Why would a socialist-communist paradise require the degradation of womankind in order to be able to pay for...Stuff?

Mamdani, New York City’s Mayoral frontrunner, is in favor of de-criminalizing it, which is the same as legalizing what he and others call “sex work.” In my view, “sex work” is not work. It is violence against the girls and women and against the boys and men who are trafficked into it, either due to extreme parental abuse, psychiatric fragility, enormous poverty, and a complete lack of economic alternatives. “Working” as a prostitute, is like working in a plutonium factory and being assured of a very short shelf life. Although there are rare exceptions, I do not see women of wealth choosing this so-called job.

Why would a socialist commuist paradise be so imporverished that it would have to cater to male lust and damn its most vulnerable victims? Won’t there be employment for everyone? If not, why not?

Historically, Soviet Russia, communist China, and communist Cuba all viewed it as a capitalist and “foreign” practice and outlawed it. In the Soviet and Cuban cases, that practice returned, because the state needed tourist dollars to pay for their gulags, torture chambers, and dachas. In China’s case, it slowly returned as an illegal and “invisible” activity but one needed in order for the prostituted to earn better money and/or in order to obtain privileges from their leaders.

What went wrong with the economic promises of the more perfect state?

Second Wave feminists fought over this issue. Some viewed the right to an abortion as only possible if women totally controlled their bodies and, thus, had the right to sell their orifices and rent their wombs to gestate a baby for others.

Many Second Wave feminists disagreed, especially those who had studied the issue closely, hard on the heels of their understanding that pornography used prostituted women and influenced all viewers to treat women in similiarly sadistic and degrading ways; and that pornography viewing could easily--and has--become an addiction.

This truly Great Divide was never settled among feminists of my generation and remains ongoing.

But here’s another thought entirely. Since Mamadani is such a proud Muslim--I wonder why he has not already suggested that men in New York City consider converting to Islam in order to practice polygamy? This is customarily and legally done under Islam. Historically, and still today--and in addition--concubines and foreign prostitutes are also customary among Muslim elites.

But why stop there? Why not pass legislation announcing that Islamic prayers may be held in the streets? Why not allow loudspeakers to call worshippers to prayer five times a day? What about monetary incentives for those who pledge their lives to Jihad and agree to make a “blood sacrifice” to Allah either abroad or right here in our once fair city? How about promising money to the families of all such martyrs? It’s what’s done by Arabs in Judea and Samaria, in Gaza, and in Israel proper?

Look: Already, American female college students in New York City, who were not born Muslim, who may not even be religious, are wearing hijab in demonstrations as a way of identifying with the allegedly most oppressed and as a way of opposing “racism.” Why not take it further and offer perks to those who start wearing hijab?

Mamdani does not have to do very much. The ground has been well prepared. All these campus protestors have to do is to read the New York Times which has just insisted that criticizing Mamdani in any way is “Islamophobic.” Yes they published two pages of this (today, again), and right after a long and glossy Sunday magazine cover story about and for Mamdani’s candidacy.

To them, he is the new Obama--a man who also had an African father and who’s been falsely described as our first black President--no matter that his mother and his entire maternal line were as white as snow. Obama was biracial but perhaps that’s a racist thing to point out. Is it? Obama acted as if he once may have been a Muslim....Mamdani is so much better--he is truly a Muslim man of color who, unlike Obama, was himself actually born in Africa.

I do not agree with classifying people along racial lines--but I am behind the times as well as against them.

I hope I am fearing the worse, that I am completely wrong. That Momdani is a thoroughly modern and (secretly) secular kind of guy who believes in women’s equal rights.

What do you think, my loyal readers?