I don't really think anything happened to us, more that social media makes it all look bigger than it really is. Yes, there are women who support the anti-immigrant rhetoric or Trump, and there are women posting videos gleefully dancing around about Kirk's murder, going on about how he isn't martyr material and now his life and everything he said will now be meaningless. I think most women, maybe even the vast majority, have a lot in their daily lives where none that is on their minds, like others mentioned the rising costs concerned.
As many have said, different women have different perspectives on what is our 'best interest'. That's why there are dozens of branches of feminism that disagree on both the root cause and likely solutions faced by girls and women, before even getting into the anti-feminist movements. It's why back when suffrage was the big debate, there were women loudly against it for many reasons, including concerns about the draft and coercion in the vote from husbands. Presuming it's something 'happened to us' is to both homogenise and erase a lot of women's history.
Those crimes are about power, not sexuality. As sexuality within the UK and US is self-identified regardless of sexual behaviour, I don't think we actually have the data nor do I think there is a benefit to specifying sexuality on this.
I had no strong reaction to Kirk's murder. I have a bit of concern it will spark off more violence in the US both in the act itself and in how some people have made social media posts celebrating it adding fuel to a growing powder keg, and much like with the shooting with Trump among other high profiles ones from the US recently, there is a slight discomfort that the official line on the shooter isn't adding up, but it'll all pass til the next thing.
The vast majority of women who are raped, murdered, abused and harassed are assaulted by straight, white men.
As you've specified white, I'm presuming you mean in the UK and with Trump and Kirk, the US where white people are the majority. Obviously, globally, white men don't commit the vast majority of those crimes and really, for victims, whether they've been attacked by someone part of that national or global majority matters very little. If anything, it makes it harder when the perpetrator isn't who people expect.
Those are all factually set out in the bible. Perhaps you haven’t read it properly
Which Bible and which translation? Have you checked the notes on the choices and aim of the translation used? Are you reading it as univocal or multivocal?
How we define reading the Bible properly depends what you're reading it for. If it's to find flaws in it to discuss why it shouldn't be followed, then you may need stronger examples from sources discussing better issues than these:
But the bible is a book written by men, 1800 years ago.
We don't have authorship for most of the Bible, including all of the gospels, beyond traditions. We cannot determine sex of unknown authors. The closest you can get is that, with the evidence that we have, that the councils that determined canon were all men for early European denominations. Also, obviously, everything before the New Testament is older than that.
Do you wear any synthetic fabrics? Because the bible says that’s not allowed.
There is nothing on synthetic fabrics - they didn't exist. There is a law on not wearing clothes mixed of wool and linen, and there is also a law that priests wear attire that has mixed wool and linen. There is mixed opinions on whether one should be read in relation to the other - that only priests are to wear it - or whether these are combined from different sources or whether within context it's more a symbolic speech on not mixing with other nations.
Do you kill a ram every time you commit a sin? The bible says you should.
It would be very unBiblical to do so - ram sacrifices were only for particular guilt sins, and only when the Temple is standing. That's why in post-exilic texts, after the First Temple was destroyed, there is writing on prayers and true repentance being more valued than sacrifice.
Do you think people should be stoned to death if they have an affair?
There is a really easy arguments Christians could use in modelling their behaviour after what Jesus did with the adulteress of telling her to go and sin no more.
I don't hold the Bible as a holy text. I do think that it's a culturally important text that is taught poorly, and both powers that support use of the Bible and to a lesser extent those against it do take advantage of the Bible being culturally well known just enough to make pretty much any argument.