There may be something to that, but I think overall it's more simple: women don't face consequences for "small" displays of violence, and they're less in control when emotional. Culturally, how often do you see slapping represented as an acceptable response from a woman to something a man says or does? TV/movies are riddled with it.
When it comes to the unusually high rate of violence between lesbians, I think that's mostly just a product of there now being two women whose violent responses have been normalised. On top of that, throw lesbian bed death into the mix for some extra frustration and volatility.
Agreed, though I would characterise their complex differently. They're somehow inferior and superior at the same time within the same dynamic. E.g., feminists think women are more competent and capable than men, but a meritocracy somehow doesn't recognise that so affirmative action is necessary.
I read this book as a 12-year-old so pardon any misinterpretations, but I remember Atticus being portrayed as a tired but resolute man who knew the politics of his court case would hurt his reputation but was determined to do the right thing anyway. I also thought 'Scout' described him very affectionately and the writer approached him with fondness. Did I miss the boat?
Very good point/question, but interestingly, there are over 1000 "people" in the system aged 220+ years old. SSNs appear to have been created in 1936, 89 years ago. Something else other than emigration is going on given that there weren't 1000+ emigrating/missing 130-year-olds in the US in 1936.
But now the golem is turning on its master and she gets all pissy that they're coming after her for not going along with troonism.
Absolutely, but I think it's not really trannies that Rowling opposes, but men. I've followed her on Twitter/X for awhile and can't remember a single instance where she condemned FtM trannies. It only seems to be MtF that she cares about. She often doesn't mention transgenderism at all and will instead specifically refer to "men in women's spaces."
No, the issue is last time around if everyone who voted PPC had voted CPC, we wouldn't have had Trudeau this whole time. Hence my comment. I'm worried about getting Liberals or, heaven forbid, NDP as our federal party and I would take Poilievre over either, even with his milquetoast moderate act.
PPC winning is not a realistic outcome, and this country cannot afford open leftism at the helm any longer. You may want an accelerant, but unless all your holdings are in American dollars or gold etc. you'll be nothing but a worthless bum with nothing to your name at the end of any major crash or upheaval.
I'll never understand the response that those who aren't in total lockstep with you should go and deliberately support the open enemy. Me questioning the value of voting PPC is the same as me voting Liberal? I don't follow.
What is your response really meant to accomplish? I understand you're frustrated when other people don't see the issue exactly the way you do, but I think you should change your approach.
Just so we're clear, I voted PPC in the last federal election.
Devil's advocate -- why do you take him at his word here? Maybe he just wants to be viewed as compassionate and nuanced in his politics and is aware of how he could or would be perceived. Optics is hardly a novel political concept, and neither is deception.
We share the world's largest land border with you, and it's practically undefended. You could walk across and occupy most of our territory almost instantaneously.
I will say that this iteration of Canada is not worth defending with my life, and American principles seem far more just to me than anything in Canadian law. In all seriousness, I think American occupation would be an upgrade for us but arguably a downgrade for you in the short term. You would control an enormous wealth of untapped resources and land, but the population is severely mind-fucked beyond repair and full of third world dregs. You'd need a few generations to iron that out, and even then, cultural resentment lasts a very long time. I'm not sure it'd be worth it.
Impossible to say, however...
In 2015, a federal statistics agency in Canada (StatCan) released a report based on census data that included self-reported rates of spousal violence victimisation. My recall of the numbers isn't perfect, but I believe 342,000 women reported being the victims of spousal violence... as did 420,000 men. To me, this suggested a massive underrporting in official violent offenses against men. StatCan has since changed how these numbers are reported and women are overrepresented by a huge margin now.
If you look at police statistics in Canadian provinces, they characterise their numbers as "police-reported" so those numbers can't be trusted at all.