Did Palombelli look for it?
When I see the topic of "femicides" being addressed in gerere, I recognize the typical pattern of populism, that is a simple pattern in which there is only one factor that is responsible for everything ("the badriargado"), and only one group to hate ("the men "), and therefore the situation is clear, (and the final solution is in the SCUM Manifesto, the book of feminist populism).
Then I read that Palombelli has decided to raise hell by going against feminist populism, and it doesn't surprise me. Moreover, the reconstruction that wants the "badriargado" as the ONLY origin of everything is, in fact, stupid and simplistic. I do not rule out that it is one component, but the data suggests that there are others as well. Palombelli included "exasperation", because deep down (like many feminists herself) she believes that being a bitch and exasperating someone is a power. Actually it's not, and personally I don't think that's the problem. If a woman were to die only when she's a bitch and exasperates her partner, the species would be extinct by now.
I believe that there would be different approaches if we analyzed the problem rationally, but:
- populism (including feminist) does not accept rational methods and reacts very badly to propose them.
- you need to understand how the male brain works. In this, feminists (if not women in general) are completely inept.
- I don't give a fuck. Our world is no longer based on natural selection, but natural selection still happens. If your mind and / or body does not produce life-saving conduct, your death is good news for the species.
But I'm writing a post, so my thirteen readers will say "hey, don't you leave us hanging here now?". But my thirteen readers are male, and they are rational. Otherwise it would be fourteen or more.
The first thing that can be noticed by observing the data of these femicides is that they occur, for about 70% (depending on the years) in the family. The second thing you notice is that of this 70%, 70% (therefore 50% of the total) occurs in families with children. Cohabiting couples, although they have some cases, seem less affected, and only when there are children. Interesting.
The cause must therefore be sought in the "family", and the inference would suggest focusing on something that happens even more if there are children.
Obviously, a family where the husband kills his wife is not a happy family, so we will have to focus on families that are "not doing too well" where there are children.
Already'. But what is a "family" and what are "the children of a couple". The question seems stupid, but it is not: because if we want to be rational we have to remove everything that we attribute to "family" and see it for what it is: a legal construct.
And the same thing we must say about the "children of a couple": we can discuss biology as much as we want, and be right, but even in this case for practical purposes we will end up recognizing that these are legal constraints, or at least recognized by law.
Very good. Because now we have a space of possible solutions, or more easily "mitigations", which is the law.
But first we must understand what to change, in law. In the sense that we must look for an illogical construct, because only illogical constructs cause consequences that are not desired by the law itself.
So: "What illogical construct exists in the laws concerning families that are not doing too well, are married and have children"?
I read a serious inconsistency, and I can easily trace it back to femicide. With that, I could suggest a couple of changes that could "mitigate" (not solve: only populists solve problems. Rational people break them and mitigate the consequences).
The current Italian law, in fact, says that in the event of divorce the weaker party has the right to compensation that allows the maintenance of the previous lifestyle.
There are AT LEAST THREE catastrophic logical errors in this law:
- we start from the idea that if there is a weak part, there is a part so strong that it can cope with the obligation. The idea of a couple made up of two weak parties is not considered.
- it is believed that two half couples are the economic equivalent of a full couple. Ignoring that two rents cost more than one, two bills cost more than one, and so on.
- The weak party is said to have the right to the previous lifestyle, BUT DOES NOT ASSIGN THE SAME RIGHT TO THE “STRONG” PARTY.
So, if you're Jeff Bezos, you give your wife billions and get her out of the blue. Ditto if you are Bill Gates.
But if you are a couple made up of "weak" parties, that is, two guys who live on 800/900 euros a month each, or a guy who earns 1400 euros a month and a housewife wife, the conditions of the law fail.
- there is no "strong" part. With 1400 euros / month you cannot pay TWO rents.
- two half pairs will cost a LOT more than a full pair. So we are adding burdens to only one of the two sides.
- The male is not given the right to maintain the old lifestyle, a right that seems to be exclusive to women.
Result:
Bingo. And it wasn't too difficult either.
Basically, we are saying that the wife goes to her husband saying
- listen, GianArturo, I have decided to divorce: this way we can't go on.
Gianarturo hears:
- I decided to take your house away, keep my children, reduce you to hunger, send you to sleep with the homeless and eat at Caritas for the next 30/40 years, because I will certainly be careful not to look for a job.
Because that's what happens: children are almost automatically assigned to the mother. At this point the mother needs a home. The father is removed but cannot pay himself another rent. He still has about 300 euros to live with between alimony and child support. He can sleep in the car as long as the car lasts and go to Caritas only to eat and wash. After the car, he will have to go to the social services or to Caritas on a permanent basis.
And this will last, if Gianarturo is 30, for a good 30/40 years. I met a gentleman who at 76 is forced to keep his shop open because he still has to pay alimony to a woman who in 32 years has not been able to learn a job but one.
So, at this point it is clear what happens: if you kill your wife, and you are cleansed, and you surrender yourself by constituting yourself, and you collaborate in the investigation saying you are repentant, it is possible to get away with 4/5 years in prison.
Even if you were given a life sentence (as the feminists ask), that is 22 years, you could start the first external projects after only 10/11 years. But even if you were given a life sentence WITHOUT any benefit, 22 years would always be a better solution than a life spent entirely sleeping in the car, eating cappuccinos, working to support her, often her lover, without any solution of continuity and without no prospect of rebuilding a life.
I am still less than the 30/40 years of an outcast homeless that your ex-wife is threatening you with.
It is obvious that the solution will be chosen among the usual FFF, that is Freeze, Flight or Fight, and in this case the Fight solution, in the event that both spouses are economically weak, is OBVIOUS.
Therefore, several possible legal solutions are outlined.
- premarital contracts. They are less expensive than lengthy processes, and can resolve the issue upstream.
- establish that both parties (and not just the most "weak") have the right to maintain their lifestyle, or at least a dignified lifestyle, in order to limit excesses.
- use social services or some subsidies as a buffer for divorce, in order to allow both of you to have a decent lifestyle.
Obviously, these are rational solutions, but they clash with not indifferent idiosyncrasies. In the case of prenuptial contracts, the silver digger is forced to come out immediately, and BEFORE the wedding. And when I talk about the silver digger, I don't mean the gold digger, which seeks the rich. I mean the one that simply seeks an economic situation without working activities: the family as an SrL.
Since no man will ever be foolish enough to marry if he sees written in black and white " I can annihilate you whenever I want and reduce you to a bum for the rest of your days ", this type of solution will NEVER be practiced. They would force the silver digger to come out immediately.
Establish by law that both parties have the right to a dignified lifestyle, or admit that there are couples with two economically weak parties, or that even men could still be human beings after divorce. Since the feminist does not recognize men as human beings even BEFORE the divorce, obviously she will never be accepted.
Using social services to help both of you: it won't. The feminist considers all males privileged, even if they are reduced to tramps, and will NEVER accept that they are helped or supported: for the feminist, only the woman is helped.
The solution will be that feminists will ask for more and more severe penalties, getting more and more femicides followed by suicide.
What does it mean?
If we try to map suicide among survival strategies, FFF, suicide is not "Freeze", but it is not "Flight" either. It is not a form of escape, because it is mainly a violent act , albeit turned on oneself.
Suicide belongs to the "Fight" category. It is a violent act. But in any case, if the suicide occurs in the presence of a threat, the violence is mainly directed against the threat. Suicide in a threatened situation implies that "my death harms the threat OR prevents it from growing." Otherwise it would not be a profitable evolutionary strategy and we would not be able to do so.
Ultimately, if you still increase the penalties against femicide, you will get that femicides are followed by a suicide: but since nobody wants the horrendous consequences of a divorce, IN EVERY CASE there will be an act of violence. You just changed the type. Only in the case of a depressed person will you have suicide without murder, but as you know testosterone is a very strong antidepressant. So simple suicides will be a minority. These solutions increase the case of femicides, they will simply increase the cases that are followed by suicide.
Therefore?
However, I do not expect a rational strategy to be followed . Feminism is a form of populism (it identifies the problem with a single group, has a single solution to a complex problem, etc.), and therefore does NOT allow for rational solutions.
But as I said, although natural selection has been mitigated, although no longer the dominant factor, it is still operational. Those who die no longer reproduce.
Consequently, I don't give a fuck.
What will happen is that, in the grip of an irrational and populist ideology, the wrong laws will be made and the number of femicides will still grow. As happens when ideological laws are made. And as has already happened after the worsening of penalties: the cases of femicide followed by suicide have simply increased.
On the other hand, what to conclude?
Any person who dies because they fail to construct a useful and rational response to a threat is good news for the species. Whatever gender it is. From an evolutionary point of view there are no victims, only genetic failures.
Before closing, I want to clarify something.
I have seen several objections to the fact that according to some * "feminists only want equality", "it is not true that they hate men".
Anyone could say this: we could say that "the Nazis basically did not hate Jews, they just wanted the Germans to be respected". Good. Good?
If you tell me this I am going to read the "manifesto" of Nazism, and I see that no, since its origins Nazism was anti-Semitic , and that they preferred to be feared rather than respected. It is written in black and white on Mein Kampf. So no, you can't tell me that the Nazis didn't hate Jews so much at some point in their history: carta sings.
The same thing I can do with feminists. I can go and read their manifesto, their “Mein Kampf” if you prefer, and notice that they propose to exterminate every male, to obtain a world without males, and among the strategies there is also that of aborting fetuses when they are male.
I recommend you to read it. It is enlightening. It is called "SCUM", Manifesto for the elimination of the male.
What's this'? Basically you can put "Hebrew" instead of "male" to get another Mein Kampf (but without grammar errors).
It is for feminism what Mein Kampf was for the Nazis, or Das Kapital for the Communists. It was written in the late 1960s, and is the reference for all feminists born after. It says what feminists REALLY want.
Spoiler: it's not "equality".
But it only costs 10 euros. Read it yourself, I don't have to explain it . It is not space science, as Mein Kampf was not and Das Kapital was not. You can read it for yourself and get an idea.
I know that now feminists will say that "not everyone wants that", and that true feminists do not follow the SCUM Manifesto, but it is the classic "No True Scotsman" logical mistake, easily avoidable.
Contributors to Wikimedia projects 