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.