The question is written vaguely.

I don’t think you can charge somebody for failure to protect, unless you want to also start charging women whose husband’s beat their children.

I don’t know the father’s role, and my original comment was not well-written. I should have said, “We don’t know if he did anything.”

Just use your fingers!

I saw the impression as more about Hilary’s maniacal ambition than any insufficiency of femininity, but we obviously disagree.

Even if you want to play this silly semantics game, I'd still argue that the proposed solution complies with rules, since we're going from four three-links chains to a circular chain. It's merely during an intermediate step that the original objects ceases to be a chain and the rules don't prohibit that.

I never wrote “why would” anything. I wrote “why charge the father?” I was asking the OP for the actual reason she though he should be charged, based on the available evidence. I wasn’t posing a hypothetical.

Correct. We do not know all the details.

Might be, but I’m not comfortable with punishing men for failing to control their women.

Sure. Any evidence that’s what happened?

Charge the mother, but why the father? He didn’t do anything.

Poor kid. He may have survived yesterday, but with a mother like this, he doesn’t stand a chance.

Was there a joke anywhere in that skit? It was six minutes of “Hilary is ambitious” and “Bill misses the spotlight.”

God, I don't even know how you bounce back from that. It takes so much courage to play sports on a big stage because you never know when the goat horns could land on your head.

Yikes! That’s pretty cynical and 100% different from the experience I’ve had dating online.

Yeah, 'cause that's how teams work.

Hams up, don't shoot.

I don’t know you and I could be wrong, but here’s the strong vibe I got from your comments . . .

Ignore. My mistake.

It’s not really that weird. The vast majority of “MRA’s” are straw men that only exist in the minds of the goofiest Jezebel commenters.