Updated 2019 03 12
It will be difficult to revive interest in the topic, given that the public appears to have tired of it, but should it be a growing concern?
“Sex war” or “Gender War” are not only inexact terms, they are far from close enough to be accurate or even appropriate. “Sex war” or “Gender War” implies that: there was a formal declaration of war; the two sides make at least an attempt to conquer one another; there are clear dividing lines between the warring parties, and other things. One is that there is an aggressor and a defender, another that there is a reasonable expectation of cessation of hostilities, when an armistice is declared, after one party is victorious, the conquered party admits defeat and tries to negotiate terms of surrender, and both parties either agree to fight, so as to settle their differences, or perhaps settle for peace and keep it.
None of that is true or even in sight, in relation to the so-called “sex war.”
It would therefore be more accurate to consider that the “sex war” is something quite different from a war. The evidence strongly suggests that the conflict between the sexes is a consequence of an escalating campaign of totalitarian oppression that targets all men but primarily husbands and fathers, a campaign of totalitarian oppression that targets fathers within or without families, while not sparing families with fathers.
Therefore, it stands to reason that women and children in families with fathers as well become victims of the campaign of totalitarian oppression that is without a doubt aimed at penalizing and punishing all who dare to yearn being members of families with fathers.
That is a reasonable explanation of why women and the children with them who are in fatherless families are without a doubt the victims of collateral damage. After all, how can there be so many women and children who are victims of the “sex war,” when it ostensibly makes all women the winners? Consider:
It’s Official: The Experiment Has Failed
For the best part of thirty years [50 years as of 2019 – Walter] we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in : the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children. — Rebecca O’Neill
—Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family
by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS
Surely, a war that, instead of providing all women with the spoils of war turns vast numbers of them into victims requiring assistance from Father State, is far more likely a hoax gone terribly wrong.
Ten thousand years of a successful symbiosis of families and civilization that made civilization great cannot have been all wrong. As shown in this example (it is one of many), it was not. It had made civilization thrive and an ever-increasing number of people prosper:
Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity
The liberation from mankind’s dependency on the slavery of muscle power is without a doubt due to the efforts of many men who gave their lives to search for, explore and develop alternative sources of energy. Should there be any doubt that humanity owes men a great debt of gratitude? Why, instead, would anyone feel compelled to vilify men and the families they love and who love them in return?
Sources of the introductory quotes
“François de Charette was one of the leaders of a Royalist counter-revolt in the Vendée region of France during the French Revolution. The War in the Vendée, as it’s now known, lasted several years and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. In March of 1796, Charette was captured by republican forces and put on trial, during which, according to Walker’s account:
It was remarked to him that he had caused the death of a great many persons. Yes, he replied, omlets are not made without breaking eggs.
Charette, you’ll be shocked to learn, was soon after executed by firing squad. As for the metaphor—especially tasteless in his rendering since the broken “eggs” were dead human beings—it originated in French (on ne saurait faire d’omelette sans casser des œufs) as early as the 1740s and made its way from there into English. But it seems Charette was onto something. A scan of the OED’s later citations suggests that the expression has an unfortunate fondness for body counts….” (More)
QUOTATION: Revolution is like Saturn, it devours its own children.
ATTRIBUTION: Georg Büchner (1813–1837), German dramatist, revolutionary.
Trans. by Gerhard P. Knapp (1995). Danton’s Death, act I (1835).
In the original German: die Revolution ist wie Saturn, sie frißt ihre eignen Kinder.
The phrase is usually translated using devour.