Catherine Hakim

The academic in question is Catherine Hakim, who is evidently still trying to push her bizarre and misogynistic theory of ‘erotic capital’ onto the world and has teamed up with the right-wing neoliberal think tank Institute of Economic Affairs to try to do it.

Hakim’s theory is basically this: men want sex, women don’t, so women should sell it to men (or something like that, her ideas don’t seem to be very well thought out).

Hakim must think rape is about men not being able to control their sexuality, rather than it being a premeditated act of dominance – why else argue that a ‘sexual outlet’ in prostitution would help lower rates? The argument here is contradictory, she claims that porn and prostitution do no social harm, porn is freely available, so why still all the rapes?

Hakim/IEA are obviously trying to ride on Amnesty’s coattails to publicise their report. The quality of the research must be dire, Hakim claims that rape has gone up in Sweden post-abolitionist model, it hasn’t, reporting has gone up, plus the legal definition of rape is wider in Sweden, so more things get recorded. There is an estimated reporting rate of 20% in Sweden, which is poor, but still twice the reporting rate in the UK.

Hakim also claims that Spain has very low rates of rape. I have downloaded her report from the IEA, searched through the document for the term ‘spain’ and found no source for her claim, she also says in the same paragraph (on p27), that Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand have “exceptionally low rates for rape and sexual assault” she doesn’t make it clear whether she is talking actual numbers of rapes (which can be estimated by crime surveys) or reported rapes, neither does she acknowledge that rape is vastly under-reported everywhere.

In the same paragraph she blames Sweden’s high number of reported rapes on Sweden having “a profoundly sex-negative politically correct culture” and emphasises that the increase in reported rapes are what she calls “date rapes” – she is insinuating that it is all prudish women ‘crying rape’.

[EDIT: Re-reading this, she is saying that Sweden’s abolitionist approach to prostitution and ‘sex negativity’ is directly responsible for date rape – so she is saying that men are committing rape because prudish, repressed women aren’t putting out they way they should, and men then just can’t help but rape them.]

Hakim was disowned by the LSE after the publication of Honey Money, she’s obviously found her level among the neoliberals.

Hey, Amnesty International, and other sex industry advocates, these are your natural allies!

Telegraph writer Rebecca Reid vents her fury over a (female) academic’s call for prostitution to be legalized on the grounds of a ‘male sexual deficit’.  What the academic (Catherine Hakim) means by this is that women have traditionally barted sex for monetry and other reward.  Reluctantly, as women in general are not as horny as men.  Sex for women is a tool, whereas sex for men is a need.  Unfortunately, due to ‘female emancipation’, women no longer have the need to barter their bodies for financial compensation, leading to a lack of availability for sex for men, and the consequent need to redress this by legalizing prostitution. (may be behind paywall)

Hakim postulates that prostitution should be fully legalised – to many a perfectly reasonable stance on the debate. But it’s her reasoning that makes the suggestion painfully offensive.

Disinterested in the potential social, economic and health benefits of legalising sex work, Hakim suggests that prostitution should be legalised, because the empowerment of women has created what she terms a “male sex deficit.”

In short because men need sex and modern women aren’t providing it.

What selfish creatures we’ve become. All that working and voting and striving for equality? Well apparently it’s led to an international blue-balls crisis that only legalised prostitution can cure….

… Hakim believes that as women become more empowered, and therefore more financially independent, they are likely to withdraw sexual availability further. She writes that the “male sex deficit” is likely to grow in the 21st century, as women become increasingly economically independent and withdraw from “sexual markets and relationships that they perceive to offer unfair bargains”.

Which tells you everything you need to know about her attitude towards sex.

No wonder she wants to legalise prostitution. She seems to think every sexually active woman already is one.

And of course, she is correct in that assumption – all women are essentially prostitutes, and feminism is a prostitute’s trade union/cartel which operates to prevent competition and to artificially keep the price of sex high.

A few of the reader’s comments below the article are priceless…


Comment: Always present both sides of the debate.

Sweden: The Defense that Disappeared

A couple of decades ago, Sweden had a strong military. Its air force was one of the capable in the world, its navy had dozens of ships and submarines, and artillery guarded the coastlines from a multitude of secret mountain hideaways.

Now, after a number of fatal decisions, based on the belief that wars in Europe were a thing of the past, most of its military is gone and Sweden has virtually no means of protecting itself.

According to Sweden’s Supreme Commander Sverker Göransson, we can, at best and in five years, defend ourselves in one place for one week.

Sweden is a large country: with 447,435 square kilometers, it is the fifth largest in Europe. It also has one of the longest coastlines in Europe (3,200 kilometers), which not easily defensible.

Four days before the Second World War broke out, then Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson declared that “Sweden’s preparedness is good.” But that statement was a lie. Sweden’sfinancial preparedness may have been good, but its military preparedness was abysmal. The Swedish Army was outdated. Since the 1920s, Sweden’s military had been cut almost in half. Sweden could perhaps have resisted Hitler’s Germany for a few hours.

By declaring itself neutral — and allowing Germany to use the Swedish railway system to transport weapons and personnel to and from Norway — Sweden was able to avoid the fate of Denmark and Norway, which were occupied by the Germans. During that war, however, Sweden did start mobilizing substantially. By 1943, it had achieved a respectable military strength.

The clever things about Sweden’s military doctrine were the draft and the “mobilization repositories.” The draft meant that all young men were required to do military service — a tradition going back to the Viking Age, then known as ledungen, a native army at the king’s disposal.

The mobilization repositories were a Swedish innovation. Instead of having a standing military force in centralized bases as in other countries, Sweden went for a military that could be quickly mobilized — with weapons and other equipment hidden in many small secret stashes out in the woods. According to some sources, there were as many as 6,000-8,000 repositories. Everybody who had served in the military regularly underwent refresher training exercises, and knew exactly where to go in the event of war. If an enemy were suddenly to attack Sweden, hundreds of thousands of fully armed soldiers could be deployed within hours.

This strong Swedish military endured until the mid-1980s. At that time, there were 100,000 active-duty soldiers in Army combat units; and counting local defense units and Home Guardsmen, another 350,000 men were available. The Air Force had over 300 airplanes; the Navy had some 40 warships and 12 submarines, and the Coastal Artillery had 28 battalions.

On April 16, 2015, Swedish public television (SVT) broadcast the documentary, “What Happened to Defense?” It was a complete review of the military that had disappeared.

“Sweden had a home defense, manned by conscripts who could be called upon when needed,” Wilhelm Agrell, a military historian, says in the documentary. “You could enhance preparedness and mobilize step-by-step. The potential was huge if you went full throttle, which we never did.”

But the upkeep was expensive. When the Cold War ended and the Berlin wall came down in 1989, and when the Soviet Union collapsed shortly thereafter, the quality of the Swedish military began to wane. Why care, the thinking went? The Russian Bear was at peace.

That was when a strange thing happened — the leaders of the Armed Forces decided to take a “time out.” The highest military leaders in the country were convinced that the threat of invasion was all in the past, and that the country’s defenses could therefore be shut down. They convinced the politicians that a complete military makeover was the right thing to do; they wanted a “pause” and to come back in ten years — more modern and stronger than ever.

We now know what happened. “Half of the transformation went very well,” Wilhelm Agrell states. “The dismantling of the old structure.”

One of the advocates for the military transformation was Army Lieutenant General Johan Kihl. He became Chief Strategy Officer at military headquarters in 1996, and was amazed to find that so many things in the Swedish military were outdated. “For example,” Kihl says in the documentary,” we had 850,000 flyswatters in stock. We had loads of cars from the 1960s, trucks that ran for only a couple of miles. This wasn’t sustainable; we needed to phase that out.”

But what should replace it? Ideas flowed. Maybe the wars of the future would be completely different — maybe fast, agile forces were the way to go? Maybe forces that could use this internet everybody was talking about — what if everything could just be connected?

In 1994, Kihl spoke of “hacker platoons,” sensors that could monitor all of Sweden, unmanned airplanes and balloons that could report on everything that moved.

General Owe Wictorin, Supreme Commander of the military during that period, was just as enthusiastic. In a television interview, he said: “Maybe a future Supreme Commander can use the phone to stave off an attack, instead of bullets and gunpowder. Maybe say: ‘I see what you are doing. Stop or we will fight you.'”

In the same period, a severe recession hit Sweden. In 1992, interest rates were raised to a staggering 500%, and politicians were searching everywhere for possible budget cuts. When General Wictorin suggested defense cuts and reform in favor of modern and flexible armed forces, the idea sounded as if it were a Christmas present.

In the fall of 1998, General Wictorin had his plan for the historical transformation all worked out. But his big mistake was that he had not grasped that the politicians had now identified defense as an area ripe for major budget cuts. When the state budget was presented, two days after General Wictorin proposed his plan, the defense budget was 15 billion kronor short (about $1.9 billion USD in 1998 dollars). In the documentary, General Wictorin says: “It demanded magic tricks we could not perform. Our plan went straight in the trash; with these cuts, it was not possible to implement it.”

Then everything just unraveled. In 2000, the Swedish Parliament made a new decision on defense — to cut the budget by half. Compared to 1985, there was now only:

  • Fifteen percent as many Army combat units
  • One tenth as many local defense units
  • Half as many Home Guardsmen
  • Half of the Air Force
  • One quarter of the Navy

The modern Swedish military, built up over a hundred years, was scrapped in ten or eleven years. According to the military historian Wilhelm Agrell, the dismantling process was inconceivably vast. Every last item stored in the mobilization repositories was hauled away to central storage bases. The process quickly got out of control, and before long, no one knew where anything was. The whole maneuver also turned out to be quite a bit more costly than expected. Nothing went according to plan, and then it was time for the next big decision on how the military should be handled.

In 2004, more units were scrapped and 5,000 military personnel (25% of the total) were let go.

“The new defense,” said Agrell, “was supposed to be in place in 2004, but at this time, everything was a screaming mess. There was no new defense and not enough money. What to do? Well, the politicians once again ordered more cutbacks.”

This was what was left:

  • Six percent of the combat units
  • No local defense
  • The Home Guard was once again cut in half
  • 100 airplanes instead of 200
  • A navy cut in half, with only seven surface vessels and four submarines

The focus of the Swedish military now turned to international operations. Troops were sent to Afghanistan on a mission that dragged on for 13 years. However, conscripts could not be ordered to serve abroad; that mission required professional soldiers. Therefore, in 2010, national service was repealed and professional armed forces were introduced.

Meanwhile, in 2008, the unthinkable happened: Russia invaded Georgia, and a five-day war took place. The Russian bear had awakened.

“Now,” according to Agrell, “there was a stone in our shoe. The consensus had been that no state in Europe would ever attack another state. But someone just had, and it wasn’t just anybody. It was Russia. It was not supposed to happen, but it had. Suddenly Swedish politicians understood that we need to have some kind of ability to defend ourselves, if we against all odds were to be threatened again.”

Armed Forces brass, which until then had pretty much kept quiet, suddenly came to life. In 2011, Russian military aircraft once again started to fly close to Swedish airspace (which was a common practice during the Cold war but had ceased during the 1990s), and there were new reports on foreign submarines sighted along the coasts. In 2013, General Sverker Göransson, Supreme Commander of Sweden’s military, made a statement that scared the wits out of the Swedes — and made the politicians furious. Asked how good the Swedish military was, General Göransson answered, “We can defend ourselves against an attack against a localized target. We’re talking about a week on our own.”

Was Göransson really allowed to say that, or was this classified information? The Supreme Commander was accused of breaching national security, but he did not waver.

A Russian television news-parody show, joking about Sweden only being able to hold out for a week, aired a parody of the ABBA song “Mamma Mia,” mocking Sweden and its female Minister of Defense: “Mamma Mia, Russians coming here, on foot — oh my God it’s scary! … Defense Minister wears a dress…”

Comment: Good thing. It will make it easier for us to invade Sweden, and beat some sense in its inhabitants. Hell is eternal, hell is eternal, hell is eternal…

Sweden not so feminist…

A Swedish court acquitted a 27-year-old man of raping a 13-year-old girl because she looked older. Add this to similar cases in the U.S. and U.K., and we’ve got a sickening problem.
A man who raped a 13-year-old girl has been acquitted on the grounds that her body was “well-developed” for her age. The Swedish teenager had lodged an appeal against the ruling on her perpetrator, 27, but it was thrown out of court this week as officials decided her figure exempted him from blame as he “could not have known” how old she was.

The ruling has called Sweden’s sexual assault laws into question: legislation that states a defendant must “know” or have “reasonable grounds to believe” that the child is under 15, the country’s age of consent. The statute also classifies having sex with someone below that age as “child rape.”

The girl’s lawyer, Goran Landerdahl, told the country’s national news agency that they were planning to bring the case to Sweden’s Supreme Court in the hopes of setting a benchmark for how issues of this nature are treated in the future.

“Judges read newspapers too,” Landerdahl told TT News, “so perhaps someone will realize that there are irregularities in this case.” He also criticized adults who have sex with those who look “borderline 15-years-old” without attempting to verify their age, saying that they must be held responsible for their decisions.

But chances of the Supreme Court revising the ruling on the case are slim. As legal expert Madeleine Leijonhufvud explains, verdicts for similar abuse issues are often passed without a conviction for the alleged offenders. “The Supreme Court has been very restrictive when it comes to applying legal sexual abuse clauses to cases involving young teenagers,” she told TT.

This latest case is horrifying, but it’s not the first in recent history to expose how authorities around the world mistreat young rape victims. Earlier this year, a London judge accused a 16-year-old girl of “grooming” her 44-year-old teacher for sex, likening her actions to a stalker and telling the older man: “If anything, it was she who groomed you. You gave way to temptation at a time when you were emotionally vulnerable because of problems with your wife’s pregnancy.”

Judge Joanna Greenberg, QC, added: “There is no evidence you encouraged her in any way”—a comment that seemed all the more misguided given that the accused, Stuart Kerner, had taken the girl’s virginity in a school storage cupboard. Elsewhere in the U.K., victims of a gang who coerced hundreds of children into underage sex were labelled as “very difficult girls making bad choices” by their care workers—an attitude that led to abuse ensuing for many more years.

Add to this the Montana judge who dismissed a 14-year-old girl as “older than her chronological age” after she was raped by her 47-year-old teacher, and therein lies a very bleak picture of our attitudes toward young victims of sexual assault.

The regular refrain espoused by prosecutors and judges—that these girls seem beyond their years, and therefore cannot benefit from the protective laws afforded to others of their age group—is a paltry excuse. Either we design legislation to protect people or we don’t, but denying someone the legal justice they deserve because their chest is a little bigger than average is frankly embarrassing. If the law won’t safeguard these girls, who will?

There comes a time when we must ask ourselves why blame keeps being placed on young women. Perhaps one of them did, as the judge alleged, become overly infatuated with an older man and spend too much time trying to court his affections. But shouldn’t a man in his 40s, who is in an even greater position of power by way of being that girl’s teacher, be the one to demonstrate what is right and wrong? Dealing with personal distress is one thing, but sleeping with your pre-legal student because your wife has just miscarried simply should not be an alibi we find acceptable.

This constant misdirection of fault is a stain on punitive justice worldwide. How can we expect rape victims to come forward when they so frequently receive blame for such acts of sexual assault? And how can we expect men who target vulnerable girls to stop doing so when they know they will never be punished for their behavior? Laws designed to protect young women from sexual violence exist. It’s about time we started using them.

Abolish Prison

Comrades in Skövde sentenced (Sweden)

Today, Monday the seventh of April, our comrades in Skövde, Sweden, were sentenced. The comrade who’s still kept in captivity was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison. One of the comrades who were released last week was sentenced to 1 year in prison. The other, with the more talkative approach in court, who also was released last week was sentenced to a probationary sentence. Yet two comrades, also they being on the outside, were sentenced to suspended sentences.

Even though the prosecutor creep did’nt get its will done, we see no reason to celebrate. Our comrades have still spent half a year – more and less – in the disgusting pre-trial isolation cells and they have still their sentences to either serve or evade.

Prison is and will, as long as this society continues to exist, be one of the worst weapons in the State arsenal. A weapon they are using every day in the social war against us and anybody who doesn’t fit in to their disgusting frames of Normality. Prison is however not an end station but a continuation of our struggle against this reality. To maintain a struggle without including the prison and justice system as targets, is to shoot oneself in the foot.

Fire to the prisons! Strength to our comrades!

Write to our comrades: support_mejl_now_4(at)


-always for the subversion of the existent


This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 8th, 2014 at 2:53 pm and is filed underEco Struggle.

Comment: I agree that prison reform and even abolition of prisons will be necessary for any real social change.

Double Standard: Fur Farms and Fascists


Repression against animal liberation comrades in Skövde (Sweden)

Late 14th and early 15th of October 2013, five comrades were arrested and imprisoned in Skövde, Sweden, suspected for over twenty different attacks on furfarmers and the fur industry as well as liberations of minks. Three of the comrades were later considered to be main suspects and the two others were released, however still being suspects. Close upon the trial startup end of January, yet another person was detained for involvement in some of the suspected attacks but this person was also released, still being a suspect.

During their interrogations the three main suspects kept their mouths shut, besides one comrade who took the responsibility for a suspected arson against a garage belonging to a fur farmer.

Seeing the media potential, the disgusting ex-minister of justice Thomas Bodström, nowadays a populistic lawyer, took it on himself to represent all the fur farmers in the court process.

As the trial began in the end of January, two of the comrades remained quiet and didn’t answer any questions in court. Just letting the assembled people know their position of denial to the accusations through the voice of their defenders. The third person did however choose another approach, claiming his innocence, his aversion towards violence, as well as calling his close ones as witnesses to his advantage in the court process.

During the first day the prosecutor scum used an interview from UpprorsBladet no. 3 as evidence against one of the comrades, claiming that he was the one being interviewed. His legal defense stated that there is no evidence-based connection between his client and the person being interviewed.

During the planned ten-days long trial the State posed an allegation that one or more of the accused were suffering from mental illnesses. This, in the end, resulted in a six week long psychiatric evaluation for the three of them, before any convictions could be made. The 27th of March the main scum doctor of the State institution for (captive) psychiatric care declared all of them “healthy enough to be sentenced to prison.”

Yesterday, the 31st of March, the last day of trial before conviction took place and two of the comrades were released on bail. The remaining comrade, being the one who took the responsibility for the alleged arson, was to be kept in captivity as there was some aggravating circumstances concerning evidence around the arson and her involvement therein. The accusations against the two released comrades was, according to the court, not enough to motivate the continuation of an already six months long isolation in captivity. Although this being stated, the authorities considered possible the high likeliness of them evading the long arm of the law, continuing their criminal activities or both.

If the prosecutor gets her will done, the more talkative of the three would get 3-3.5 years in prison and the other two at least 6 years in prison.

Besides showing our comrades the greatest of support for their ideas, their actions and their commitment to the liberation of animals, we find it important to comment on the use of our idea-based weapon against us and our comrades. For us, the enemy using our magazine against a comrade like this, is equal to us taking the service pistol of the State lackeys and pointing the gun’s barrel right back at them… This is not the first incident as such, but this time we won’t let it go unanswered…

Stay updated with the development of the case and remember that there are always ways to communicate without addresses, names and letters!

Solidarity with our comrades in the struggle for Animal Liberation, for an inter-sectional struggle and most importantly – FOR ANARCHY!

Comment: Did it occur to Anarchists why attacks on fur farms are prosecuted and punished far more severely than attacks on “fascists”? Double standard, dual morality?