The Women Running for President Have Made Life Harder for Women



A better question is whether Katie Herzog calls herself a feminist, and if so, why?


Katie Herzog got through this entire piece without once mentioning that prostitution is illegal. Two thousand words complaining that people can't break the law as easily as they previously could. Unbelievable.


The primary problem is that people either don't care about sex workers because they think they're trash, or they think they are hapless victims who have been trafficked into an industry they cannot escape, and any intervention is better than nothing. In either case people are disinterested in the harm these laws might cause, and voting for them is a slam dunk for politicians who want to score points by pretending to do something meaningful. Any negative consequences are irrelevant.

See also, Clinton's 3-strikes bill. It will take years before we have the data to show how harmful these laws are, and many more years after that before enough people care to do anything about it.


@2 i hope you have a google alert set and don't just lurk here on the daily until someone posts about sex workers


@2 Illegality and immorality can be two different things. Imagine, for a moment, we're on the wrong side of history here.

@3 "I read somewhere..." Where? The Great Gatsby? A "shocking" 1950s romance novel? Try to keep up with the 1980s, at the very least.


@5, not sure why you care so much, but as it happens I have an RSS feed and I subscribe to Slog. @6, yes, they can be, but in this case the two are aligned. I don't have to "imagine" anything; I assure you I've already thought through this topic.


Come on Katie,
those gals are just troublesome trailer-trash bimbos.....


@7 same


My take-away is that maybe craigslist can start their "one night stands" category again. How am I supposed to get a date now?


I have no doubt Harris and the other women in Congress supporting this bill did so in the honest belief they were acting for nothing but good. The anti-prostitution lobby is very strong in LE and among many social service orgs, and they can easily make compelling and persuasive presentations highlighting the myriad evils of sex work with fancy charts and pamphlets, sordid photos and all manner of other supporting propaganda.

Sex workers simply do not have that sort of influence, not even anything close to it. I worked with such people in LE, and they are messianic in their devotion to the cause, true believers. And they are the only ones providing info, manipulated and cherry-picked info but also slickly crafted and convincingly presented info, to lawmakers such as Harris...especially Harris given her professional background but any lawmaker with a say on the matter, really.


Not terribly surprising that Harris would be a sponsor of this legislation. Former prosecutor. You can pretty much assume any current or former prosecutor is an authoritarian shit. Somewhat more distressing that all the other female front runners were on board.

@7 Yep, you've clearly thought it through. Let's see: I've got these puritanical hang-ups here. Let me come up with some ludicrous 'feminist' justification for them. Lots of thinking. Surely, as you are a thinker, you have heard of confirmation bias?


This might be your click-baitiest article title yet! Congrats!


I think it's fair to consider sex work, generally speaking, along the manual labor axis - you've got the dudes in the parking lot of Home Depot on one end, and specialized meat puppets fishing in Alaska or working oil rigs in the Gulf on the other; just like you've got girls on the track in federal way and $2500/night high end escorts.

I saw the debate on twitter about what percentage of sex workers enjoyed their work - my suspicious is that very few enjoy their work - but it's better than the alternatives. I know plenty of dudes in labor and service jobs today, most of them hate their jobs, consider them soul-destroying, degrading their relationships, and breaking down their bodies... and, well, all think that's ok. The dude humping baggage at SeaTac "enjoyed" his job so much he killed himself in a matter to ensure that there wasn't a recognizable part of his body left to find - maybe a tooth. Someone's gotta stack the kombucha on the shelves.

While they're not direct parallels, they're similar enough for me to wonder why we delineated them in the first place other than creating an arbitrary difference between them due to the involvement of an erect penis.


Let's be honest -- saying these women politicians "made it difficult for women" isn't true. Saying these politicians "made it difficult for some women" would be much more accurate. Saying these politicians "made it difficult for some women and men" would be even more accurate. Hyperbole doesn't help your argument, nor would arguing that making things more difficult for some sex workers makes things difficult for all women.

And if you think about why this matters, think about all the people who are simply looking for a reason not to support women candidates. Guess what? You've helped them.

The big picture matters. Doesn't mean we ignore people's mistakes. Writing honestly -- including headlines -- is harder work but needs to be done.


@2 I really want to know what a sex worker did to incur your obsession. Any article talking about sex workers' rights includes comments from you railing against sex work.


la la la la la las ramblas.

Don’t ever touch street walkers plz.


If I am following this argument to its logical conclusion, when it comes to the 2020 election, I guess Donald Trump and his hush payments are the most feminist, right?


As soon as I read the headline, I knew it was another piece by KayKay. So predictable.


@1 seatackled: For the WIN! Congrats on hitting it out of the park.


@20 @1 Unlike the two of you, who think that women are permanently enfeebled infants unable to put a spoonful of gerber to their mouths without the assistance and permission from men, Katie believes in the radical idea that women are human beings.


@21: Hello?! You obviously don't know me at all, Mr. Jump to the Wrong Conclusions.
I congratulated seatackled @1 for calling Katie on the sensationalism of her article's headline. How are advocates for women such as Kamila Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and others making life harder for women?


@22 Upon reading further I saw repercussions from laws Harris helped pass that negatively effected sex workers and those living on the street. What was supposed to bring more benefit ended up doing more harm than good. But to me, this article read like the major influx of women running for POTUS #46 will only leave a severe backlash on women here in the United States. Au contraire--we need more women in charge of legislature, in all branches, and particularly in the White House. Matriarchy NOW! Harris / Warren 2020.


@22 you're deluded. Seatackled taunted Katie for not being a "real feminist" because she doesn't inherently support all women regardless of their actions. Giving women a pass on bullshit is high level paternalism, congrats to you on it.


"I congratulated seatackled @1 for calling Katie on the sensationalism of her article's headline."

@1's comment does not reference the headline whatsoever, nor does it indicate any amount of "sensationalism". Have you checked your meds recently? Perhaps dementia is setting in? Do you smell any toast burning?


@24 & @25 ...argues the typical troll rising up like bile from its own cesspool in not one but two rants, folks! So few brains, yet so much to spew, like an overflowing toilet! Isn't it past your bedtime, Sporty? Are your BVDs riding up? Is it slow and flaccid down in mom's basement tonight? If anything's burning it must be your ears. Maybe you should go soak your head.


@12, your assessment is incorrect. "Puritanism" is not a factor here.


@24 & @25: You didn't even bother to read my comment @23, either, before senselessly spewing, did you, Sporty?


Good Evening Katie,
Another fine piece. I agree with you.

First of all as I've said before, I support the decriminalization of prostitution. It should be safe, legal, regulated and taxed for gay and/or straight Americans 18 y/o or older. After all, that isn't any different than legally allowed produced in America, pornography. I've always found that paradoxical in America, the allowance of pornography but the illegality of prostitution. Weird.

Sens. Harris, Warren et el should be posed the question about what they would feel about pornography. Have they ever watched an X-rated film in their life etc.?

Katie, you nailed it. Women are perfectly capable of choosing their sexual partners just like men. For better or for worse. I support the sex workers case.

For the record, I'm not advocating adults elect sex work as a profession. I don't encourage it. But then again, I don't encourage the profession of mining or oil rig work. Both are exceedingly dangerous.


@2, as I stated, Slog is in my RSS feed, and when they say something dumb that I want to comment on, I do so. I would not characterize this as "obsession." As to your query, the problem is what pimps and johns have done, not what prostituted women have done.


edit to comment #30: "@2" should read "@16."


I am going to start getting creeped out if Sportlandia gives me as much attention as German Sausage gets from those trolls. But let me guess: Sportlandia is one of those who thinks Loius CK did nothing wrong, right?

Herzog can question the choice of the legislators all she wants for all I care. But using that choice to question their legitimacy as feminists is just the usual Herzog approach to disempower liberals and progressives.


@ Mizz griz, I wasn't necessarily thinking of the headline as sensationalistic but certainly the headline certainly relevant. Herzog herself produces work that does make life harder for women. So if her premise about the Senators is that they are not feminists because of this then how can Hertzog be a feminist?


@30 You seem to imagine that bandying about the terms 'pimp' and 'john' is going to cow your opponents. This does not seem to be working real well. Do you imagine we are all afflicted with your sclerotic Victorian ideas about female virtue?

@33 You really want to get into this? Let's see, there is a species of feminist, as is pretty well known, you might even call them mainstream, but I'll call them The Second Wave Taliban for arguments sake, who are hellbent on recycling their pretty clearly anti-feminist puritanical views as 'feminist'. As mentioned, the problem here is that their malignant views have a good deal of traction with the lazy ass mainstream (in other words, current female 2020 candidates). But well maybe this is just part and parcel of a wider trend: on the left increasingly we have 'progressives' rather than 'liberals'. Apparently it's perfectly OK to ban every random thing you don't like if you are a 'progressive'.


@33 seatackled: Thank you for rejoining the fray. That's where I was going, too with Katie's article. As for dealing with the usual trolls, please forgive me--I can't help myself. Any signs of intelligent women who won't take any bullshit scare the hell out of Sporty and those like him. We can actually thank raindrop for his brilliant idea of paddling trolls from another comment thread. Which reminds me......
@25: WHAP! There it is.


A fairly common talking point among better-known MRAs is that public sympathy for a cause or problem decreases once it is known to affect men as well as women. This seems to be the sort of thing about which one could fudge the numbers in either direction, but perhaps Ms Herzog is inclined to agree.


Seems like high income sexworkers are only people represented in these articles. Backpage is fucked, ending giant child slave/sex rings is more important than someone with three degrees hobby.



I didn't know I was wanting to really get into anything, but you seem like one of those "feminist = manhater" bros.


@34, first paragraph: I'm not here to "cow" anyone; I'm here to state a position and then defend it when it's misrepresented. @34, second paragraph: Feminists who oppose prostitution do not do so out of "puritanism." You are operating under a misunderstanding.


@35 if I thought you were intelligent, I'd respect you, but you're a dumbass who's dumb ideas infect everyone around you. Strong intelligent women have opinions rather than mindlessly repeating some sick burn they picked up from a Hillary Duff movie.


@39 As I have been arguing from the get go: there are stories certain feminists want to spin about their motivations behind their positions regarding sex work. The fact that these positions are indistinguishable from those of your average bible thumper tells us all we need to know. Even if we were to buy that puritanical neurosis does not underlie your curious obsession however it is certainly laughable to claim that infantalizing, denying agency to, women who you consider to be not as enlightened as you are is in any way shape or form feminist.


Katie is a fantastic journalist who has written about 2/3 articles with sex worker voices included. If that doesn't align with your feminist politics, that's a disagreement. It doesn't mean Katie is not a feminist.

Another sex worker, Molly Smith, who also wrote Revolting Prostitutes, said: "Our feelings about womanhood and masculinity and money and power all coalesce when you talk about the prostitute. And the prostitute woman comes to symbolize the harms inflicted on all women under patriarchy, but almost paradoxically, that doesn't lead to solidarity with prostitutes, it leads to other feminist women arguing for criminalization of the sex industry, because they want to push it out of sight, because it symbolizes for them women's subjugation-and that's true-but policing doesn't solve that, policing makes it worse."

Elizabeth Bernstein termed the phrase carceral feminism-policies designed to "protect" women serve to reproduce violence.

This week I have read a study from Yale that noted the great failures of Seattle's LEAD program for Sex Workers:
I've also seen how single women have been profiled and asked to leave bars and how that Marriot's Human Trafficking training involves identifying single women wearing Louboutin's as possible individuals to report to LE.

To question someone's feminism for including the voices of sex workers in an article is trite, particularly when the information is accurate and worthy of consideration.


@27-Puritanism is very much a factor here. Secular feminists and evangelical Christians have agreement upon this "issue," it is very much part of what each identifies as their sexual politics.



You are evidently so obsessed with German Sausage that you even call them out when they haven't commented. What's going on? Is it that extra d-chromosome? Get help. You're such a terrible person that I don't want to have to worry about you.


I didn't know Mizz Griz watches Hillary Duff movies. I guess Sportlandia does have stuff to teach us.


@41 and @43: You are plain wrong. "Puritanism" is the belief that seeking pleasure is shameful. Feminists who oppose prostitution are not motivated by puritanism. Saying something doesn't make it true.


What a circular firing squad of misunderstood nuances this discussion has become.


"Saying something doesn't make it true."


What makes sex work different than any other work? I would accept that you are merely totally oblivious to how marinating in a puritanical society for your entire life has molded your views but you don't seem all that clueless. No, I think you are merely dishonest.

Let's be clear about this: the second wave vice squad and their descendants (and I suspect you fall into the latter category) routinely call other feminist writers/thinkers who do not subscribe to their sexphobic ideology 'anti-feminist'. The supreme irony here is that, if we are to consider feminism as being about, above and beyond all else, equality, it is your position on many sex related issues that is anti-feminist.

Clear as day: the patronizing attitude that unenlightened women are precious delicate flowers whose virtue needs to be protected from beastly men is diametrically opposed to a movement towards equality. Integral to this view is a denial of agency. Infantilization. It is simply ludicrous to believe that reinforcing double standards is somehow a route towards putting women on equal footing with men, and simply odious to be amenable to enlisting the armed coercion of the police state to further this objective.


There are strong correlations here between this and the war on drugs. The original war on drugs was all political. Nixon wanted to arrest as many hippies and black people as possible ( Anti-prostitution laws historically were driven by puritanical interests and to a certain extent so was the war on drugs. The implication being that only bad people do things like that (even if nothing inherently evil is occurring).

As time moved on, though, other influences emerged. One was sympathy for the victims. In the 80s, depressed communities -- feeling the weight of bad economic policies ushered in by the Reagan administration as well as increased drug use -- pushed for tougher drug policies. Many African American leaders pushed for tougher drug sentencing laws to hopefully reduce the number of addicts as well as reduce the negative effects of drug use on neighborhoods. Likewise, most of the attacks on pornography and other forms of prostitution are no longer made by those espousing puritanical views, but those espousing sympathy for the victims.

In that light, it is understandable that liberal/progressive/left leaning politicians push ahead with the new policies. If you assume something is evil, or generally bad for society, then you want to use every technique to reduce it.

However, "tough on crime" measures often backfire. They backfired with the war on drugs. Rather than cleaning up the streets, they made it worse. Crime and corruption increased because there was more to lose. Poverty increased in those communities, as many bread winners spent their time in prison (with little chance of employment after they left). Students convicted of even minor possession are no longer eligible for student loans. All of this takes a big hit on the economy while the government is busy spending money on things that don't help the communities most in need. It is asinine policy, centered around naive, childish ideas.

Such is the case here. Human trafficking is a real problem (yes, @37) but laws like these don't work. They just make things worse. Banning pornography (another form of prostitution) would not end abuse in the pornography industry. It would likely increase it. Such is the case with this misguided law.


@51: To challenge my own thinking and memory, I'd like to read a good article about "bad economic policies" ushered in by the Reagan administration.


Oh Dear God - please tell me that whoever our nominee is is not going to throw the election to the Republicans by making it about "intersectionalism."


Unreal. How can someone explain the unintended repercussions of regulations so thoroughly and not understand that this is true for every single regulation in the Marxist nanny state.


@1 actually does reference the headline, though indirectly. Herzog's premise is that these women Democrats have made life harder for women, so how can they call themselves feminists. None of my comments has actually addressed SESTA/FOSTA, which actually makes Herzog's fanbros' comments about my supposed puritanism, etc., laughable.

The problem with Herzog here is that she's targeting women Democratic presidential candidates like she's a Bernie Bro. If they aren't "perfect" then they aren't worth our support. She didn't criticize the male declared Democratic candidate who also voted for the bill or who likely would have (Julian Castro's brother is in the House and voted for). The bigger problem with Herzog is that her work disempowers victims in favor of the privileged. Both she and Sydney Brownstone have criticized SESTA/FOSTA, but Herzog is no Brownstone.


Sophie with the three degrees, does an excellent job describing the misery and danger of street life for women.

The women I met and knew who sold themselves out there were addicted to heroin and other illegal drugs. Many cannot get free from the addiction and they are criminalized by this society that is not treating addiction for what it is -an illness-. Many die from it.
They live from fix to fix and typically being dirt poor they have to get the money for the next fix. Like Sophie said she is working to help the women by herself and this brave soul needs backup. Many addicts have said they hate being addicts and with little options the life is a dead end and shaming them makes matters worse.


@50, feminism is not about equality. Feminism is about the liberation of women from patriarchy.


@57 I see. Well, assuming that the 'liberation from patriarchy' actually means something (kind of seems like it could mean whatever random nonsense you want it to) there are a whole bunch of feminists who would disagree with you.


@2 It was also once illegal for women to vote and for African Americans to use the same drinking fountains and public services as white people. Times change and outlawing prostitution between consenting adults does more to harm sex workers and promotes trafficking and exploiting underage people.

The legislation is bad for sex workers but using Backpage as an example against that law is a poor choice. There is substantial evidence that Backpage solicited advertisers and edited out of bounds ads rather than delete them while claiming all the while they had nothing to do with it. That's why they got shut down. They were doing exactly what they said they weren't.



Like, not chattel.

It’s a thing.

You know, in that big wide world out there.

God’s own green earth. It’s big.

The inalienable right to self-determination, if you will.

“Equality” only exists if not a single action is performed from birth to death.

Equal rights, on the other hand.

Already fucking there.


@58, are you saying that there is no patriarchy? Kind of sounds like you are. So are you saying that women are not a marginalized class? Kind of sounds like you are. Super progressive of you!


@61 in what universe does it sound like that. @58 is saying that "liberation from patriarchy" is a fungible statement. What qualifies as liberated? does liberation exist without equality? Anyhow, please stop grievance hunting and using your brain for something better than melting butter on a warm day.


I don’t think the statement “insane people are insane” renders the phrase “liberation from patriarchy” as open to interpretation.

Liberation can be stated as “the freedom to say and do as one wishes”. I’d say that’s hard to argue with.

The common refrain of “cultural expectation”, on the other hand, comes across as..

A. I think you think this about me.
B. What I think you think is this.
C. If what I think about what you think about me is true you want me to do this.
D. Damn the man!
E. Omnipotence achieved via countless, doddering labels.

No number of magic spells will alter reality. Closing your eyes won’t make it go away, either.

You made a decision.

Also I second 53.

The stuttering far left has made a science out of not only the phrase “I like you”, but also “things we have in common”, “celebrate our differences”, etc.

This is basic instinctual stuff. It doesn’t belong in the higher mind.



@40: Guess what, Sporty? I have zero respect for you, either. Especially when you keep trolling and spewing senseless garbage on women you don't even know, all because we won't take your macho-hemale bullshit. Don't even try to disguise your middle school gibberish as intelligence. Never mind Hillary Duff, whoever the hell she is. Stop mistaking FoxTV as a reliable news source.
@46 seatackled: Ignore Sporty---he's just trolling idiotically, as per usual.
@53 dvs99: I know, right?
@63 a terrible troll: Wow. For someone bragging about having so much intellectually to say you sure do spew a lot of senseless garbage. Your head must really hurt.


@62: Wow. Pot, meet kettle. Just how steaming hot does your pointed head get, Sporty?


Auntie, this is something I learned when I was 18 - A special type of stupid person, when presented with words they do not grasp, immediately discounts both the words and the speaker as stupid.

I was blessed with such a family.

Please do point out the bragging about my having so much intellectually to say, though.

While you’re at it, you may as well string together a list of all of the literal oppression you experience on a day-to-day basis while foaming at the mouth out there in the sticks.


Hell, I’ve even got a song for you to listen to while you drink red wine and hopefully try to put some thoughts together.

Excuse me, I have to resume working for the next hour, after which I’ll be taking a call from Seoul to see if they’ll send me out there to work for month.

It’s not biru, it’s maegju.

For the maegju.


@66 a terrible troll: Oh, yeah. Right. Everything you learned you learned through the Seth McFarlame Bro Club. Got it, further probing my point---you have nothing intellectual to say. While you're at it, you may want to stop relying so heavily on Fox TV and Twitter for your news sources down in mom's basement.


@67 a terrible troll: Sorry--like Fox TV and Twitter I don't do clickbait, either, but I'll take you up on the red wine. Have fun in Seoul.
@40: WHAP! Got one! You and your bros can all thank raindrop for the brilliant idea of troll paddling. The question is when ol' hotheaded Sporty's finally going to blow?


@62: Rhizome said that "liberation from patriarchy" doesn't mean anything. My comment follows directly from that.


@62 again: I'm just rereading your comment and it demonstrates a deep-seated ignorance. I'm guessing that by "fungible" you mean "interchangeable" or "flexible." So no, "liberation from patriarchy" is not a "fungible" concept; that descriptor is meaningless in this context. "Liberation from patriarchy" means something very specific. Patriarchy demands that stereotypical sex roles are assigned to humans and that qualities associated with male sex roles are valued over qualities associated with female sex roles. Liberation from patriarchy means that sex roles and their expectations disappear. That disappearance is liberation for women because sex roles inevitably position women as inferior. Nothing about this is about "equality," and I don't have to "hunt" for "grievances" because the injustice is observable to anyone with a functioning perceiving consciousness.


@71 rolando74: Forget trying to get through to Sporty---he's just senselessly trolling, as usual. His hot head alone could boil eggs.

Which reminds me.....
@40: WHAP! and
@62: WHAP!
Troll paddling might not work for Sporty but I feel better.


Can we get a comma in here? "When I asked her why she called the question “inane.”"
I had to reread that like three times.


@71 "again"? You never explained it the first time. You seem to have a real problem with language, if english isn't your first language, I'd understand. Tenses can be the hardest to deal with. @58 asked specifically what you meant, and now, finally, you have an answer. Great! Now let's see if you don't throw that answer at the door at the moment of first earliest convenience. I don't expect much.


@74, @58 didn't ask me what I meant; he proclaimed that what I said had no meaning. The record shows that I have no problem with language.


Also, @74: You wrote, "You seem to have a real problem with language, if english isn't your first language, I'd understand." (1) This is a run-on sentence; and (2) "English" is generally understood to require capitalization. But if English isn't your first language, I'd understand.


@71, " Liberation from patriarchy means that sex roles and their expectations disappear. That disappearance is liberation for women because sex roles inevitably position women as inferior."

Man + Woman = Sex Roles; Man + Man = Sex Roles; Woman + Woman = Sex Roles; always present.

In the 70's, women went on strike from domestic responsibilities to prove a point...that unwaged labor associated with housework was work. More importantly, it broke down gender conformities. When sex work is finally recognized as labor and freed of oppression and granted legal rights and identities, it will also have a tremendous impact on gender expectations.

Rolando, the theory you offered is classist at best but mostly unintelligible.


@77 what is classist about post 71?


@77: I conclude, based on your words, that you believe that during the '70s, society learned that household work should be valued and should not have gendered expectations associated with it. News flash: this is 100% false. Not sure what planet you live on, but in America on Earth, women are still expected to do household work for free.


@2, your argument that "breaking the law = bad" is, historically and intellectually, a very, very bad one.


@77, Policy-wise, as well as with society's expectations, your statement is incorrect. WA Family Medical Leave Act provides for payment to care for sick family members. It is available for all genders. Same with FMLA. Science has cited the importance of fathers staying home with a new born to bond.

The most interesting aspect to your response was the affirmation that household labor should not be given for free. Than why is it so different for sex workers? Is emotional labor not valued?


@80, that's not my argument. It happens that prostitution is both bad and against the law, but I never said that "breaking the law" categorically equals "bad."


@81, I'm going to assume your response is directed at me and not at yourself. (1) Just because FMLA is available to men doesn't mean there isn't a larger cultural expectation that women perform most household work. Claiming that it does is a non sequitur. (2) It's different because prostitution isn't work. (3) Are you planning to respond to @78's query, or should we take your non-response as an admission that you're just throwing around meaningless w o k e buzzwords?


W o k e buzzwords aka "patriarchy"?

(1) meaningless comment because FMLA memorialized the changing of "larger cultural expectation(s)"; (2) Sex Work, termed in such a manner to counter your statement, which is why you stick to the radical feminist's script and use the passively constructed (and highly offensive to any woman with self-determination and agency) "prostituted person"; and, (3) the assumptions of elitist white feminists that creates a personalized version of feminist theory based on individualized first-world problems. Solve the issues of poverty, the vagaries of criminal justice violence and their destructive elements that have decimated families (patriarchy? FFS, how do you explain patriarchy when husbands and brothers of a certain race are held in your prisons for longer terms and at higher rates), universal health, and universal basic income. You won't because you don't care about lower classes.


@84 you stated that "elitist white feminists" are classist, but you haven't explained why post 71 was classist. Can you use the actual words in post 71 and show how they are classist?


(1) No it didn't. (2) Correction: that's "prostituted WOMAN." (3) It's not the job of feminism to solve every injustice on the planet. You're not asking Black Lives Matter to solve universal health care, so you shouldn't be asking feminism either.


Edit: Post 86 is a response to post 84.


Oh, one more thing. "Patriarchy" isn't a w o k e buzzword. The w o k e contingent doesn't give a shit about feminism. As is manifest in this thread.