Oh, when Pakistanis rape thousands of white girls at will, and no one does a thing, it's suddenly a "fuck-up", but when a woman doesn't get a sufficient sentence for murdering a man - it means that you can be murdered without a woman being punished?
By that same logic, a woman could - far more credibly - argue that she can be raped without anyone receiving any punishment, citing Rotherham.
It's already a crime, so it's not relevant.
Bruh, murder is also a crime, yet you were using the hypothetical of getting murdered by a woman as an excuse to play the victim.
Also, the people pushing men's rights against them are not the same people defending Islamic rape gangs, that's their own side, because they'd love to sacrifice a few women if it means they can get a few more of our rights taken.
I never said they're the same people. I said that if you're going to claim that women are not oppresesd in the UK, you would have to deal with Rotherham. And the many other rape-gangs. Sure were a lot of "policing fuck-ups" eh?
Except it's literally part of UK law that you must be lenient when sentencing women.
You said not be punished. Now it's only leniency? And if UK law (retardedly) requires that you be more lenient to women, why is it that women commit so many fewer crimes than men still, despite the lesser deterrent?
Rotherham was the police choosing to not enforce existing law.
And in so many other places as well. That somehow is not oppression? And Saudi Arabia is not oppression?
Because half the time they don't even get charged at all, so they don't show up in statistics
Is this true, can you show me?
Even if half the murders committed by women resulted in no charges, that would still mean that far fewer women commit murders than men. So they really are our better halves...
They also are less likely to be in gangs, which makes up the majority of crime.
This is supposed to be an argument? Murders don't count if you're in a gang?
Oh, when Pakistanis rape thousands of white girls at will, and no one does a thing, it's suddenly a "fuck-up", but when a woman doesn't get a sufficient sentence for murdering a man - it means that you can be murdered without a woman being punished?
By that same logic, a woman could - far more credibly - argue that she can be raped without anyone receiving any punishment, citing Rotherham.
Bruh, murder is also a crime, yet you were using the hypothetical of getting murdered by a woman as an excuse to play the victim.
I never said they're the same people. I said that if you're going to claim that women are not oppresesd in the UK, you would have to deal with Rotherham. And the many other rape-gangs. Sure were a lot of "policing fuck-ups" eh?
You said not be punished. Now it's only leniency? And if UK law (retardedly) requires that you be more lenient to women, why is it that women commit so many fewer crimes than men still, despite the lesser deterrent?
And in so many other places as well. That somehow is not oppression? And Saudi Arabia is not oppression?
You're getting more incoherent by the minute. Are you claiming that women in Saudi Arabia and Rotherham are not oppressed?
Is this true, can you show me?
Even if half the murders committed by women resulted in no charges, that would still mean that far fewer women commit murders than men. So they really are our better halves...
This is supposed to be an argument? Murders don't count if you're in a gang?