velma

This child being treated like a murderer instead of a victim when her rapist is currently in control of his victim is a miscarriage of justice.

She was raped and forced to have this baby by her own father.

Edit:

The sheriff’s office said it does not have a description of the vehicle involved and is unsure whether the teen was kidnapped or is staying with her father willingly. Authorities also said they do not know whether she is in imminent danger because they have not spoken with her.

These fucking assholes.

That's the beautiful part - men can wear skirts whenever they want, too.

I'll take it!

And you're missing my point. This mother felt comfortable with her son walking back to pick up goose feathers.

Why do you think you know better about what this boy can handle than his own mother?

Also, bit of a tangent, but is that like an ‘anti-royal we’ or are you old as fuck?

I'm a woman.

It's the patriarchy that is the reason for these laws. The patriarchy is not synonymous with men and boys. It is the system that upholds strict gender roles for both men and women. The patriarchy is detrimental to men and boys as well.

I don’t have to guess, I have relation with people from cultures where it’s not acceptable yet for women to wear whatever they want. It is enforced by their whole community, not only men, and it, the community, also imposes strict rules on how to live for men too.

Don't play coy. Those cultures are run by men in positions of power. The law-makers help hold up patriarchal norms.

Even the Wikipedia entry is a good place to try to wrap your head around what the patriarchy actually is instead of erroneously assuming what it is:

Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of authority are primarily held by men. The term patriarchy is used both in anthropology to describe a family or clan controlled by the father or eldest male or group of males, and in feminist theory to describe a broader social structure in which men as a group dominate society.[1][2][3]

Sociologists posit that the process of socialization is predominantly responsible for the establishment of gender roles.[4] They contend that gender roles and gender inequity function as instruments of power and have evolved into social norms that serve to maintain control over women. Patriarchal ideology explains and rationalizes patriarchy by attributing gender inequality to inherent natural differences between men and women, divine commandment, or other fixed structures.[5]

Patriarchy has manifested itself throughout history in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[6] Most contemporary societies are generally patriarchal in practice.[7][8][9]

I didn't say you were justifying it. I was pointing out that drowning wasn't a concern for the authorities in this case.

It's interesting when men use posts like this to announce what they personally find attractive in the comments. That's not the point.

the woman always looks better without makeup

To you

And why should women care what you think when they're putting on makeup?

Again, it comes down to how mature the child is and who do you think is the most qualified person to determine how mature a child is for handling a walk on their own?

Somehow men having fewer options than women/been told what to wear is men’s fault and patriarchy or whatever, idk.

The only reason women are allowed to wear pants now is because we demanded it.

It used to be illegal for women to wear pants. Take a wild guess as to who were the ones to make those laws.

There are examples of women in Europe and the US wearing pants long before it was socially acceptable, as writer Kathleen Cooper detailed in The Toast, even though in countries such as the US, England, and France they could actually be jailed for it in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some would dress as men to do things such as join the military. The most famous example was probably 18th-century Englishwoman Hannah Snell, who served for years in the British navy and later become a minor celebrity after revealing that she was a woman. During the US Civil War, Mary Walker, an assistant surgeon with the Union Army, chose pants over skirts (and was once arrested for impersonating a man).

In polite society, though, the fight to make it permissible for women in the US and Europe to wear pants began in earnest in the 1850s, with the women’s rights movement. Feminists were seeking liberation, not just from patriarchal oppression, but from the restrictions of corsets. Though Edwardian and Victorian women had adopted them voluntarily, the undergarments literally made it difficult to move, sometimes even to breathe. Suffragists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton saw dress reform as part of their battle for rights, and some adopted an alternative outfit in the form of baggy “Turkish” pantaloons worn with a knee-length skirt. In April 1851, Amelia Bloomer, the editor of the first women’s newspaper, The Lily, told her readers about it, and thereafter the pants picked up the nickname bloomers.

A brief history of women in pants

Virginia has a Reasonable Childhood Independence law

The child welfare law defines physical neglect as including lack of supervision. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-371.1; Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-100 except that, through adoption of SB 1367 clearly now spells out, through an amendment to 63.2-100 that “ No child whose parent or other person responsible for his care allows the child to engage in independent activities without adult supervision shall for that reason alone be considered to be an abused or neglected child, provided that (a) such independent activities are appropriate based on the child’s age, maturity, and physical and mental abilities and (b) such lack of supervision does not constitute conduct that is so grossly negligent as to endanger the health or safety of the child. Such independent activities include traveling to or from school or nearby locations by bicycle or on foot, playing outdoors, or remaining at home for a reasonable period of time.

The requirement that activities are allowed unless ”so grossly negligent” as to endanger a child’s health or safety is a strong protection for children’s independence and the ability of parents to allow independence for their children.

It seems that traveling to or from nearby locations by bicycle or on foot is clearly defined as not negligent.

When the security guard brought Sam back to Parkinson's house, he told the boy that his mom had done something she wasn't supposed to, and that bad people would want to take him if he was out alone. "This scared the crap out of him," Parkinson says now.

It wasn't drowning that the authorities here were using as concerns.

Sure but that's the level of risk this mother was comfortable with for her son in this situation. Each child is different and some you can trust more than others.

Objective statements really attract downvoters sometimes. I don't get it tbh.

It's why I'm not on hexbear or the other leftist instances even if I mostly agree with them. Super toxic to each other.

Try sprinkling some Tajin on melon.

The lemmy.world instance has a reputation that is decidedly not leftist.

Being part of a group that received funds from the CIA is different than being a CIA plant, but ok. Steinem didn't deny her involvement either.

And people act all confused as to why children don't play outside as often. Because people call the fucking cops on mothers.

Yeah, I think most alternative aesthetic decisions tend to be signifiers of queerness to others. Subtle ways that we tell others that we're accepting.

If that turns away straight cis men....oh well.