealousy with the father and the girl's jealousy with the mother. I'm curious how things would be in a matriarchal society — where the father is something separate, who doesn't live in the family. Then, the uncle would be the subject of jealousy, or? But the uncle doesn't sleep with the mother....so all Freud's analyses — which so dependent on a monogamous patriarchal family — falls. Are children physically destroyed in matriarchal societies? I don't think so. What happens in polygamous patriarchal societies, where the girl is jealous not only with her mother for her father, but also with some other women? Things would fit here because patriarchal women hate other women, they are jealous of any woman. And boys in the matrilineal societies shouldn't feel anything, no jealousy with other men and their superego should be laxer because it's the surrogate of their father. Should these boys be more immoral, more inclined towards a laxer compartmental censure? No, as far as I know, but there are few studies. What seems to be true is that these children are more relaxed. The paternal authority in patriarchy is indeed jealousy, the inhibition of children's behavior, not only for boys. But without necessarily having to do with morality. What Freud says about incest in patriarchy, about the rape of the girls by the fathers? He doesn't say much, he tried to say this, as it was discovered, after he analyzed many women, then he declared that incest was much more common than it was thought. His colleagues criticized him harshly, denying the high incidence of incest. So, Freud modified his data, then he built a career — as we know — by mystifying the truth and transforming the women's confessions into delusions and sexual fantasies with their own father. This is a crime against women but not the first crime, and unfortunately not the last one. It's most likely that in matriarchal societies people were much more normal, more human, they certainly had a superego. But the superego from these societies didn't dehumanize them, it

probably didn't allow them to commit crimes, horrible deeds that are in the "job description" of a man in patriarchal societies. The matriarchal superego, inferior in the fight to the patriarchal one, has led to the disappearance of a dignified way of life, but also to a disappearance of a part of the humanity from us, especially in men. Women were also dehumanized by devaluation and terror. The ability to produce fear, to discourage has become the supreme quality in the new society. A psychoanalysis starting from women A new psychoanalysis is needed, a feminist psychoanalysis where the analysis should start from women, not from men, and it should define female sex, then male sex should be something derived, like in biology. Lacan, a famous psychoanalyst, said that The Woman doesn't exist in psychoanalysis. The Man exists and he is defined by his fear of castration, which women don't feel. Women are the ones with free sexuality, which is extraordinarily satisfied only by masturbation. They are more human, freer from nature. The animal is more dominated by instincts from which the human becomes freer. Freud and his students admit the imagination of the world, the creation of the world through necessities, starting with the baby who created the world considering from the beginning that the purpose of the world is to satisfy her/his instincts. When we are little, even when we become aware of the world around us, we believe it exists to satisfy our needs and desires. We create the world, we believe that the stars exist to give us a light at night. The resemblance with what religion does is interesting. Actually, the religious person, like the little child, creates the world through some gods or supernatural forces. The implications of a patriarchal religion, which erases, minimizes and blames women, are easy to guess. Basically, with a patriarchal religion, women's inner world is taken away from them, is poisoned, the viruses of destruction are inoculated to them. But if we go further with female psychoanalysis, we can say that women are liberated from instincts, they have greater inner autonomy. Their sexuality in the sense of sexual pulse is free, it doesn't depend on somebody. They masturbate without even having the image of a man. They don't need images. Their sexual pulse is clean, free, independent,  not oppressive. But for them is sublimated more often and to a greater extent. Women, as lesbians say, but not only lesbians, often want something else than the

release in sex with another person. They want fantasies, feelings, dreams, something from the fantasy world. Women are more human than men, at least more often. The struggle of human society could be limited to the fight between human and animal, between sophisticated, moral, progressive and simple, brutal, retrograde. Or between female and male.  As we know, primitive societies can be extremely spiritual. The superego created by the society in patriarchal societies by the fear of the father, of the dominant man of the clan, is something that destroys humanity. The fight between contradictions in some philosophies could come from there, from the good female nature and the animal brutal, simple male nature.    We are living in a dystopic society like the one described in “The time machine” by H. G. Wells. The Morlocks and in this novel may represent the men feeding on women's energy and life. The human species split into Morlocks and Eloi 6000 years ago.

A guide to feminist politeness. General principles Most politeness rules are patriarchal. These rules must be different in a feminist world — no matter how small this world would be at the beginning. Nowadays rules promote the idea of "equality". In fact, these rules are also patriarchal, they promote treating women like men, but to a certain extent. For example, men shake hands with women, they greet women the same as men. This means women are included in the men's club. But feminist rules should be made by women, for their own sake, for their own interests. They are the ones who should accept men in their spaces. The ritual of greetings comes from the rituals of dominance and obedience in animals. These rituals are very complicated and obvious in many species, but they are barely noticed in others. In humans, politeness is based on the same rules. Politeness rules evolve with the changes of dominance and obedience in society. In fact, these rules — which are now outdated — helped men to keep women away from real confrontation. But everything in the Western society is still far from meeting the needs of women. First, these rules — which

will adapt — should take into account the existence of patriarchy and they should combat it. Patriarchy is reflected in the expression of power, of male sexuality. These aspects of the greeting rituals are exactly the ones that must be avoided. How must a man behave in the presence of a woman, so he can avoid any patriarchal expression, which is very offensive to women, even criminal? This will happen after patriarchy was outlawed as a criminal system like Nazism and communism were already outlawed in some countries. 1. A  man must not manifest his power, his physical strength in the presence of a woman. He must not open doors for her, offer her protection unless she asked him to do so as directly as possible. 2. He isn't allowed to touch her in any way, even if the touch is sometimes protective, as our relatives, the primates, do in their dominance rituals. A dominant male can calm a lower status male or a female by touching him or her with his hand. These gestures must be avoided in order not to place the woman in a position of submissiveness. 3. Women must be encouraged to manifest themselves as directly as possible, to manifest their social desires, their demands, but also their sexuality as free as possible. Under the current conditions, women only suggest what they want, they resort to complicated gestures. They must be encouraged to manifest themselves as free as possible, while men must make room for this manifestation. Men must avoid at all costs through their language, gestures, postures, actions anything that can be taken as an intimidation. For example, a man is not allowed to raise his voice in the presence of a woman, to adopt a threatening posture. 3. Of course, male sexuality, the initiation of sexual behavior or a relationship should not be done by a man, because this is also patriarchal and offensive to the woman. Women should make the first step in relationships, they should initiate sexual acts. Men are allowed to show their interest indirectly or to respond to the proposals. We should develop completely harmless ways for men to show their interest. But this should never happen face to face, but through cold signals, eventually by using the technique, the gadgets. Words, gestures, postures, even looks can be offensive. Although women must be encouraged to make the first step, I also can't deny men's right to express themselves when they are interested in a woman. Sure, men didn't give women this right for millennia. But there are situations when a man wasn't noticed, then he can make himself noticed.

This can be in women's interest. These kind of situations are very rare, of course. 4. A man isn't allowed to make any physical comment about a woman. It seems incredible, but this rule is not original. It's described by Margaret Mead in her book "Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies". In traditional communities, one can speak about the beauty of a little girl, but not about the beauty of a woman. No comment is allowed about this issue. Even if this happens in order to avoid conflicts with other men, women feel more comfortable this way. It's offensive that a woman's beauty is evaluated by a man beyond a professional framework (a model, and I'm not referring to modeling in its current form) 5. Considering the patriarchy and its hard inheritance, a man will avoid to express his interest for a younger woman in any way. Most likely women will choose younger men most of the times, especially because female sexual satisfaction is at stake. But even this idea is not new. There are some communities — for example, the one described by Pear Buck in "Mother"  — where women are older than men by tradition. Sure, there are not huge differences of age — like in the case of women who are considered a trophy — but a few years, most of the times 5, are acceptable regarding the comfort of the woman . 6. In feminist spaces, men are not allowed to show their fortune, their social status. It's offensive to women, considering the connection between this and patriarchy. Of course, the relationships in feminist spaces, even the heterosexual ones, will be something different than the patriarchal relationships from now. Women will choose what they want by making the first step. Also, a man must behave as far as possible from the patriarchal behavior in order to be accepted. But we need feminist spaces, feminist communities for this, where men can be accepted temporary most of the times. Now, female sexual behavior is miming submission, which offers men the way to become drunk with power on women, the only aphrodisiac for many of them. First of all, women should stop doing this, they should make efforts to get rid of this kind of behavior. Lessons of freedom from patriarchal education are needed in a feminist space, like women's magazines are now full of lessons of beauty, of how to offer sexual satisfaction to men. These lessons are needed for women first, but also for men. Let's not forget that politeness is the surrogate for love. You don't have to care about someone

so you don't make that person feel horrible. And women feel horrible in patriarchy. This should stop, at least for the sake of civilization. 

A white woman as a savior of all women We are living pretty weird times. We allegedly are crossing the third wave feminism, but apparently, it's a wave that does nothing but washing away the previous ones. Everything seems to fall apart, to be deconstructed until being demolished or distorted, in the best case. On the other hand, some leftists and the cultural relativism dilute any clear message. Sometimes things really are black and white, with no shades of gray. Sometimes you have to make precise spectral analyses. So in feminism, sometimes things are clear. And painful. Patriarchy exists, destroys lives, minds, in every moment, even now. Women are taught to be slaves, to adapt as slaves, with more or less "rights". Any approach which doesn't go to the root of things, the existence of patriarchy, it's just a cosmetic measure. It's like you plug a hole in a dam, but you still remain in a flooded area. It looks absolutely amazing, but there is feminism that accepts prostitution, calling prostitutes "sex workers". Well, yes, and slaves come in all forms. Can illegal immigrant workers be called "workers in agriculture, construction" etc? They work, but why do it? Like prostitutes, even if they are not forced by pimps, as well as women who are not kidnapped, but married to abusive men. They have sex with those men (without any pleasure) and remain with them, they even have children fathered by these men, may have multiple abortions, but only because they have no choice. It's about survival forced by poverty. But survival in the Nazi or communist camps is still survival. And if there, people make survival strategies. But one can't say living like that it's a way of life. In dictatorships, people have to adapt. But one can't tell that dictatorship is a legitimate lifestyle. I'm saying it as a person who saw a communist dictatorship. Prostitution, and here I'd exclude luxury prostitution, although I am not sure about that because some prostituted women say that there is no clear limit between different types of prostitution (some women practice this activity at various levels), is not a lifestyle, it's a horrible way of survival. Many heterosexual relationships motivated by survival are prostitution, too. If you say that these relationships are worthy, alternative lifestyles, motivated by real

choices, where the reward is more than survival, you commit a crime against the people who live like that. Cultural relativism and blaming Eurocentrism (which I agree with to some extent) have absolutely horrible consequences such as oxymorons like Islamic or Christian feminism. Well, then we can talk about feminist rape, why not? If there is feminist burqa, why not going farther? It seems politically incorrect to say that the situation of women in Islam is unacceptable because it would hurt the feelings of Muslim women. I mean saying that rape is horrible hurts the feelings of raped women? Or what? I'm all for tolerance, but not until there is nothing left to claim. As for Eurocentrism, it exists, is more prevalent than we think, it has deeper roots. Western science is not the only approach to knowledge and it developed in certain special conditions. But if a secular, European, white woman, who cautions that women in Islam are living in an unacceptable way, that poor women often experience a form of prostitution and abuse, that prostitution is a crime, she does not it because of Eurocentrism, contempt for other cultures or classism. Not all the time, anyway! When we ask for something, we take as the basis of our demand something/someone who has more than us. When black slaves were talking about freedom, they use the whites' status as a reference system, the black liberation movement in the US uses the social, economic, the political status of whites as a reference system. What would have happened if Martin Luther King has had accepted the lifestyle of Afro-americans, meaning unemployment, lack of education, poverty, and violence as a legitimate lifestyle, which is not allowed to talk about in order to avoid offending the feelings of those who live like that? Western culture is not something extraordinary and whites are not extraordinary people, Europeans, even less. But we cannot deny that the westerners have the highest social, economic status, they enjoy the most freedom and they have the best medicine. We don't mention the origin of these achievements. Things can change, but now this is the case. Moreover, other cultures are more advanced in other respects. But when we ask for something, we demand something, when it comes to individual freedom, civil rights, health, we refer to the West. Sure, it's good to get more, but saying that a white educated middle-class woman does something disgusting when she tells Muslim women that their way of life is oppressive, the same for the impoverished women trapped in abusive

heterosexual relationships or prostitutes, she doesn't disregard any of them. She does it just because she doesn't consider that she, as a white and educated western woman, deserves more than other women. Just for that . Some leftists, accepting the misery of poor people's lives in oppressive cultures, only perpetuate the conditions those people are living in, maintaining their own privileges for themselves. What should do westerners, especially if they are doctors when encounter people living in traditional societies? Should they leave incantations and traditional medical practices, like sex with virgins, as a medicine against AIDS intact, and not give them modern medicines because these medicines may offend them? I don't mention traditional empiric treatments for some diseases which are really effective. I am an educated white middle-class woman, who does not consider herself special and wants to get everything through individual merits, not because she's white, educated or middle class. Any person with similar merits, abilities, wherever she/he is, deserves similar social and economic status. I still want a high SPF cream for myself. It's the only thing I feel entitled to have as a white person.

Solutions and strategies for eliminating patriarchy Without a doubt, the most important political problem of our time is patriarchy. Not only this is destroying the lives of half of the world's population (matriarchal societies are very rare), but it's the origin of all political, social and humanitarian disasters when natural catastrophes are excluded. What is absolutely extraordinary in our times is that this system is not criticized. Human segregation is much harder than the one caused by apartheid and Nazism because it starts at birth, it's present in every family and nobody or almost nobody condemns it. In terms of human rights, it's an extremely serious problem. In these circumstances, a political campaign for women's liberation is absolutely necessary as an act of social justice .

To start this campaign, the first step is to recognize patriarchy - the apartheid against women, to recognize the fact that there is a war on women, that they are destined to exploitation, that they don't really have the right to pursue their own happiness, to have a dignified life. Basically, women are now like a kind of livestock raised for all types of exploitation in the benefit of men. Their value is recognized as economic value, as their utility for men. So far, feminism has fought for "equality" which means, from the beginning, a misogynistic approach that puts men in the center of the universe, women are making great efforts to prove that they are smaller men. Nowadays, with few exceptions, you try to hide the fact that you are a woman, as if it was something shameful. For this reason, the deconstruction of the cult of masculinity (the cult of the phallus) is absolutely necessary. All qualities that men are endowed with nowadays - from intelligence to morality, mental stability, depth - are in fact reduced to their superior physical strength and their ability to spontaneously form criminal bands. Sometimes, women perceive their social strength as something different, without this, they will realize what men really are, undoubtedly. Patriarchy is the cultural generalization of this kind of behavior of criminal bands, which can be seen in any poor neighborhood. History records the existence and the actions of these criminal bands as heroic actions and cultural landmarks. In reality, the biggest quality of these bands was to exploit people (primarily women) who were producing goods and services, including the service of giving birth and educating other citizens. The masculine aura from the present comes after millennia of feminine acculturation, of isolating women from society. Women were, in the best case, affiliated to society, to male culture, as their servants, their slaves, who were allowed to also record some things in their master terms. But history doesn't record the most important thing: women's situation, their revolt. But men were not considered gods in the past to the extent that they are today, even at the beginning of patriarchy. In fact the sky was a goddess and the Earth was a god in Ancient Egypt, at some point. Some sources actually reveal that women were associated with intelligence in a patriarchal culture. If we observe carefully, in popular culture, women are considered to be more intelligent, more profound, more subtle. It's a well-known fact that women have higher memory, but they are also more

aware of the world around them. According to an old Indian proverb, women are more intelligent by nature, men need education (proverb recorded by Amita Bosh). William Golding, the winner of Nobel Prize for literature, said that women are superior to men and that their struggle to be considered equal to men is incomprehensible. Patriarchal men are very well described by Virginia Woolf in "To the Lighthouse": empty, inflated by patriarchy, led by the power and by all the qualities it gives them. The male sex in documents confers all the qualities, you no longer need to prove anything, to fight for anything, except to maintain the precarious appearances of these qualities. But this title of nobility only comes from strength and from the ability to use it in groups. In ancient Greeks, when a boy was born, a bunch of laurels was placed at the door, because that boy could attend the games, meaning he could obtain Olympic glory. He could participate in competitions, in patriarchy. This happens all the times, but women should be aware of this. If you closely study every culture, women will tell you that men are violent, brutal, insensitive, lazy, superficial, and unable to profoundly engage emotionally in anything, unable of affective and cognitive subtleties, unconscious.  When it comes to social roles, they are lovers, only the fact that they are conferring protection with their simple existence, with just a label, they are getting resources with the same label, and that is what keeps women in relationships with them most of the times. This happens when there are no express patriarchal sanctions in this regard. Men are anti-social beings, who are only humanized by education, but it's not something profound, it's just a kind of training most of the times. Men are genetically incomplete beings, whose charm comes from their profound dysfunctions, which are fortunately varied. But either of them doesn't function completely at a social level. No wonder that in elephants only females are able to communicate, males actually don't know the complex language of females. From this point of view, the difference between elephants and humans is not very big, but women don't want to see it. In these conditions, women's social superiority is necessary to be openly recognized. It's interesting how patriarchal men talk about women's social qualities, which they say they would come together with a lack of logic. Very well, if this was true, they should let women lead and they should make as many calculations as they want if they are so logical. Incidentally, their so-called inclination to calculations, logic, but not to something very

profound that would also involve affection, comes precisely from their emotional problems. Women can make very logical tasks with a lot of imagination, but they can also have consciousness, as it was proved. They are functioning better, they have more functional options. When the superiority of women will be recognized (as if this was difficult) the road to the destruction of patriarchy will become easier. On the other hand, it's necessary for people to live without fear, to not consider authority a value anymore. The rebellion against the instinct of authority has led to all social progress. Authority keeps women slaves, the revolt against this authority, against the animal instinct of obedience to the stronger will set them free. Women are superior most of the times. Men are rarely fully conscious beings. The number of men criminals, of corrupt male leaders, the entire history of patriarchy is proof of this. Women just need to recognize the superiority of women, to liberate their minds, to no longer see something erotic in their fear of men. Then, being a feminist will no longer be considered something anti-social, but on the contrary, not being a feminist will be considered a lack of intelligence. From the moment all women will be conscious and really against patriarchy, patriarchy will break down .

The radical feminist academy Given that radical feminism has become marginal, and the new feminist trends are often misogynist, I think the foundation of a radical feminist academy is absolutely necessary. The new technologies, the internet, the social media, the communication networks could bring a great independence and a circulation of these ideas unprecedented in history.  Sure, the current academic world, with all the regulations that alter the original notion of academia, with universities dependent on funding, burdened by a hard to imagine bureaucracy, are obstacles for this phenomenon. But radical feminism is an anti-system, anti-establishment, anti-status quo, anti-hierarchical structures movement. Animal hierarchies are based on physical and economic force (in the case of humans). A radical feminist  academy, which will work primarily online, where important radical feminist authors, but also philosophers, writers, political scientist, artists, filmmakers, scientists from biology, psychology, sociology, but also women who simply have experience in fighting patriarchy, such as the

separatist lesbians, survivals of the brilliant movements from the 1970s, will find their place. The studies should be free of cost, based on enrollment, as well as the exchange of ideas through free sessions. To attend this academy's classes would be part of the essential education for a young woman's life. Nothing is more important for a woman than to know what world she lives in literally is. And that world is patriarchy. These admirable women, the ones who will teach, will expose patriarchy, they will deconstruct it, they will look for solutions for its destruction. They will do this together with the students who will become conscious complete human beings, not what patriarchy wants them to be. The funding will be a problem, but radical feminism will find a solution, a very creative, free economic solution, based on conscious women's solidarity. This radical feminist academy could be an important step toward liberating women from patriarchy, to a nonpatriarchal life. 

CONTENTS Title Page Preface Patriarchy-history and present Gender vs. sex Romantic relationships in patriarchy-human tragedies Feminism- new perspectives References

REFERENCES Balzac, Honoré de , Strălucirea și suferințele curtezanelor (Splendeurs et misères des courtisanes , Orizonturi, 2014  Cărtărescu, Mircea, De ce iubim femeile , Humanitas, 2007 Hirsi Ali, Ayaan, The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam , Atria Books; Reprint edition (April 1, 2008)  Mead, Margaret, Coming of Age in Samoa: a psychological study of primitive youth for western civilisation, Perennial Classics, New York, 2004  Mead,Margaret, Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies , Harper Perennial, 2001  Todorov, Tzvetan, Viata comuna/Eseu de antropologie generala , Humanitas 2010 (La Vie commune. Essai d'anthropologie générale ) Woolf, Virginia, To the lighthouse , Alma Classics, 2017 Angela, Alberto, O zi în Roma Antică , Corint, 2016 Anonymous, The Epic of Ghilgamesh , Penguin Classics, 2003 (translated by Andrew George) Aung San Suu Kyi, The Voice of Hope: Conversations with  Alan Clement , Seven Stories Press, New York, 2008. Badinter, Elisabeth, Mamă sau femeie? O polemică despre maternitate ca o nouă formă de sclavie , Litera, 2012 Bhose, Amita, Proverbe și cugetări Sanscrite,  Cununi de stele, 2012 Blackwood, Evelyn, Marriage, Matrifocality and „Missing” Men in Geller, Pamela L. And Stockett, Miranda K (editors), Feminist Antropology. Past,

Present and Future, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006 Bourdieu, Pierre, Dominația masculină (La domination masculine) , Meridiane, 2003. David M. Friedman, O istorie culturală a penisului (A Cultural History of the Penis), Humanitas, 2006 Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, 2006 Diamond, Jared,  Why Is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality , Basic Books, 1998. Diamond, Jared, Guns, Germs, and Steel/ a short history of everything for the last 13000 years , Vintage, 2005 Dickinson, Kevin,  Decades of studies have shown parents to be less happy than their childless peers. But are the kids to blame? , 2018, Big Think, 17 December, https://bigthink.com/sex-relationships/should-you-have-kids Dworkin, Andrea, Intercourse. New York: Free Press, 1987 Dworkin, Andrea, Our blood: prophecies and discourses on sexual politics. New York: Harper & Row,1976 Dworkin, Andrea, Pornography: men possessing women. London: Women's Press, 1981 Dworkin, Andrea, Right-wing women: the politics of domesticated females. London: Women's Press, 1983  Dworkin, Andrea, Woman Hating. New York: Penguin Books,1974 Dworkin, Andrea; MacKinnon, Catharine A, The reasons why: essays on the new civil rights law recognizing pornography as sex discrimination. New York: Women Against Pornography, 1985 Fausto Sterling, Ann,   Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality , Basic Books, 2000 Ferro, Marc, Șocul Islamului , Orizonturi, 2015 Filimon, Nicolae, Ciocoii vechi și noi , Cartea Romaneasca, 2017

Fine, Cordelia, Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference , W.W. Norton & Company, 2010 Flacelière, Robert, La vie quotidienne en Grèce au siècle de Périclès ”, Hachette,  1960 Frebonius, Leo, Cultura Africi i ) , Meridiane, 1982  (Kulturgeschichte Afrikas, Phaidon Verlag, 1933). Gimbutas, Marija,The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe . San Francisco: Harper, 1991 Hirsi Ali, Ayaan, Infidel: My life , Free Press, 2007 Hoekstra RF.The evolution of sexes . Experientia Suppl. 1987;55:59-91. Istrati, Panait,  Chira Chiralina , Nomina, 2007 Jo, Bev, Radical Lesbian Feminist Writings, https://bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/ Komaru A, Houki S, Yamada M, Miyake T, Obata M, Kawamura K., 28S rDNA haplotypes of males are distinct from those of androgenetic hermaphrodites in the clam Corbicula leana . Dev Genes Evol. 2012 May;222(3):181-7. doi: 10.1007/s00427-012-0395-7. Epub 2012 Apr 20. Lerner, Gerda, The Creation of Patriarchy , Oxford University Press, 1987 Lewin, Roger, Human evolution, An illustrated introduction , Blackwell, 2005 Louann Brizendine, The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think , Harmony, 2011 May, Simon, Love. A history , Yale University Press, 2011. Miles, Rosalind, Who Cooked the Last Supper? The Women's History of the World, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1988, 2001 Morris, Desmond, Zoomenirea/un studiu clasic despre animalul uma n, Art 2010 (The human Zoo , first published by Jonathan Cape, 1969)

Navai, Ramita, City of Lies/Love, Sex, Death and the Search for Truth in Tehran, Polirom, 2015 Nietzsche Friedrich, Amurgul idolilor , Humanitas (Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer, german Götzen-Dämmerung, oder, Wie man mit dem Hammer philosophiert ), 2008 Nietzsche, Friedrich, Dincolo de bine și de rău. Preludiu la o filosofie a viitorului (Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, german Jenseits von Gut und Böse: Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft), Humanitas, 2007 Nordberg, Jenny, The Underground Girls of Kabul/In Search of a Hidden Resistance in Afghanistan , Crown, The Crown Publishing Group, 2014 Nørretranders, Tor , Omul generos, A-i ajuta pe alții e cel mai sexy lucru pe care îl poți face, Publica, 2008, original Generous man: How Being Generous is the Sexiest Thing you can do , Thunder Mouth's Press, 2005 ntv.de, Wie lebt es sich im Matriarchat? Frauenherrschaft? Das ist Unfug ! Freitag, 12. August 2011 , http://www.n-tv.de/wissen/FrauenherrschaftDas-ist-Unfug-article3974511.html Poul Anderson, The Guardians of Time, Tor Books, 1988 R.I. Moore, Prima revolutie europeana (cca 970-1215) , Polirom, 2004 Schwander T, Oldroyd BP., Androgenesis: where males hijack eggs to clone themselves . Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Oct 19;371(1706). pii: 20150534. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0534. Schwarzer, Alice, Die große Verschleierung: Für Integration, gegen Islamismus , KiWi-Taschenbuch, 2010 Septemcastrensis, Georg Captivus, Tratat despre obiceiurile, ceremoniile și infamia turcilor (Tractatus de moribus, condictionibus et nequicia

Turcorum) , Humanitas, 2017

Solanas, Valerie, Scum Manifesto , AK Press, 2001 Stuart Mill, John, On Liberty , Penguin Classics, 1985 (first published 1859) Sun Tzu, Arta războiului, Antet Revolution, 2015 Tamim Ansary, Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes . PublicAffairs, 2010 Tocqueville,  Alexis de, Democracy in America, Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, 1998 Waal, Frans de, Bonobo and the Atheist , In Search of Humanism Among the Primates , W. W. Norton & Company, 2014 Wilson, Edward, Sociobiology , The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1975, 1980... Winnicott, D.W., Natura umană (Human nature), Trei, 2015 Wollestonecraft, Mary, A Vindication of the Right of Woman, Dover Publications, 1996 Zeldin, Theodore, An Intimate History of Humanity , Harper Perennial, 1994 Zola, Emile, Gervaise , Minerva, 1972