By Serge Kreutz
While for genuine feminists, the agenda is equal personal freedom, for feminazis, the agenda is the criminal prosecution of men.
And while for genuine feminists, the motivation is improvement in the future, the motivation for feminazis is revenge for events in the past.
The strategy for revenge is to entangle as many men as possible in the net of criminal laws, police proceedings, and court cases. It’s a cowardly strategy, as feminazis do not expose themselves to any danger. They can just enjoy the show.
For men who are prosecuted for sexual transgressions not just have to deal with paragraphs, but also with photographs. They face painful publicity, while feminazis can enjoy in silent.
Because feminazis are many, and because there is a formulated ideology for them, they can pursue their revenge in an organized and sophisticated manner.
As entangling men in criminal procedures is the preferred strategy, nothing makes better sense for feminazis than to have an ever wider range of male sexual expressions included in the list of transgressions, and to have ever harsher punishments prescribed by the law.
The pattern is simple.
Step one is the widening of the legal definitions of “rape”, “sexual harassment”, “domestic violence” and whatever else is defined as sexual crime.
The laws of many countries define (and punish) as rape what previously was considered just indecent behavior.
A few obscene words are considered sexual harassment (and punished in some countries with prison terms), while previously, they were just considered poor style.
Step two is the equation (by legal definition) of light transgressions with far worse transgressions.
Among the worst transgressions would be what was the traditional idea of rape: a mad man suddenly appears along a lonely walkway and pulls a 13-year old schoolgirl into the underwood where he forces sexual intercourse, taking the innocent girl’s virginity and leaving her bleeding.
A lighter transgression by common sense would be when a husband forces sexual intercourse.
Yes, by today’s standards, scenario two is rape, too, but there is a marked difference in gravity when compared to scenario one. After all, in scenario two, the two people involved have had consensual sexual intercourse numerous times before. And repeat intercourse with a regular sexual partner would not have been considered rape by previous standards in many countries, unless injury was caused.
The feminazi strategy claims “rape is rape”, and therefore 20 years of prison are appropriate in scenario one and in scenario two.
While judges may still differentiate between the two scenarios, the prospects for a substantially lighter sentence in two are diminishing in as much as judges may anticipate loud protests of feminazis, branding them as anti-women.
Feminazi political lobbying has resulted in harsher punishments for all male sexual transgressions.
Feminazis also successfully lobbied for evidence requirements to become tilted against men.
For rape charges to have a realistic chance to result in a court conviction, clear evidence of the use of force or the threat thereof was previously necessary. Now, the political-judicial climate in many countries creates an aura of pressure on judges to consider the claims of the alleged victim as sufficient proof.
It used to be that when women gave sexual signals, it meant they were interested in a sexual relationship.
Now, when women give sexual signals, men don’t know whether they are interested in a sexual relationship, or whether they are out to trap a man.
Men, and the general public, ought to understand that feminazis are not interested in improving judicial systems. Feminazis seek revenge.
Feminazis prefer to fight men in court. It’s easy and risk-free. Even when fabricated charges don’t stick, and a man is not convicted, he will likely be financially and professionally ruined, and sexually traumatized for the rest of his life.
All sexual cases could be tried with an exclusion of the public and the media. There could be appointed observers who would, nevertheless, not be allowed to comment on the case in public. For in sex cases, a public trial all to often is a trial by publicity.
Furthermore, women who file rape charges that cannot be substantiated should themselves face prison terms.
Such a system would likely not only work as a deterrent for making up rape charges, but also return a sense of “situational responsibility” to girls and women: if you are not interested in a sexual relationship, avoid sending sexual signals and stay out of settings that could easily be understood as a woman being available for sexual intercourse.