as much as demolishing capitalism is a part of feminism too, i think modern liberals preaching it and blaming women for wanting money/security/etc is a part of getting women into communities just so they could put them into unpaid labour. because no way men are actually ever gonna give up their privilege and resources, they'll just rotate them differently, and nothing threatens any community in this world then women demanding any payback for their labour.
the backlash to "girlboss" feminism was insane. sure you should be careful climbing the corporate ladder, your job will never love you and protecting your health & peace should come first. but women being as financially independent as we are now is damn near unprecedented. so get the bag. girlboss to the moon and back. jesus.
This sentiment is everywhere on the left and it makes me feel crazy because of how it's couched as nobleness.
No, it is not OK to say that female conservative politicians are "proof that giving women access to power is not feminism" while none of you evil shits ever say that male conservative politicians are indicative of men's lack of suitability for leadership.
No, it is not OK to ooh and ah over "that secretary who REALLY runs the place (while not receiving the pay or prestige that comes with running an organisation)" as an ideal of what female competence should be.
No, it is not OK to say that everything would be fine if people did more volunteer work, while refusing to acknowledge how the lion's share of existing volunteer work is done by middle aged and elderly women.
No, it is not OK to refer to women's flagging of society's overdependence on unreciprocated emotional care and assistance with daily life stuff by women as a bastardisation of real causes (read: cases where male workers are called upon to provide emotional labour.)
No, it is not OK to be anti-therapy on the grounds that it makes people (read: women) too selfish or on the grounds that it doesn't solve "real" problems (read: problems that equally affect men) or on the grounds that that care should be provided by loved ones (read: women.) (If anything, we should be taxing men to pay for all the therapy needed by the women they abuse and rape.)
No, it is not OK to claim that women who cut off people who treat them badly are just being prima donnas who lack the cooperation required for a community.
No, it is not OK to mock language created by women who are waking up about how much they're being taken advantage of.
No, it is not OK to express nostalgia about the community spirit of eras where that community spirit consisted of unpaid labour extracted from women who weren't allowed to work in any industry that would enable them to make a living without having to be a man's domestic, sexual, and reproductive servant.
No, it is not OK to idealise collectivist countries whose community spirit today consists of unpaid labour extracted from women who are still shut out of structural power.
No, it is not OK to refer to perfectly reasonable boundaries set by women as "individualism (evil)".
No, it is not OK to express nostalgia about the community spirit of eras where that community spirit consisted of unpaid labour extracted from women who weren't allowed to work in any industry that would enable them to make a living without having to be a man's domestic, sexual, and reproductive servant
thats how I feel about the "village" that everyone is harping about these days
The "village" used to help with kids you mean women
The "village" used to take care for postpartum mothers you mean women
The "village" used to host dinner and parties you mean women
The "village" used to tKe care of the elderly you mean women
They're allergic to admitting that most of the labor to do these things was put on women while men only financially provided but if they use the word women instead of the "village" then they know it won't sound appealing to young women
Had an argument about it with an ex friend because I said I'll watch her kids as many hours as her husbands friends do suddenly the "village" wasn't some gender neutral term that refers to everyone
This is an unpopular opinion, but I don’t believe women should be in the military. It was commendable of the women who fought to achieve this, demonstrating that women can excel in any field they set their minds to.
However, consider the current state of the world. Why would you want to fight for a country that barely recognizes your humanity? All men see women as mere birthing machines. Then, you’ll argue, “Well, that’s why I wanted to be better and more than that,” even if you trained rigorously. But one mistake, and these men will start clawing at you, blaming your “biology” at the end of the day. It’s not a safe path for women, even with feminist support. Just look at the number of rape / sexual assault/harassment cases that go unreported due to rank. You’re not safe in the military, no matter who tries to tell you otherwise.
Pfc. LaVena Lynn Johnson (2005) - 19-year-old U.S. Army Private First Class found dead in a contractor’s tent in Balad, Iraq, on July 19, 2005. Though the Army ruled her death a suicide, her family argues she was raped and murdered, citing evidence of a broken nose, chemical burns, and injuries inconsistent with the official report.
Sgt. Sarah Roque (2024, Fort Leonard Wood) - A 23-year-old sergeant found dead in a dumpster at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Spc. Wooster Rancy was charged with murder.
Pfc. Katia Duenas-Aguilar (2024, Fort Campbell) - A 25-year-old PFC found dead in her residence off-post from Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Her death was ruled a homicide.
Ana Basaldua Ruiz (2023, Fort Hood) - A 20-year-old soldier found dead at Fort Hood (now Fort Cavazos), Texas, in an apparent suicide, with family reporting she experienced sexual harassment.
Vanessa Guillén (2020) - A 20-year-old soldier murdered at Fort Hood after reporting sexual harassment. Her death triggered major military investigations into sexual assault and harassment policies.
In war, it’s even worse. Your country and even the country you were fighting against harm women and children. They rape these women, beat them, and torture them, and these women are usually civilians. Imagine what these men would do to an opposing female soldier. If you think this doesn’t happen, look up “Anush Apetyan” (trigger warning: rape, disfigurement).
We all know about the comfort women.
What American soldiers did to an 14-year-old Iraqi girl (trigger warning: gang rape, mass murder) is sickening. It’s appalling that these women put themselves in danger for a country that takes away their rights and openly allows people to say, “Repeal the 19th Amendment.” As a woman, is that what you want to fight for? If so, good luck.
listen to pornographers: they hate women and they produce porn as a product of hate. porn is antithetical to female liberation. "feminism" that approves of porn isn't feminism.
That article where a law professor argues that battered women are morally entitled to kill their abusers has an interesting quote:
“ Men can kill women with their bare hands, and they do. Women almost never kill men that way. They can’t. […] While very few women kill abusive men who are asleep or passed out, it’s “unfair” to charge them with first degree murder, Sheehy argues. “It’s not fair to characterize it as the most heinous form of murder, because it may be their own route to survival. ”
There have probably been feminist analyses of this already, but it’s worth discussing how the concept of self-defence, especially in domestic violence cases, was designed by men to benefit men. In my country at least, your attack is only considered “legitimate self-defence” if it is a) necessary, b) immediate, c) proportionate.
A concept of self-defence that only applies if you hurt or kill someone while they are attacking you, and if you hurt or kill them using the same weapons as them (your bare hands, if that’s what they are using) only benefits people who are likely to be attacked by people of similar size and physical strength, and is utterly useless to women.
When a bigger, stronger male beats up his much smaller wife, it’s almost impossible for her to kill him in self-defence (immediately and proportionately ie with nothing but her fists), and yet it’s the scenario through which she can hope to be acquitted or get a light sentence. That’s not a coincidence. The other two scenarios (and she will be despised if she picks either) are for her to
1) kill him later (when he can’t use his physical advantage, eg when he’s asleep or has his back turned on her), but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be immediate. (In the Jacqueline Sauvage case, one of the main arguments against her was that she shot her husband in the back at a time when he wasn’t actively beating her up)
2) use a weapon, but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be proportionate. Obviously this condition also benefits men, because when a woman gets punched by her husband and she punches him back, it’s seen as a proportionate response but it shouldn’t be, because her punch (typically) won’t do nearly as much damage as his. Anything else she does (like use a weapon) to try and hurt him as much as he hurt her will be considered a disproportionate response and will mean it wasn’t self-defence.
The idea that killing your abuser in a honest face-to-face fight with your bare hands is honourable and forgivable, but killing your abuser in any other way is shameful and wrong, utterly benefits men and protects men. It’s also why poison was historically reviled as a ‘female weapon’ and as the most cowardly way to kill someone. Poison has been described as “a great equalizer” - no wonder men hated it. Men have always hated, and will keep hating, shaming, and outlawing, any form of attack through which women can compensate our disadvantage in strength and size, and they will keep praising as the only valid method of self-defence, the method that presents the smallest risk of being effectively used by women against them.
All the "young people are having less sex" panic is similar to the "less babies" panic. When women have more choice and education, they choose to not lay under or spread their legs for dumbass men.
Millennial women had a whole bunch of unsatisfying sex with men who hated their guts because they were groomed into it and didn't know better.
Millennial girls were being roofied at parties and were being told they're a tease or were "asking for it" if they go back to a guy's place alone. So they felt pressured to perform.
Millennial girls were told sex is empowering but there was no support and empowerment to deal with the emptiness after they offered their bodies to men who have zero regard for them.
Millennial girls funded their own abortions and Plan B pills and gyno visits post-sex and undertook all the risk and expense of promiscuous sex on their own- when the guy they did it with disappeared or ghosted.
Millennial girls were given speeches about how: 1.Orgasms are not the point of sex.
2. Love isn't the point of sex.
3.Trust, care and mutual respect is not the point of sex.
4. Intimacy isn't the point of sex.
5. Reproduction isn't the point of sex.
So left GenZ girls are wondering what the fuck is the point of sex with these men. And thank God they are.
Millennial girls were told "fun" is the point of sex.
GenZ girls realized that paying $300 of your own money for an abortion for a fuck you didnt even enjoy with a misogynist who hates you doesn't sound that fun. And, as a millennial myself, theyre right- it isn't.
A Dutch psychiatrist gave lethal injections to patients with mental suffering, some of them teenagers. Does that make him a hero—or somethin
Of the 30 people under age 30 who received psychiatric euthanasia in 2024, in the Netherlands, 25 were female.
This kind of thing, taking off, is going to be a form of femicide. One of the things protecting women from suicide was literally just being female. Female people are much less inclined to kill themselves by violent means, and more passive means (taking prescription pills) are much less effective. Now, with medically assisted suicide, women are going to be over-represented in suicide.
"In 2002, the Netherlands began allowing doctors to administer death to patients who make “voluntary and well considered” pleas to end “unbearable” suffering from any medical condition—provided there is no “prospect of improvement” and no “reasonable alternative” to dying. Eighteen-year-olds are adults and can request euthanasia even over family objections. Children as young as 12 are also eligible, with parental consent; for 16- and 17-year-olds, only parental consultation is required." Hahaha what the actual fuck??
I read the article almost entirely and there's a passage about an 18yo girl who got euthanized after a rape, ptsd, hospitalisation, and then another rape from another patient. It feels like her parents, her doctors and even society itself, after failing her so badly, decided to get rid of her to erase their own mistakes. Helping her die is so much easier than helping her recover, punishing rapists and stopping rape, isn’t it?
This is such a frighteningly callous disregard for women’s lives
Allowing vulnerable mentally ill women and girls the option to to more easily and accessibly chose death in a world that actively hates them is an act of outright medical femicide
There is only “no prospect of improvement” from sexual or interpersonal trauma if you simply don’t consider spending the time and effort to heal women a worthwhile course of action, a worthy endeavor, something that needs to be done.
There is only no “reasonable alternative” to death for depressed and traumatized women if you simply don’t consider their lives to have inherent value, just because they happen to be struggling and suffering and messy and inconvenient
I am depressed myself and have been for a very long time, and I’ve had dark thoughts at times, but i still think this is truly an act of great and terrible evil. That it violates so many of our social contracts to take care of each other and help each other and not cause harm, and worst of all it seeks to dispose of the unwell rather than even try and continue to treat them.
How sick and hateful and evil and apathetic do you have to be to see someone at the bottom of a pit of abject despair and instead of tossing down a rope you offer them a gun instead? And then to go so far as to act like that’s a kindness? A mercy killing?
Everyone who had a part in making this happen, sincerely sincerely sincerely burn in hell
Minnesota man kills co-worker with sledgehammer, saying he didn't like her, charges say - CBS Minnesota
A man is accused of killing a co-worker with a sledgehammer at a food and dairy processing facility in central Minnesota.
A female welder was bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer by a male co-worker twice her age because he didn't like the way he looked at her. Footage shows they didn't even interact.
Meanwhile major media sites have articles about women 'ruining the workplace '
i'm not defending trad wives or whatever but its so crazy to me how little empathy people have for them. like no wonder they're obsessed with male attention when other women who call themselves feminists are rejecting them so viciously
Women are not obsessing over men because of a lack of empathy or rejection from feminists. It's because because we live in a patriarchy and our self esteem is lower than it should be.
Also, men are much more hateful towards them than feminists ever are. Once you realise that, the tradwife lifestyle is going to look far less appealing.
Men call them stupider and less capable, say their job is not a "real job" and is much easier than male dominated jobs, and brand them as lazy and gold digging for wanting a (financial) provider. The ones who want women to be traditional are saying this too, btw. The entire reason for wanting women to stay at home isnt because they want to protect women and let them rest, it's because they believe that homemaking is "below" men's dignity but they still recognise it is labour that needs to be done.
It's men who are telling other men not to marry these women because they claim they will cheat on them/divorce them and take all their money.
You'll never hear a feminist say "I wish I could wash dishes and watch cartoons for 20 minutes a day instead of working a shift! Housework takes 2 hours a week tops! What are they doing the rest of the time? Spending their hard working simp husbands money! Women are so lazy and parasitic and contribute nothing in society compared to men!"
Men are so far removed from reality it's insane. These are actual things I've seen them say. Not wanting to go 50/50 is considering man-hating.
Women who give up their jobs to look after their 3+ kids and then are cheated on and are abadoned by their partners have men in their comment sections telling them that they took the "easy way out" in becoming a homemaker and now have to deal with the consequences. They have zero sympathy or empathy for them and are very loud about it.
In no universe do men as a whole consider labour primarily done by women as worthy of being respected, valued and compensated for more than women.
This is something anti-feminist pro-tradwife women really need to open their eyes to.
I also want to point out that some of these loud and proud tradwives are extremely anti feminist too. You can't drag a woman kicking and screaming into feminism if she isn't at least a little open to it. When I was a male-identified woman, I was suspicious of even well meaning feminists.
You need a whole lot of deprogramming to get out of that mindset.
Rebecca Whitehurst never wants to set foot in a school again.She also wants all teachers, especially female ones, to wear bodycams, to have
Rebecca Whitehurst never wants to set foot in a school again.
She also wants all teachers, especially female ones, to wear bodycams, to have CCTV in every classroom and for teachers to operate in pairs. “I think teachers should never be alone with children, there should always be someone else there. I know it is dramatic but I don’t want what happened to me to ever happen to anyone else,” she said.
The views of Whitehurst, who is married with two children and has been a modern languages teacher for more than ten years, have been shaped by what she describes as a “modern horror story”.
Last week the 46-year-old wept as a jury at Manchester’s Minshull Street crown court cleared her of two charges of sexual activity with a child and one of sexual communications. She had been accused of a sexual act with a 15-year-old pupil in the back of her Volvo and of sending him explicit texts, including a photograph of her breasts.
The court heard that the teenager, who had declared he was in love with Whitehurst, became obsessed with her and lied about or faked the messages. The boy, who watched pornography involving older women, assaulted her in her classroom and sent an abusive message to her daughter, the court was told.
The family spent £43,000 fighting the case, which dragged on for three years. If convicted she would have faced up to 14 years’ in jail.
Speaking from her home in Cheshire where her husband, Billy, an accountant, has “been unbelievably supportive”, she said her experience at times felt like a television drama.
It unfolded against the backdrop of a rising number of schoolboys watching online pornography, and pupils’ mental health becoming a frontline problem for many schools.
Last year, an Ofsted report found 90 per cent of girls and 50 per cent of boys polled by the schools inspectorate said they had been sent explicit pictures and messages they did not wish to see. A survey for the British Board of Film Classification last year found that almost half of 16 and 17-year-olds had recently seen pornography. Figures from NHS Digital found that one in six children in England had a probable mental health disorder last year, up from one in nine in 2017.
Whitehurst’s ordeal started in April 2019. The boys’ school where she taught French, German and Spanish had paid for her to attend a three-day course on mindfulness. She was asked to teach the subject — not to lower the stress of high-achieving children in the run-up to exams, which she had suggested, but to children on the inclusion register, who have special educational needs and disabilities. “I said yes because I am that sort of person,” the Sheffield University graduate said, but admitted to being nervous about teaching a “wishy washy” subject to children who may have experienced significant trauma.
In an early session with the group of ten boys the 15-year-old who would go on to accuse her said he was hearing voices in his head telling him to kill someone. “I thought OMG,” she said. “As soon as I could I reported it on our safeguarding system . . . I reported it on there and thought someone would talk to me about it, but no one did.”
As the sessions continued the teenager “latched” onto Whitehurst, who tried to give him “sensible advice” via the school’s email system.
He talked about being in a gang and, in an area of the city linked to the Manchester bomber, Whitehurst also feared he was at risk of getting involved in terrorism. When he started to talk about how he had “this big secret” and she was the only person he could tell it to, she made, she admits, a critical mistake.
“He had said he wants to kill people and is in a gang,” she said. “He was talking about going to the mosque. All these things were adding up in my head. I thought there was a bigger picture and I would find out about it and report it.
“I tried to get him to talk to staff who were better trained in such matters but he said no. He said he did not trust the school email which we were already communicating on. In one email thread he emailed me a ghost emoji and I realised he meant he wanted to tell me the secret on Snapchat. I downloaded Snapchat on purpose because I thought he was going to give me this big secret.”
Whitehurst said the secret was nothing to do with terrorism: “The secret was he was in love with me. I realised I had made an idiot of myself. I told him nothing like that was ever going to happen and there had been a misunderstanding. I told him I had to tell the school. He would say ‘they are not going to believe you’ and that I had made a mistake in giving him my Snapchat username. I should have reported it but I did not and I know now that that was an error.”
A few weeks later the teenager came into Whitehurst’s classroom when she was alone. He tried to force his tongue into her mouth, touched her intimately, slapped her face and spat at her. She tried to push him away, which he told the court he thought was encouragement.
“I do not think he knew how bad it was what he did; I know porn was available to him, he sent me lots of links which I never opened but I have an idea of what he watched,” she said. “I think he thought slapping me and spitting at me was sexy in some way.” Again, she did not report the assault. Whitehurst admits she was scared and also “again I thought I would be held responsible as I am the adult and he is the child”, but from then on things got steadily worse.
Over the coming weeks he gave her a necklace and sent naked images of himself which she deleted. He “begged” her to meet him outside school. Still worried about his state of mind, she met him several times in public places, including at a charity run she was doing in a Manchester park where she thought there was no risk of him “launching himself at her”.
At school Whitehurst volunteered for extra duties to ensure she was not alone. She applied for jobs in other schools.
In September 2019 she broke down in the playground when a colleague asked her if she was OK: “I said no and blurted it all out. She said she would have to take this to the head teacher.”
Whitehurst agreed with the head teacher that the matter would be reported to the police and the local authority safeguarding officer and that she would be suspended pending an inquiry. “My logic was, they will understand,” she said. “They will know he is difficult and that I wanted to help but mismanaged things.”
Whitehurst was shocked in her first police interview, two months later, when she heard that the boy had accused her of having sexual activity with him and sending him photos of her breasts.
The pandemic meant that the investigation dragged on. She did not hear anything until last year when police said they had downloaded data from both the phones, including a screenshot of a fake text conversation in whch she appeared to be suggesting sexual acts with the teenager outdoors.
“I thought, ‘I never sent those’. They did not look right. They were obviously fake. The language did not add up. I did not need a professor of linguistics to say that was not me,” she said.
“It was extraordinary that what he said was believed and I was not. He said it was consensual. And we were in love.
“I kept thinking the police will look at all this properly, tell me this will be dropped and say, ‘You poor woman’.”
As it became clear that the case would go to court Whitehurst switched lawyers. Her new team instructed an expert witness to look at the downloaded data from both phones. His report — which cost the family £8,000 — made clear there was no evidence that a photo of her breasts or a text suggesting outdoor sex acts had been sent by her or received by the teenager. Still the case was not dropped.
A week before court, Whitehurst says “calm descended”. She decided not to wear a face mask or hide her face and be “as brave as I could be”.
By video link the teenager gave contradictory evidence and admitted the assault on Whitehurst. The jury took less than three hours to acquit her.
Whitehurst’s case may be extreme but it is not isolated. There is a website on which teachers share dozens of accounts of false allegations. Teaching unions called last year for pupils who make them to be excluded and for fully funded mental health programmes aimed at boys.
Christian Harbinson of the law firm Thompsons solicitors, which represented Whitehurst, said: “An underfunded criminal justice system is unable to cope and that stretches out the agony for innocent people like Rebecca. It’s taken almost three years, since the allegations were first made, for her to clear her name, during which time Rebecca’s life has been on hold and her family have had to deal with an unimaginable level of stress and worry.”
Asked whether the teenager, now 18, would face an inquiry for possible criminal offences, Greater Manchester police said it had no intention to investigate “the child victim in this case”.
The allegations about Harvey Weinstein's sexually aggressive and predatory behaviour were towards young female actors and models were widely reported. The media has been much less likely to cover 'the nonsexual, but still utterly sexist, forms of abuse that Weinstein heaped upon less influential women who worked for him', as legal scholar Vicky Schultz points out, including the claims of his abuse by his assistant of 19 years, Zelda Perkins. (61)
According to the findings of a four-months investigation by the New York State Attorney General, Weinstein 'regularly berated women using gender-based obscenities and stereotypes', such as 'cunt' and 'pussy'. (...) Weinstein was charged with making deragotory enquiries into where female staff were in their menstrual cycles. (62) Some assistants were allegedly 'threatened with termination of employment if they did not serve in gendered roles such as providing childcare to his young children, obtaining prescription medicine, and performing other domestic labor.' (63)
According to the charges, he cursed at staff, and 'used his stature and threatening statements ...to demean and frighten female employees'. (64)
Fine, Cordelia (2025): Patriarchy Inc. What we get wrong about gender equality and why men still win at work. Atlantic books, p. 140
(61) Schultz, Vicky. 2018. 'Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment, Again'. The Yale Law Journal Forum, June, 22-66.
(62) https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/weinstein_company.pdf Quoted from 9-10.
(63) https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/weinstein_company.pdf at 14.
When women make up more than 25% of graduate students in a discipline, men—and to a lesser extent women—become less interested in pursuing that discipline, and salaries tend to go down.
One factor that influences the use of the labels “soft science” or “hard science” is gender bias, according to recent research my colleagues and I conducted.
Women’s participation varies across STEM disciplines. While women have nearly reached gender parity in biomedical sciences, they still make up only about 18% of students receiving undergraduate degrees in computer science, for instance.
In a series of experiments, we varied the information study participants read about women’s representation in fields like chemistry, sociology and biomedical sciences. We then asked them to categorize these fields as either a “soft science” or a “hard science.”
Across studies, participants were consistently more likely to describe a discipline as a “soft science” when they’d been led to believe that proportionally more women worked in the field. Moreover, the “soft science” label led people to devalue these fields—describing them as less rigorous, less trustworthy and less deserving of federal research funding.
RIP Maria Niotis and Isabella Salas. They were recently murdered in a hit-and-run committed by a Right-Wing extremist that was infuriated at their criticism of Charlie Kirk.
It's not that simple. Unfortunately, it's even worse: the killer, a 17 year old classmate, had been stalking and harassing Maria Niotis for months.
"According to the New York Times, Vincent P. Battiloro, 17, had been fixated on Maria Niotis for months. Battiloro, who has tens of thousands of followers as a video game streamer, had taunted Niotis and her mother a week before the crash, ordering pizzas to their house as a prank.
Niotis’ mother also told a friend she had called the police multiple times because Battiloro had parked outside the family’s house and refused to leave.
Niotis’ friends stated Battiloro had harassed her.
Another friend and former boyfriend of Niotis, Elio Martinez, told the outlet that she and Battiloro had gone to school together and that she had complained to the principal and the police about him. In an exchange of Instagram messages in April between him and an account linked to Battiloro’s other social media accounts, Martinez told Battiloro to leave Niotis alone.
In response, Battiloro threatened to release nude photos of Niotis.
"I’m not leaving her alone until she apologizes to me,” Martinez said Battiloro wrote him. “I did it to one girl. I’ll do it to another. Keep running your mouth and I’ll create your girls’ nudes right now.”
Currently, the case is in the juvenile court, but minors 15 or older can be tried as adults in the state if a prosecutor files a waiver motion and the court finds probable cause. It’s not yet clear if Battiloro will be charged as an adult.
The victims’ families released a statement to FOX 5, saying, “It is now vital that the truth be shared: this was not an e-bike accident, and it was not a hit-and-run. This was murder in the first degree.”
...
So.
This 17 year old male relentlessly stalked and harassed one of the girls and her family for MONTHS. She and her family tried to get help from the police, from her school, for MONTHS. He threatened to create AI nudes of her, and nothing was done. He targeted her at school, at home, and, finally, on the street where he murdered her and Isabella Salas.
I'm finding out if the families have a gofundme and donating right now.
EDIT: apparently, the city police chief is the perpetrator's uncle. At the moment, he does not seem to be impeding the investigation in any way, but he must have known about the reports filed against his nephew. The cherry on top? He's facing a lawsuit for discrimination, being "accused of retaliating against former police officer Matthew O'Holla, who said he reported alleged sexual harassment."
Before he was charged with intentionally hitting and killing Maria Niotis and Isabella Sala, Battiloro left the scene of the crime, and proceeded to livestream himself rambling about getting "vengenance" against these girls. No remorse whatsoever after murding two teenage girls, whom he was publicly TORTURING while police did NOTHING. I hope they try him as an adult.
Vincent Battiloro, 17, intentionally hit Maria Niotis and Isabella Salas with a vehicle in Cranford while doing 70 mph, authorities said.
reminds me of these sections (pp. 48, 151) of lundy bancroft’s why does he do that?
men perform the same mental gymnastics with rape. rape isn’t a definable act to them, it’s a way of categorizing sexual behaviors based on personal acceptability. most men do have a conception of rape, and one that agrees that it’s wrong, but if he would do it (or has done it) then it wouldn’t be rape, because he’s not a rapist. rape is that other thing that he wouldn’t do that other men do. bad men. rape would be if she was underage (but she looked older), rape would be if she was unconscious (but she was unconscious at a party and you know she sleeps around so it’s different) rape would be if she was drunk (but like really drunk, and she wasn’t that drunk) rape is done by strange men in dark alleys and you two went on a date and everything. rape is if she was fighting back, but she complained and laid there anyway. rape is if you failed to secure a yes after a dozen no’s, but you’re a pro. a rape law which requires the rapist to consider himself a rapist is one which allows him to draw the line of rape himself, and he always draws it at the edge of his own actions.
The whole “if the sexes were reversed” argument makes me crazy. Women materially contribute to their husband’s careers. This is an actual, established-by-studies fact of the world we live in. Married men make more money than single men and spend more time on their careers, at least in part because they spend significantly less time on housework than single men. Decades of time use data shows this. Married women, on the other hand, make less money than single women and spend almost an extra workday every week on housework, even if they don’t take the massive hit to their career that is pregnancy and child rearing.
The argument for alimony for women is that women make major sacrifices of their own earning potential when they get married, especially but not only when they have children, while boosting their husband’s earning potential significantly. Which means morally a chunk of his income is actually her money, and she’s entitled to take it with her when she leaves. The same is almost never true for men; every woman I know with a high powered career has built it with no help and in many cases active sabotage from her husband.
And quite frankly where was the hand wringing about political violence two Minnesota Democrats were shot? Did anybody say anything about where this was all going to lead then? Or are deaths only sad when they happen to right-wingers?
I remember when a guy broke into Nancy Pelosi's house to kill her, held her husband hostage while asking where she was and hit him in the head with a hammer.
The response from the MAGA base was to say that the home invader was actually a Grindr hookup gone wrong for Nancy Pelosi's husband rather than a wannabe assassin, downplaying the crime itself while making derogatory comments about both his sexuality and the integrity of their marriage, and then turning him into a Halloween costume where they would wear a big pair of white briefs and paint a red circle on their heads to represent where he'd been hit with the hammer.
They're gonna handwring and concern-troll, but this is a game they actively relish playing when it's their perceived enemies being hurt and killed. Fuck them, RIP in piss Charlie Kirk 🖕
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage." Charlie kirk. Respect his legacy make fun of him. It what he would have wanted.
