Women prefer sex to peace
Women and war
Women have power over men. They choose whom to mate with. Why don't they use this power to boycott soldiers? In the name of peace, why not deprive a man of sex?
I suppose this is illusory, because women are too selfish to make peace a higher priority in their lifes than their desire to have a family—or at least to have a man at their side. Women are not tough enough to unite and stand up for peace. They talk well, but don't act above and beyond their own needs.
Democracy and freedom are, in truth, fragile social constructions, and as such, constantly depend on those who would advocate for them, just as they are constantly susceptible to those who would subvert them, no matter what the guise.
The guise i am refering to is the support and honor given to people who serve in the military. How can you support peace, by advocating for it on the one hand, and by accepting your man's bravery on the battlefield on the other hand?
Women allied to American soldiers support their men, and they would be foolish not to. Rejecting their men for what they do, for serving in the military, would be deemed unpatriotic and destructive. If women would disband from the soldiers returning home, they would outcast themselves and devastate the soldiers.
So, why should i question the behavior of women? It makes so much sense to cherish the men who fight for you, doesn't it? Well, what would happen, if women were tougher about peace? What would happen if violence would be rejected by women? What if women would dare to punish violence by withdrawing themselves from men who enact violence? What if they would practice a radical aversion to the use of force?
I imagine an answer—an ideal chain reaction. The men in the battle zones would loose faith. Their personal reasons for fighting would be diminished, because a man's thinking goes something like this: I care for my family, therefore i care for my homecountry. My homecountry provides the conditions for my family to live in. If my homecountry is under threat, it is my duty to fight. On the battlefield, i play a zerosum game for what is at stake: It's either your family or my family. And for mine to prevail, i am ready to kill you! Now—if the woman he loves no longer backs him, there is no family, there is no reward, and the fight with the enemy will always have one outcome: you loose. As a result, armed forces would loose confidence, and weaken the nation. Society would be hollowed out bottom-up. The symptoms of war would eat back into the cause. The government would be forced to look for other, non-violent ways to enforce good living conditions for the people they serve.
I am not sure if i believe in my own writing here, but it's worth a try. Obviously, a nation disarmed from within, by its own women, would be susceptible to attack and exploitation from outside. So it shouldn't surprise that there are men who believe that only the armed forces stand between you and oblivion. On his show on April 13, 2008, Martin Grant argued that to enforce peace, you first need to be feared by those who threaten the peace. You need to be tough about peace. You need to punish any signs of evil around you. With other words, you have to believe that a nation without armed forces is not able to fight for a greater good, like human rights and freedom. The result is the United States randomnly lashing out at anything that moves. Is the United States a selfless punisher? Is there really no other way to gain respect than through the threat of violence?
Women, i think, will always prefer a forceful leader over a kind leader. If it were not so, there wouldn't even be a discussion over whether Barack Obama should be the next President. It would as obvious as a smack in the face.
Published: April 13, 2008