The other day we met an MRA named Tom Martin, who filed an “anti-male discrimination” suit against the London School of Economics, only to have his case thrown out of court by a deeply unimpressed judge.
After I blogged about this, Mr. Martin showed up here to offer some commentary on his case, and on matters of wider import. As a public service of sorts, I would like to present to you all some selected highlights from his comments here, in case you didn’t have the time to read through the entire 1000+ comment thread that ensued. And even those who did make it through the comments will no doubt be pleased to be reminded of some of their favorite Tom Martin bon mots.
In case anyone suffers from the delusion that Mr. Martin actually is some sort of egalitarian, these comments should clarify matters for you.
And yes, it has been confirmed via email that this is the real Tom Martin commenting. Accept no substitutes!
The word of the day is: whore.
Are you sitting comfortably? Then let’s begin. These are in chronological order; each title links to the full comment in context.
The Misandrist Chair Conspiracy:
One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.
The Misandrist Chair Conspiracy 2: Misandrist Boogaloo
The EHRC actually agreed with me, that hard chairs are inappropriate for a library, as they impact men more. When we consider that only 2 out of 5 degrees go to men, the gender gap widening, then anything we can do to make men more comfortable taking the academic route, the better.
Given that higher educational attainment increases life expectancy for men, and given that increased educational attainment in men also decreases their violence against women among other things.
Anti-male shaming tactics are always used at the point of losing an argument, Hellkell.
When someone asks me “What sort of woman would go out with a men’s rights activist?” I reply “the sort of woman who isn’t a whore.”
Tom Martin’s 14 Point Anti-Prostitute Program:
Some of you want to know why I think prostitution is bad.
1. Sex is only ever any good when it is based on mutual attraction.
2. Charging for sex excludes men who cannot afford it, thus heightening male-on-male competition for money, which generates the conditions for war.
3. Prostitutes spend so long being pounded on, without orgasm, that it causes a condition akin to ‘blue balls’ in men – I think it’s referred to as ‘pelvic block’ in women, but has other names too, where veins in the female pelvic region become over-pressurized, causing pain and swelling. In some cases, an operation is required to release the pressure. You will see it in some porn stars. Their rectum will look swollen, and the tissue either side of the vaginal area too.
4. Prostitutes spend so long on the job, it stops them making better use of their lives. It hinders their emotional and intellectual development.
5. Prostitutes express more misandry than the average woman. Being a prostitute is misandry-inducing, or perhaps misandrists are more likely to choose prostitution, but either way, prostitution correlates with misandry – and misandry is bad, as it perpetuates fear or mistrust of men, which perpetuates sex segregation, which perpetuates male-on-male competition, which increases brain capacity for aggression (in both sexes), whilst decreasing brain capacity for empathy and higher thought.
6. Prostitution is an aggregate sex segregation, as prostitutes take themselves out of the free association and free sex zone, and wait for paying customers – and though paying customers and prostitutes are not sex-segregating whilst having sex, she quickly has to get him out to do the next customer, so there is less organic natural association between the sexes throughout the course of the day – and the association which does take place is fake or bought, rather than free association.
7. Prostitutes are boring.
8. There is no Nobel Prize for services to prostitution for a reason.
9. Gold-diggers are more stupid than average women.
10. Housewives are more fascistic than average women.
11. Economically inactive female model societies are more fascistic than normal societies.
12. Men associating with prostitutes or economically inactive gold-digger housewhores etc are more fascistic than average men.
13. Prostitution was the historic norm, and civilizations have less prostitution as they advance, so less prostitution probably related to advancement.
14. Less prostitutional sex-segregated societies produce better more balanced ratio of women to men (more women), causing men to make more sensible, less rash or flashy spending decisions.
I’m sure there are many more related reasons I could go into, about why prostitution is bad.
I think it should be fully legalized, but that these women should pay the highest rate of tax, and be first draft in any military conscription.
I do have a book, on the way, based on some experimental psychology I’m conducting. As soon as I put this gender studies industry out of its misery, I’ll let you know.
Fems: It’s time to renounce your whoredom!
I’m asking feminists in particular to renounce prostitution in all its forms. …
It is my estimation, that as little as 3% of women have actually made a conscious decision to treat men as equals, never expect any money from men, and actively promote more egalitarian gender roles (rather than begrudgingly suffer them), by celebrating the less worky roles afforded men. …
From a straight male perspective, the potential mate pool is quite full of hypergamous gold-diggers and prostitutes, the stand up egalitarian women few and far between, so yes, not only should women renounce prostitution in all its forms, but they should buy the T shirt or get the tattoo as well or something.
Just like it being polite to inform someone first if you have a social disease, you should inform someone first if you are a gold-digger/whore/housewife wannabe etc.
But then, there are a lot of women who swear blind they’re not whores who are – so some kind of renouncement on their part, where they’re putting a bit of heart into it, might be in order. Maybe an fMRI lie detecting brain scan certificate to show you’ve passed the test.
But if fems just want to go with “I can’t believe you think women are whores. How misogynistic” then its really falling well short of the mark – given women’s woeful track record in this department so far.
So come on then, who is going to be the first to renounce prostitution in all its forms?
At least Rosa Parks got a seat:
Be honest, you’re not sitting on a hard seat right now, so why should you when you’re in a library?
My position was vindicated by the authorities taking it seriously at the time. …
They also put a three piece couch and seats into the library after my successful complaint,
so I am actually very pleased about that, and you suck….
[I]n Saudi Arabia, two men have to vacate a bus seat for one woman. …
So, we all know who Rosa Parks was. The black person who didn’t want to sit at the back of the bus – and quite right too, but at least she got a seat.
But when it is men being forced out of their seats, and by economically inactive Saudi whores – professional whore feminists just laugh it off or make BS excuses.
Scum.
Saudi Arabia: A Whorish Matriarchy
In many ways, Saudi Arabian men are probably the most discriminated against men in the world.
Firstly, it costs more for a Saudi Arabian men to marry than for any for other men in the world on average (in relative to national average earnings).
Secondly, Saudi Arabian women are the laziest whores in the world, with just 22% of them in even a part-time job (and that 22% figure bolstered by the foreign women shipped in to do certain work).
Thirdly, Islamic law says what a man earns, he must share, but what his wife earns, she can keep. …
[O]n balance, given Saudi men are doing all the hard work, not only should Saudi women be giving up their seats to Saudi men if anything, victim-feminists should be ashamed of themselves for portraying Saudi women as the uniquely oppressed class. Far from it.
Saudi Arabia is an advanced country, where the female population is highly educated. Saudi scientists are among the best in the world. Saudi doctors successfully separated conjoined twins at the head – both twins living – but that same scientific community has so far been unable to separate Saudi Arabian women’s enormous asses from their couches. There is a way though. When Saudi men learn to stop giving women money and gifts, the women will have no choice but to rise up, get a job, demand driving licenses, etc.
Saudi women just laugh at patriarchy theory. They know they’re lazy whores pulling all strings. Saudi men on the other hand, have never had their issues addressed, and are very receptive to change.
Islamic states are whoriarchies – which neither men or women would want to be associated with, once they’ve had it properly explained.
Did I explain already that Muslim women are whores?
Muslim women are quids in the whores.
Their civilizations are down the pan, but as long as they’ve got one over on the men, they don’t seem to give a shit.
I would totally take my anti-Muslim-whore crusade to the streets, but Muslim women are too scary:
[I]f Muslim women want Muslim men to change the laws, then they can simply order their husbands or suitors to do this.
Similarly, they could order their husbands to vote for full female voting rights. …
I would be standing on a street corner in some Muslim land explaining it, but that would be too risky for my personal safety, or any man’s personal safety. It is easier for women to rise up without getting shot than for men, on gender politics issues.
Nevertheless, I will be translating my experiments’ findings and book into Arabic.
All those people who say I’m “whoring” by asking for donations to my legal fighting fund, are missing the point
“Whoriarchy” is not a perfect term, but a more accurate description of the state of affairs on gender relations everywhere than “patriarchy” – and a lot less glamorous. …
Professional feminists are whores. This includes David Futrelle. His job is not to reflect accurately, but mock, so he is a delaying gatekeeper, attempting to exclude men’s equality debates, by making misleading representations about the men’s rights movement’s core values and goals.
We need a word for women who aren’t whores:
[C]urrently, to my knowledge, there is no word in the English language, for a woman who is not a whore. For a woman who has rejected all forms of prostitution.
“Independent” – okay, could mean “has a job”, but not specific enough. I mean Beyonce claims to be an “Independent” woman, but then she also wants men to pay her telephone bills, and put a ring on it – so, no. If Beyonce has a job, it’s as a prostitute.
“Egalitarian” – too general. Sounds like she’s weighing up whoring options equally.
“Feminist” – too much gold-digging of government resources, and sucking cocks for money, so no.
Women who have chosen to have nothing to do with prostitution in any of its forms should not even have to mention the word when describing their awesome credentials, and credo. Most women are prostitutes to some extent, so ‘woman’ doesn’t do it either for the time being.
We need a new word…
Ladies, you have had expensive educations, surpassing men’s in duration. Your parents assisted you more with university fees than they did their sons. The jobs market is set up to positively discriminate in your favour if you’ll only put the effort in. Men are willing to do more childcare if you will only stop complaining about them not doing it right etc, and actually transfer the parental leave to them. Men have put men on the moon. All you need to do, is express some breast milk and get it into the fridge so you can return to your glorious careers and create or invent us all something useful. Please don’t invent us any more cupcakes though. …
The human race needs you to put down the crockery, and make a proper contribution to the advancement of civilization. Feminism’s “glass ceiling” story is the metaphorical glass ball and chain excuse for defeatism and inertia required for you never to have to leave the kitchen. We have microwave meals now – go and make yourselves a tad more useful.
Female penguins are whores
For the record, I would never claim all women are whores. I’d put it at around the 97% mark in my estimation – so back off, haters.
What do we want! To inconvenience whores! When do we want it? Now!
Liberating men involves mildly inconveniencing whores. It’s a win/win.
Ladies! Stop being whores and invent something.
There is a limit to just how un-whorey you need to get. Once you’ve hit zero, then you’re at your target whoring level, of not being a whore. Move on. File a patent. Write a joke. Find a cure for something. Not being a whore isn’t a vocation in and of itself. “And the Nobel Prize for not being a whore goes to… .”
9 out of 10 patents are awarded to men, and yet in factual media, men are portrayed positively only 1 time out of 10. Don’t be one of those media douches pretending men aren’t anything other than freaking awesome.
I have invented something, and am working on prototypes.
I have previously sought a patent application for another invention.
And I’ve built lots of things too.
I’ve also made daisy chains.
My cat made a hairball, but you don’t see her bragging about that.
As to Hillary’s misandry, this quote from a speech she gave in ’98 is particularly glaring:
“….Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat….. ”
Wait, wouldn’t the primary victims be the husbands, fathers and sons who were, y’know, fuckin’ killed!!?? :headdesk:
reference, paragraph 8:
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html
And no, I do not deny that women do suffer and die in warzones across the world.
I object to Clinton’s disappearing of the mass murder of men in war.
Joe,
I think what you really object to is the appearing of the mass murder, suffering, and displacement of women in war/armed conflicts around the world. You will see misandry everywhere people try to add the stories of women to the existing narrative about how “war is hell” for men.
You probably won’t be surprised to hear that Joe is being massively disingenuous about the Kiranjit Ahluwalia case – so much so that the most generous interpretation is that he’s only given the story the most superficial skimming, because the only alternative explanation is that he’s cynically omitting every mitigating factor (and there were loads).
It’s already been mentioned that she suffered a decade of abuse at the hands of her husband (it was an arranged marriage). This wasn’t just regular violence (including repeated rape) – he also imposed extreme restrictions on her personal and social life, which amongst other things meant that it was almost impossible for her to seek help, since she barely spoke English. I believe Joe also failed to mention that the day before she finally snapped, he tried to brand her face with a hot iron.
Much more detail here, though with obvious trigger warnings over rape and extreme domestic violence.
She was originally sentenced to life in prison for murder, which was converted into a manslaughter conviction on appeal three years later. She clearly met the “grounds of diminished responsibility” test with a vengeance, having an entirely legitimate fear for her life as a result of her husband’s repeated and increasing violence towards her.
Now Joe may think that all that is irrelevant, but I suspect he’s in a tiny minority.
Especially since the award was specifically given for Ahluwalia’s work in establishing and improving precisely the kind of support networks that didn’t exist for her back in the 1980s – and, if they had done, her husband might well still be alive and receiving the kind of psychiatric support that he almost certainly needed.
So it’s hardly the case of a heartless and unrepentant killer receiving an award, is it?
Must have missed that headline.
BREAKING NEWS: MEN GET KILLED BY OTHER PEOPLE DURING WAR TIME! CLINTON DENIES EVERYTHING!
OK, so, Joe was able to provide a source (yay!) for his claim, and it looks like a very few sites that talk about books written about Hillary Clinton say that those books contain information that indicates that she has hit Bill. (Which is odd because people are so keen to demonize her based on things like what her face looked like that one time, but wevs.) If it’s true that she has abused him, I hope that she and Bill and Chelsea have gotten the help they need. Hitting other people is bad. Abusing other people is bad. (And animals too! Don’t abuse animals either!)
So, Joe, what’s your point here? Have we just entered the mining-MRA-sites-for-evil-wimmins-quotes phase of your visit?
I personally share that view on death. AFAIC, once you’re dead, you’re gone. It’s your loved ones that are left to pick up the pieces of their lives and live through the pain.
Which is not to say that I believe women are the primary victims of war, but I do think that they are EQUAL victims of war
If Mickey Kaus does not blow goats, why are the lights still on at Sadly, No! ?
If Barack Obama is not a Kenyan Usurper Hawaiian Devil Baby, why hasn’t he sued Dependable Renegade?
Why hasn’t Mitt Romney sued the same people for claiming he is a robot from the future sent to kill us all?
There have been no lawsuits filed! Therefore, all such claims are perfectly true and valid.
So Joe the MRA completely dismisses actual torture of a woman and emphasizes the smaller abuses (still not right) of a man? In a way that is completely disingenuous and cruel when you know the facts of both?
I am not surprised.
@Weatherby Thank you!! Great comment. I was thinking that her circumstances very likely included being a prisoner. She did get charged with the appropriate charge eventually (manslaughter), and did serve time. Why on earth would a woman that has a hard time speaking the language in a country kill her husband just for giggles? Do you think this made her life easier, or harder? Joe’s implied assumptions are not reasonable. Had the genders been reversed, the MRA sites would have the guy up as a hero for sure, they already herald the likes of Thomas Ball for Pete’s sake.
Tom Martin:
By your own definition, you haven’t invented a thing until it’s benefitted humanity. In your case, you are still trying to build it, whatever it is, and apparently not getting it to work. Therefore, you’ve invented nothing, and you are a whore.
It’s laughably easy to get a patent, and people have been getting them for the most “inane” inventions. The fact that you sought a patent and didn’t get one is quite telling. What did you try to patent, a twig? Whore.
Yeah, like what, you whore?
And exactly how did your wanton destruction of the environment benefit civilization? Also, did you check to make sure they aren’t male daisies?
I’ll grant you one thing, Tom: You made a joke. But I’ve heard better. (And yes, I realize that having enjoyed a man’s joke makes me a whore in your book, but oh well — at least I stopped making daisy chains when I was like, what, six?)
Amused is not amused. You know you done fucked up now!
Well joe, I have to agree that the biggest victims are men who die in war. What often gets overlooked though, it that the survivors, often women, children and the elderly are continuing to suffer. They suffer the loss of the dead men, they are suffering through the nightmare of war, they often continue to suffer malnutrion, starvation, homelessness, rape and disease long after the war is done. I don’t want to undercut the very real suffering of dead men, but once dead they suffer no more. The survivors suffer for years if not lifetimes after that and are here right now waiting for help.
If I could end war I would. But I can’t bring back the dead. I can help the living. Also, you do realize that in several areas of the world that women and children are also combatants right? That they are suffering right along with the men?
pillowinhell on March 21, 2012 at 3:06 pm said:
Perhaps the problem with men die in war is that the north American continent hasn’t fought a war on its own soil in such a long time.
Joe its not like wars are fought out in the hayfields anymore. Civilian targets(villages and towns) are deliberately targeted. Armies sweep through cites and villages killing everywhere they go, and they don’t care who they hit. Hell, if they kill a pregnant woman its a two for one goal!! Just walking down a street to get your groceries can get you killed. Walking across your field to water crops you could step on a landmine. And guess what? The killing doesn’t pass you by because you have two x chromosomes. Landmines don’t do gene tests before they explode. Women aren’t immune to chemicals like agent orange.
boomboom:
A particularly telling detail about the Ahluwalia case that’s always lodged in my mind is when she said that the three years or so that she’d spent in prison was the happiest she’d been in a decade.
Not because Holloway Prison was any kind of holiday camp (notoriously, it isn’t – and I’m deliberately linking to a news story dating from roughly the time she was there), but for the first time since her marriage she was surrounded by people who not only didn’t beat her up and rape her on a regular basis but who actually understood the pressures she’d been under.
oe, it takes a shit ton of abuse and real papable soul grinding dread and certain knowledge that your abuser will kill you, for the victim of said abuse to turn on their attacker. And its almost always done when their abuser is somehow incapcitated because the abused victim has lived in terror for so long and because they are certain that there is no other escape. They’ve tried and tried and tried to run, only to end up with more pain and more terror.
The answer to this is to create supports and change cultural values so that no one finds themselves having to make that choice.
I have just as much sympathy for men who have to face their abusers as I do women. And abuse needs to stop long before someone feels that the only way out is to kill their partner in self defence.
I’m just going to leave this here Joe, so you can see what happens when women murder their spouses.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzhczqOOaQ1qz9zmqo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1331913960&Signature=w64co0dkID1cz%2FuGFBtx8jZQcpo%3D
They’ve got birth defects in Fallujah right now.
I’m going to go ahead and put a massive general warning on that link. There’s a video. And I don’t care if you don’t have any triggers, the video is about deformed babies so I advise you to think twice about whether you want a crushing sad or not tonight before you click play.
We bombed Fallujah because person or persons unknown killed four Blackwater mercs there in 2004. Four! And they weren’t even U.S. soldiers! And these families are paying the price.
@Cloudiah – Uh, whut? No, I explicitly said that women suffer and die in war. wtf?
I object to the glossing over of the deaths of men, and the spinning of those male deaths as only significant because women suffer their loss. This reduces men to objects whose only worth is their utility to women, and that is fucked up.
@Shadow – Yes, even if Hillary had said “women suffer equally in war” which while debatable, acknowledges the suffering of both sexes, I wouldn’t have a big problem with that per se. But that’s NOT what she said.
As for your dismissal of being killed as being the end of it and thus not important, compared to the suffering of survivors?? This argument leads to the reductum absurdum that if an orphan man who is loved by no woman is killed in war then no-one has really suffered. Fuck that.
Do you value your life? If so, why do you imagine that men don’t value their lives too?
Aren’t the murders of women to be mourned? Why not the murders of men?
Your indifference to the murder of men is very telling, IMO.
@everyone – Yes, Kiranjit Ahluwalia, afaik, suffered horrible abuse / domestic violence. (Of course husband is dead, so cannot present any evidence to the contrary, but for the sake of argument assume her account is true…)
She answered that by burning her husband to death in his sleep, explicitly to torture him in response to his torture of her* – which worked – it took him days to die, in agony (*see her own words on the wiki, already linked). i.e. her response to domestic violence was – domestic violence!
Now, you might think that’s understandable (I bet you wouldn’t if it was a man who went through similar and responded likewise)… but it is totally fucked up that someone who killed someone WITH domestic violence be given an award by the PM’s wife for… work AGAINST domestic violence. No. That’s TOTAL BS.
It’s like giving Tony Blair or George Bush (either one) or Barack Obama a Nobel Peace Prize! Oh, wait….
World is fucked up.
“Over the years, Ahluwalia bore two sons, who often witnessed the violence. One night, when she had gone to sleep after cooking Deepak’s dinner, he woke her up and demanded money. When she refused, he tried to break her ankles by twisting them. He then picked up a hot iron and held it to her face. Eventually Deepak fell asleep and Ahluwalia was consumed with the rage she had suppressed for 10 years. Approaching him with a can of petrol, she poured it over Deepak’s feet and set them alight. “I couldn’t see an end to the violence,” she says now. “I decided to show him how much it hurt. At times I had tried to run away, but he would catch me and beat me even harder. I decided to burn his feet so he couldn’t run after me.”
She was trying to leave without violence before she did anything violent to him. And she was not trying to kill him when she did what she did.
She was trying to get away from him and stay alive.
She worked to try to prevent other women from having to resort to violence, but don’t let the facts tarnish the lie you worked yourself up over.
MRAs are always liars, every time.
Joe, do you think no one here mourns the dead? That no one respects their sacrific? I’m pretty sure that plenty of us know friends and family men who’ve died in war. My grandfather died many years after WW2. He died of cancer because of tiny pieces of shrapnel form a hand grenade that embedded in his face. My family mourns him greatly. My grandmother never remarried after he died and she was only in her early thirties. I mourned him for many years though I was only five when he died. We all mourn him. And if he were still here, hed tell us not to worry for the dead but to help the living. Some of those children are little boys and they will one day be men but only if they live long enough. And the quality of their lives is forever diminished by their families loss.
@Pillowinhell – you’re preaching to the converted. I don’t deny that women also suffer in war, certainly in modern “total war” (post-Luftwaffe strike on Guernica during Spanish Civil war is the commonly agreed historical watershed for “total war”). I object to Clinton’s portrayal of women as the primary sufferers. Oh, now I’m getting deja vu…
And don’t get me started on Imperialist warmongering US foreign policy. I expect we can agree that it’s all kinds of mass-mudering fucked up. And yes, that there hasn’t been a war on the US mainland for over a century is a big factor in the US attitude to war, IMO.
I doubt we’ll agree that everyone in the US should vote for Ron Paul, who is the only candidate who’ll end US Imperialism and wars abroad*. I expect you’ll all vote for Obama again, who’ll invade Iran – if he hasn’t already done so pre-election. There ARE three carrier groups + tens of thousands of US troops and shitloads more aircraft already massed out there. It’s not a question of IF, it’s a question of WHEN. :sigh:
(*not to mention Ron Paul will end the racist War on Drugs, the class exploiters of the private Fed banking cartel, the Federal gropers of the TSA etc. etc.)
@Pillowinhell – i clicked your link and got:
This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
AccessDeniedRequest has expiredE76798810A58155C2012-03-16T16:06:00ZU/xdKBwudufQOOkeYTQ/x1JtV7+/9s6sRPmULABOut5x89M1D1ivaicFcVa+JlsC2012-03-21T21:06:01ZSee, this is a problem that MRAs–and far-right ideologues in general–run into a lot: they’re so bent on turning every issue into an Epic Battle of Good Vs. Evil that they blow up the facts beyond all recognition and wind up looking ridiculous.
Here is a fact-based argument that reasonable people might listen to:
“The Prime Minister’s wife is scheduled to present at an awards ceremony where one of the honorees was convicted of murdering her husband. Even though the murder was over 20 years ago, it’s inappropriate for a political figure to be associated with this ceremony. It makes it look like the PM and the government don’t take violent crime seriously, and it makes men like me feel unsafe.”
Here is a disingenuous argument that makes reasonable people laugh at you:
“The Prime Minister’s wife is presenting a medal of honor to a woman because she murdered her husband. This is proof that the PM and the government want women to kill men. If you don’t agree with me, you’re plotting to murder innocent men in their sleep RIGHT NOW.”
Your choice of the latter approach suggests to me that you don’t want reasonable people to listen to you. This strikes me as a strange way to spend your time.
Wait, never mind, you’re a Ron Paul guy. That explains it.
@Bostonian – you’re confused.
She expressed a strong desire for VENGEANCE “I decided to show him how much it hurt. ” as well as a desire for escape. That’s entirely understandable given her suffering at his hands.
Of course she might really have wanted to kill him too. We only have her word for how she felt at the time. Mens rea is hard to establish, so I’m not contesting the official manslaughter conviction.
I have a problem with the AWARD.
If society / gov’t hands out approval to people who kill their abusive spouses and are released from jail early (you or someone else said 3years) that implies:
“Hey, if your spouse does X to you, it’s ok to kill them”.
You might disagree – but a lot of people see that award as representing that.