couple conflicts with woman holding knife and looking at husband

After She Kills You

In case you haven’t been paying attention, a Canadian law professor, legal activist, top-tier feminist scholar, and socialite has published a book. The purpose of this book is to guide women, and their lawyers, on how to murder you. And how to get away with it, legally.

Defending Battered Women on Trial: Lessons from the Transcripts

So-called Battered Woman Syndrome is not a recognized medical, psychological, or mental health syndrome. It may become one but, if it does, it will be through legal shenanigans, not through any sound science.

Within the rhetoric of feminist murder advocates, Battered Woman Syndrome is treated as a specialized case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because they know that, on its own, it’s not legitimate. But a man with PTSD cannot use his disorder as a legal excuse to murder people. If the law worked that way, a PTSD diagnosis would be a double-oh-seven style licence to kill.

While PTSD can be used to reduce the sentence in a conviction, it is not a complete defence and typically demands psychiatric care before any such individual can safely be released back into the public. This is not the case with female killers using so-called Battered Woman Syndrome – acquittal is the goal of legal feminists. For them, a make believe syndrome, often premised on no evidence except a fiction of abuse created after the murdered man is dead and unable to offer evidence in his own defence. That so-called Syndrome is a woman’s golden ticket to legalized murder so long as they engage in some appropriate victim posturing and trot out one of the approved experts to explain away the murder – for a fee.

But this is old news. Domestic violence – the thing used to justify so-called Battered Woman Syndrome is now passe among legal activist feminists. The new idea they wish to legitimize is “coercive control”. So what the hell is coercive control, you ask?

Coercive control is a suite of behaviours and actions which in feminist literature are being associated with domestic violence but which don’t actually cross the line into physical violence.

*Withholding of sex.
*Withholding of affection.
*Criticism of personal characteristics, particularly in public.
*Social isolation, and other tactics.

In Sheehy’s Battered Women On Trial (BWOT) coercive control is described as “the micro-regulation of everyday behaviours associated with stereotypic female roles, such as how women dress, cook, clean, socialize, care for their children, or perform sexually..”

If we examine this quote, eliminating the sexualization in the description, it becomes clearer just who this description is most accurate in describing. So-called coercive control is the feminist enterprise’s new name for nagging. When men do it, it’s grounds to murder them. If women do it, doesn’t that also open a legal door onto morally justified killing of women? Isn’t the described behavior more stereotypical of females?

Once we recognize that the argument being advanced, the legitimate use of lethal force as a reply to nagging, it becomes clear that the murder of women is also being enabled by feminist legal activists.

But, they have an answer for that. Femicide.

We’re going to pause here. In order to understand what this word “femicide” actually refers to, we also need to consider the more established term infanticide. This is the killing of a child. But in Canadian and UK law, infanticide is only the killing of a child by a woman. If a child happens to be killed by a man, it’s murder, or manslaughter if intent cannot be established.

The killing, purposeful or not, of a child by a woman must surely be at the pinnacle of offences. One who is most innocent, killed by a member of the nurturer caste is obviously more egregious than any adult doing violence against any other adult. But femicide, the killing of a child by a woman, is a lesser offence than murder. It carries a lighter sentence. It’s also a lesser offence than manslaughter. The purposeful killing of a child by a woman is a lesser offence in law than the accidental death of any other person. Isn’t this backwards? Isn’t killing a child worse?

How do we explain this obscenity? When infanticide was created in the UK, it was in answer to the reluctance of juries to punish mothers for killing their own children. Child killings were, as now, rightly considered a horrendous crime. The problem was that a conviction for murder would have meant sending a female child killer to hang. Juries were unwilling to send women to their deaths, regardless of who they’d killed. In order to be able to have at least some legal penalty for child killing that could be enforceable in the courts, they had to create a lesser crime, just so that women who murdered children could be found guilty. That’s how much of a free pass women got historically, and still get today.

The general public would rather see a child murdered than see a woman held accountable for murdering that same child. But that’s what infanticide was invented for. That’s why it exists as a crime. It’s not for men who kill children, we have that covered: that’s murder. Infanticide is just for females.

We had to talk about that in order to grasp what the term femicide means in terms of women and our culture. Infanticide is murder or, at best, manslaughter if the killing is unintended. But, for a select group, it’s a specially reduced penalty.

So what is “femicide”? That’s murder too.

Femicide is murder. But it’s a special category of murder. Where infanticide lessens the seriousness of a horrendous crime, femicide goes in the opposite direction. The killing of a woman isn’t just murder, it’s “murder+”. It’s murder made more evil than just regular murder because the victim isn’t just a human, deserving of the right to not be killed, they’re something special, they’re somehow more human than other humans who also get killed in violent crimes. Looked at another way, compared to women, everybody else is less human, less worthy of the right to not be murdered.

Femicide is the crime of killing a woman. It’s a feminist term, so I’ll give you the full feminist definition of it, in all it’s glory of hate and misdirection.

Although the term’s first appearance in literature was in a work of satire in 1801, Diana E. H. Russell is the principal adopter of term in feminist rhetoric, and she defines it as “the killing of females by males because they are females.”

The “because they are females” is precious isn’t it?

It’s not just murder, it’s femicide when it’s a thought crime. But what’s a thought crime? Do police have thought detectors? No. Thought crime is simply some imaginary motive which will be attributed to whoever committed what would otherwise be a normal crime.

It’s not yet a law in Canada or in the United States, but it’s coming.

You might wonder why a so-called equality movement would push for something so obviously unjust – namely the elevation of protection by law for only one particular group from murder.

We were talking about coercive control a few minutes ago. If you prefer a label more accurately descriptive, nagging is the new and improved justification in feminist legal activism for the murder of your spouse or significant other. The fact that stereotypical female behavior is being promoted as legal and moral justification for murder seems, on its face, to be puzzling since it’s coming from feminists. Can they actually be legally excusing and justifying nagged and abused men who kill?

The mind of a sane person recoils from this idea.

However, in the field of domestic violence, known for decades to be committed equally by men and women, feminists also push a theoretical model so totally at odds with reality that the programs based on it to ostensibly reduce domestic violence serve to perpetuate and maximize violence within relationships: The Duluth model. Obviously, human carnage, particularly that impacting women, is the most potent fund raising tool imaginable. Feminist-driven anti-DV education, public service announcements, and grievance organizations, use a rhetoric and methodology designed to keep DV from going away because that’s where they get their money from.

In recognition of this, it at least begins to make sense that feminist legal activists would promote legally excusing murder based on stereotypical female behavior as justification.

Femicide is the final piece of the puzzle, promoting the killing of your partner as a solution superior to leaving an abusive relationship. This new legal construct will increase the gravity of men killing women while allowing women to kill men by reducing the penalties for male murder.

But, if you object to the legalization of your own murder, you’re probably just a misogynist.

7 thoughts on “After She Kills You”

  1. The simplest way to avoid these complications is to be a true MGTOW and avoiding all interactions with women. The life you save WILL be your own, literally as well as figuratively.

    1. I agree that a total avoidance of woman is useful for many men, particularly after realizing they’ve been abused and exploited – I don’t believe it is “true MGTOW” in the sense that other choices are not true MGTOW. It is a path, and for most, probably necessary – at least for a time, even for years. But women are part of the human race – and despite whatever faults we attribute to them, totally closing off half the human race is not necessarily a healthy life-long plan.

      Having said that, after such a period of closure – a practitioner of MGTOW would not simply return to culturally normal practices of dating, marriage and so on – development of equitable, and male empowering models for sexual relationships is a necessary part of MGTOW as a culturally mature practice.

  2. Semantical disection gets you nowhere.

    There are three basic methods by which men get sex from women:

    1. Rape/Force. Just Don’t. It gives the White Knights of the law all the excuse they need to go hardcore on you, which is how they get off.

    2. Manipulation. At the very least, this consists of a long-term course of flattery and special attention, and can include spending money to impress. Add in alcohol, and she might consent to starfishing for you and let you get yourself off. But be properly grateful and respectful afterwards, lest she claim she was too inebriated to give informed consent, and you get put back into Category One with no recourse.

    3. Purchase. This has two sub-categories. The first is marriage. enough said.

    The second is to hire a professional. It will cost you a fair amount to have your one good time a month, but at least you don’t have to put up with the nagging and negging that women feel entitled to performing in order to you, their property, in your proper place. Your life will still be your own, and you can still make your own decisions about what you will do with it. It’s the only real choice.

  3. Powerful peice John.

    In the early 70’s, iirc, only 3% of men were single past 35 years of age. 30 years later approximately 24% of men are in this very position.

    All this happened without a central command of command and control for men. We naturally figured this all out. Add that women more actively postpone marriage and more men become educated by friends or family on what women are and are not .. you get the current class of future MGTOW.

    In a mere decade I can see 35% of all men 35 years of age and older single and never married. To which the fembot’s and government will institute even more tax burden’s to continue the wealth transfer of men to women.

    Whether they can actually get men to marry will be an unnecessary question when they actually build those fences on the border. Only these fences will have armed guards with guns pointed inwards to prevent men from escaping the coming slavery of all men regardless of your choice to avoid marriage (ie slavery). I see national confiscation of all retirement, of single men, to provide for “th wimminz”.

    As you mentioned … I would never go back into the market after my last couple of relationships.

  4. John that’s your opinion. I cut off ties with women. My contact with women are minimal. It’s been so great, my stress gone down considerably. You do not need a woman to have a healthy life as long you don’t hate women.

    I”m seriously thinking of moving to Asia. I’m sick of feminists and their bullshit.

    1. Mike, it’s true that John is expressing an opinion, but perhaps it is one based on reality. Humans are organic, social creatures with sexual biology and associated needs for long-term mental and emotional health; although it is certainly possible that you can live a long and completely healthy life devoid of women entirely, it does not seem likely that you will do so given your naturally-evolved human condition. Take, for instance, Nikola Tesla – a natural-born MGTOW who had no interest in women, and whose biological imperative was completely overcome by his addiction to scientific discovery. At the end of his life, Tesla’s emotional and mental health atrophied and he fell in love with a female pigeon (yes, a bird) who, he believed, reciprocated that love.

      I am not saying that any existing paradigm for social relationships with women is better than the alternative, and I don’t believe that JTO was suggesting that either. To me, it is clear that the long-term benefits of social isolation from women (thriving for most of your life) astronomically outweigh the possible short-term consequences of such action (end-of-life decay and turmoil); however, it is in your best interest to remain objective and acknowledge the possibility that socialization with the opposite sex might lead to greater satisfaction and fulfillment in your life overall – IF it is done under healthy circumstances with counterparts responsibly acting in good faith for the mutual benefit of all parties. A working model for this type of social dynamic is something that humanity has still not accomplished – at present, I think, because willing female participants have yet to be found – but perhaps the growing phenomenon of Men Going Their Own Way will ultimately cultivate generations of young women both willing and eager to engage men in fair, equitable, and constructive partnerships; only time will tell. Until then, MGTOW and Prosper.

Join the conversation