When there is a state of war between the sexes, is there any such thing as “crimes against women”?

During peacetime, if you deliberately kill someone, it’s a crime. But in wartime, to kill the enemy is just an act of war. The only “war crimes” are those that the two sides have agreed to criminalize, because they don’t want to escalate the war beyond a certain level of cruelty. But war is inherently cruel and disruptive, and some have argued that the best way to prevent war is to maximize the cruelty so that it will be so terrible that people will prefer to settle their differences peacefully. Also, typically “war crimes” are only prosecuted if the side that commits them loses, because the winning side is in a position to arrest whom it will and judge the accused.

We’re pretty much in a state of war between the sexes that’s disguised as peacetime. It’s kind of like cyberwarfare, where lives can be lost due to intrusions that exploit weaknesses in the software (e.g. if a tyrannical regime hacks a journalist’s email account and finds out who the dissidents are, so they can be sent to the gulag), but it doesn’t appear on the surface like war because the guns aren’t usually fired. Nonetheless, the guns are ever-present, and we live under their shadow.

A lot of times, wars are over some kind of boundary dispute. Or they’re because a country feels like its people, scattered abroad in enemy territory, are being oppressed. Or it feels like another country is hampering its people’s ability to prosper, and reducing them to slavery and poverty.

Typically a country that is robbed of its territory likes to get that territory restored to them, because they have a connection to that land. During the many years in which they possessed it, they came to rely on its unique characteristics for military, economic, cultural, or other purposes. The manner in which their civilization evolved was in accord with the nature of the place where they lived. (Notice that even today, blacks prefer to live in the Deep South even though they’re free and could move about to other areas; they got used to living in that area and even their skin color is well-suited to it.)

Historically, men had ownership rights over women’s pussies. That was part of our territory. All that we ask, in seeking to bring about a return to patriarchy, is that the borders be redrawn to what they were before this war between the sexes began. But to have that, we have to force the other side to surrender, so that we can decide the terms of the relationship that will exist.

Otherwise, they’re going to draw the borders in a way that will favor them — and currently, the way they’ve drawn those borders places incels’ and betabuxxes’ wallets within their own territory, so they can have financial control and enslave men for their own purposes.

Right now, the go-to strategy for most men is to try to appease the enemy; to offer them tribute and hope to be ruled over benevolently. It’s more advantageous, though, to force the other side to be the ones submitting. Surrender has the downside that there’s no guarantee that the terms of the surrender will be respected once you’ve laid down your arms. Femoids certainly aren’t known for their honesty.

So then, how do we go about waging this war? Propaganda is one way. One wants to bolster the morale of one’s own side while demoralizing the other.

Then of course there’s the Coke bottle.

One thought on “When there is a state of war between the sexes, is there any such thing as “crimes against women”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s