You’re ignoring all the context in that paragraph.

They only have themselves to blame for it.

It’s a fascinating story that’s worth a deeper dive if you’re interested.

Clearly the left didn’t try hard enough for Dems to listen to them, duh

Monopoly was originally called “The Landlord’s Game” and it was invented by a woman in 1903.

It was meant to illustrate the dangers of unchecked capitalism.

Then it was stolen by a man and turned into the game we know today.

The diagnosis includes underfunded state parties and Democratic declines in voter registration. The report also stated that a “persistent inability or unwillingness to listen to all voters has provided the other major party with opportunities for advancement at the expense of Democratic growth, evolution, and ability to find common ground with seemingly disparate groups of voters from coast to coast, and the heartland Democrats tend to ignore.”

The report also criticizes Democrats for relying too heavily on Republicans to “nominate deeply flawed candidates,” adding that “regaining trust and confidence in the party” and giving voters an “affirmative reason to support Democrats” will “take a comprehensive strategy and considerable effort over multiple cycles.”

Shocked! I’m shocked, I tell you!

No hard feelings. Thank you for taking the time to see where I am coming from.

I read that section of the article and wasn’t confused about her general retelling of her work history and favorite jobs. The idea that only people above 18 work is preposterous. Especially when the article detailed that she was already a skilled laborer by the age of 14.

No, I was simply stating how I felt about it because I think it’s a damn shame that the real story here got obfuscated by a hyper focus on a small detail.

Apologies on the assumption, Lemmy is so overwhelmingly male and misogynistic that it’s easy to miss the rare woman here.

You misread the article and immediately jumped to conclusions about her work history.

I’m allowed to feel annoyed that a group of men decided it was more important to nitpick a woman’s story than to feel sympathy or outrage at her mistreatment.

It’s not an obvious stance and it’s laughable when men assert this. If it was an obvious stance, we’d be working harder to eliminate these types of egregious and horrific treatments of women.

Instead there’s more comments about the odd pacing of a brief retelling of the victim’s work history.

Shame.

I’m allowed to be annoyed at a group of men who feel it’s more important to criticize a woman’s story than to feel sympathy or outrage about her mistreatment.

You missed the point of the article/story. You ignored this woman’s plight to nitpick about her employment years.

You derailed the conversation about women being charged for miscarriages to complain about a small error.

I’ve been on Lemmy long enough to be aware of the pervasive anti-women culture here.

You couldn’t even express a single word of sympathy. Just nitpicking and casting her as untrustworthy.

The fact that those men decided to only talk about that one small detail in this entire fucked up story says more than anything.

Not even a passing comment about how terrible this would have been for her to endure. No sympathy, nothing.

Just speculation about how she couldn’t possibly have started working until later than she claimed.

They can also be an albatross around your neck.

It really, really depends.

It means that she wasn’t lying and it’s plausible that she was driving a taxi before the age of 18.

It was the only point in the entire story that you felt was worthy of discussion. Why is that?

And it’s the only part of the entire story that you felt was worthy of discussing.

This entire speculating thread just looks like ways to discredit the victim.

Yeah this story is insane and it’s driving me wild that no one has actually read the crazy details, but they’re getting more hung up on whether this woman lied about her work history.

She’s not the only woman to be treated this way either.

Deputy Mitcham was a familiar face to Rousseau when officers showed up at her doorstep to serve a search warrant because a woman who sometimes babysat her children was a friend of Mitcham’s, according to Fitzsimmons.

In the police report, Mitcham wrote that the woman sent her a screenshot of Rousseau’s Facebook post, which prompted her to check medical records without finding anything “indicating a pregnancy nor any OB/GYN visits.”

At the 2021 hearing, Mitcham testified she was “sad for Patience” because she felt the mother “didn’t have many options. She didn’t have a lot of help.” Mitcham explained she had a 1-year-old child at home and the case “really hit me hard,” adding: “It still hurts me. Haunts me.”

After she was released from prison, Rousseau repeatedly asked where Abel’s remains were being held, and Fitzsimmons told her they were still in custody and they would retrieve them once the case was dismissed, the attorney said.

But it wasn’t until a Washington Post reporter, Caroline Kitchener, went to Mitcham’s home in 2023 to interview her for a story about Rousseau’s case that the mother and her lawyer found out what happened to the remains, Fitzsimmons said.

Mitcham told the reporter she claimed the remains of Abel from a Nevada funeral home and recounted how she told the funeral director: “I’m taking him. That’s my baby,” according to the Washington Post report.

The cop stole the remains from her as well.

That’s exactly what the article was saying.

I’m so glad that y’all debated whether she was lying about her jobs. Very worthy of all of our time here.