GirlWritesWhat on “The Necessity of Domestic Violence”: “I don’t really find too much [that’s] seriously ethically questionable.”

You support these insane ideas …

Well, it’s only right that Necro-troll should go for as many bigotries as possible.

“And your solution to “most serious gender issue” is longer prison sentences for women, I see.”

Or shorter sentences for men. Come on, juridical fairness is in fact something that should be aspired to.

I love it when necroers walk into an old comment thread and completely misunderstand the comment they’re responding to. It’s so clear that kitteh wasn’t advocating murder that I have a hard time believing that Hibernia isn’t deliberately misreading what she’s saying.

Poor Hibernia86 – so convinced he’d performed a major gotcha and proved a commenter here sexist that his response to being called a necro-troll is:

@Katz can you explain what it means then so I can tell if you are guilty of it?

Ni/snigger

Anti-intersectionality-bot does not understand these complicated ideas. Anti-intersectionality-bot also does not understand the concept that treating people who aren’t equals in the eyes of society “equally” isn’t actually particularly “fair”. Anti-intersectionality-bot thinks that you can make social inequality vanish by pretending it doesn’t exist, like a toddler playing hide and seek who thinks that if they cover their own eyes nobody can see them.

If there’s a gender gap in sentencing it’s because patriarchy treats women as the weaker, fairer sex. I don’t know why necrotroll thinks this is some sort of gotcha to be used against feminism. Critical thinking fail.

I notice it’s now been several hours since the necrotroll pooped here. Meanwhile, here’s a little light reading on the battered woman defence, and how easily it doesn’t work:

In R v Ahluwalia (1992) 4 AER 889 a battered wife killed her violent and abusive husband. She claimed provocation and the judge directed the jury to consider whether, if she did lose her self-control, a reasonable person having the characteristics of a well-educated married Asian woman living in England would have lost her self-control given her husband’s provocation. On appeal, it was argued that he should have directed the jury to consider a reasonable person suffering from ‘battered woman syndrome’. Having considered fresh medical evidence, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial on the basis that the new evidence showed an arguable case of diminished responsibility in English law.[3]

Similarly, in R v Thornton (No 2) (1996) 2 AER 1023 the battered wife adduced fresh evidence that she had a personality disorder and the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial considering that, if the evidence had been available at the original trial, the jury might have reached a different decision. The victim does not have to be in a position to carry out the threats immediately.[4]

In R v Charlton (2003) EWCA Crim 415, following threats of sexual and violent abuse against herself and her daughter, the defendant killed her obsessive, jealous, controlling partner while he was restrained by handcuffs, blindfolded and gagged as part of their regular sexual activity. The term of five years’ imprisonment was reduced to three and a half years because of the terrifying threats made by a man determined to dominate and control the defendant’s life. The threats created a genuine fear for the safety of herself and more significantly, her daughter, and this caused the defendant to lose control and make the ferocious attack.[5]

In HM’s AG for Jersey v Holley (2005) 3 AER 371 the Privy Council regarded Smith as wrongly decided, interpreting the Act as setting a purely objective standard. Thus, although the accused’s characteristics were to be taken into account when assessing the gravity of the provocation, the standard of self-control to be expected was invariable except for the accused’s age and sex. The defendant and the deceased both suffered from chronic alcoholism and had a violent and abusive relationship. The evidence was that the deceased was drunk and taunted him by telling him that she had had sex with another man. The defendant then struck the deceased with an axe which was an accident of availability. Psychiatric evidence was that his consumption of alcohol was involuntary and that he suffered from a number of other psychiatric conditions which, independently of the effects of the alcohol, might have caused the loss of self-control and induced him to kill. Lord Nicholls said:

Whether the provocative acts or words and the defendant’s response met the ‘ordinary person’ standard prescribed by the statute is the question the jury must consider, not the altogether looser question of whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the jury consider the loss of self-control was sufficient excusable. The statute does not leave each jury free to set whatever standard they consider appropriate in the circumstances by which to judge whether the defendant’s conduct is ‘excusable’.[6]

And that’s just under British law.

I defy our troll to prove that the patterns of prior spousal abuse in these cases are the equivalent of a woman merely slapping a man, or beaning him with a frying-pan.

Damn necrotrolls.

Are you all really advocating that its ok for a woman to hit a man no matter what?

No. No on here has advocated that, at all. Please cite where you think someone is saying that it’s a-ok for a woman to hit a man. Because no one here has said that.

… The dead threads! They LIVE!

::facepalms::

Funny thing, I actually totally agree that women should not hit men, and that if a man can’t get away from a violent woman, he should be allowed to use self defense. However, self defense by definition has to be the minimum amount of force necessary to escape, so beating someone half to death is kind of out of the question.

Wait, no. That isn’t funny. That’s kind of part of being a feminist.

Try again? Wait, don’t. To this thread, I humbly request of necrotrolls,

Let it be; let it be! Let it be; let it be. Whisper words of wisdom, let it be!