Female criminality has went under the radar for years. Because females are usually psychologically violent instead of being like males who are physically violent, matriarchies can establish through manipulation of biases in the absence of any brute force. Everyone with clear sense knows that a matriarchy is psychologically weakening, and that a patriarchy is only suitable for nations of conquest where women are wholly expected to conform to male authority in order to facilitate warfare - serious sociological inadequacies in this day and age. This all started back when women fought - and that's literally fought - for the vote.
The common idea is that things used to be patriarchial, and that is to suppose a societal dysfunction inherent in the conceptual applicability of the term patriarchy, but things were going quite well really - women just needed the vote and a bit more respect, but certainly not love because they had a very good deal of that from healthy men anyway. That's right: healthy men - becoming more of a myth in the contemporary day. One could actually feel sorry for men - and that's very sorry - if they seen how their nature is often contorted to conform to psychological subordination. Rather commonly, any signs of sexual advances in the flirting context are swiftly dashed to induce damage often from women who gain influence by command of their sexuality - the wiser men know to abandon all sexual notions in such an unjust social circumstance until the right time: the healthy Christian time for such notions, during the bed of legitimate marriage. In this way, this matriarchial manipulation technique is dashed in return.
Pettiness can be the most common tactic of females who want to preserve their power through persecuting men, often those with great capacity (great being something that was beginning to be widely suspected didn't even exist in human nature anymore) and they do this by capitalising on their advantageous positions or criticising the fine motor skills of men which is scientifically at least inherently lower below the fully developed male age of 25, and apparently also above that age if males develop poorly because of these biases. Which brings to light an unjust fundament of criminal law: that adolescents are being prosecuted as adults giving the illusion of higher criminality among males where it plausibly should be less prevalent, and rehabilitation and the development of these adolescents par "young adults" being neglected. And because the white working class are the biggest scapegoats of matriarchial persecution, many males in this category continue in foolish criminality when they really never stood much of a chance of actualising health.
The cornerstone pettiness tactic of matriarchial females is the negative confirmation bias. If they are in an advantageous position they will allow perfect functioning to pass in a neutral manner whilst judging and disdaining mistakes on the more subtle level before ultimately letting these mount up or witnessing a bigger mistake which makes them feel that they can assert anxiety and make the male mentally ill. The bottom line is that anxiety is never valid.
And lastly but perhaps not least is the disacknowledgement of double validity as a tactic, where words and behaviour are twisted to arbitrarily match a meaning which can be used against the male. To counteract this bias one should speak in unequivocal terms such that all conceivable meanings are positively defined or well-justifiably neutral and truly meaningless as a final safeguard. It would be hoped that not everyone would have to be a prodigy philosopher of language to overcome this mechanism.
Female evil at its worst manifests as wickedness. Many great men in history have been assassinated because of this vice. It often occurs through the absence or particular twistedness of empathy and goodwill, like an inflammation of the mind that blinds the woman to little else but vengeance and manipulation to serve their power. Certainly terrible, but thankfully this is only women at their worst, and society's that improve their health indirectly by and large preclude such badness in people.
Because most of this behaviour goes unacknowledged in law, they can metaphorically get away with murder. Not so often the kind of offensive behaviour that would require the retributive justice of prison repentance, but there would be a role for certain orders and social or psychological work. There was never any need to include all this social-psychological aggression in criminal law before the suffragette movement because men trusted them to behave well and follow order, which they did - it was just a matter of this vote matter which males were trepidatious about because they hadn't witnessed too much female competency, and the vote given to half the population could conceivably undermine any legitimate politics and run the country into ruin. Really, it was a matter they had to decide on wisely. But women became physically aggressive: they starved themselves, they cut communication lines and started fires, and this broke men's hearts, and they eventually conceded, trusting that things would surely be better than that. Sadly, men would never be really able to self-actualise again, because sexual offences were slandered across the names of anyone with the slightest inclination or implication, and sexism was their defence which they could rely on through to definitively shut men down irrespective of the man's legitimacy. So women became corrupted by all this influence and power and other biases became more pronounced: the pettiness, word and behaviour twisting, false-flirtation, anxiety assertion, notions of moral superiority and general vice otherwise which has made the state of men today more of a sorry sight.
It's a terrible reality and this has to be fixed. Completely unacceptable.