- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Sat 4th February 2017

Women Should be Allowed to Murder

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 1:44 pm

Or so many people believe. This case in which a mother murdered her autistic young adult daughter is another incredible display of justice favouritism towards women. While one can empathize with her difficulties, she deliberately murdered her daughter when she had other options. Who the hell gets 4 years imprisonment for murder? Oh right, a woman does.

Now supporters of this murderer are planning to protest that she was convicted and punished at all. We will endeavour to show up at their protests to voice another point of view. It’s not that we necessarily begrudge mercy being shown to this woman but it’s that such mercy is not shown to men, nowadays even regardless of the degree of provocation men are subjected to. Feminists claim to want equality so in that case we demand that female murderers are shown no more understanding and compassion than male murderers are.

Although mercy may be appropriate in this case, that needs to be balanced against the seriousness of taking a life and against the message provided to others who may be tempted to murder. The message now is clear: if you are a woman and your child (or male partner) feels annoying enough, it’s ok for you to kill them.

This case is another version of the redefined ‘provocation’ defence demanded by feminists, intended to be available only or almost only to women and that will entitle them to kill their partners. Real self-defence is necessary for an immediate threat, not as retribution for past misdeeds or some prediction of possible future misdeeds. And homicidal self-defence can only be justified when no other non-violent response is available, such as going to the police or one of the many women’s refuges we pay for. Similarly, provocation equals immediate circumstances or behaviour from another the emotional threat in which is likely temporarily to overwhelm the judgement and self-control of an average person. If time passes after those circumstances or that behaviour, our rational processes return and we have a duty to apply them to consider our options. Any decision following such consideration to murder someone when they are in a non-threatening and vulnerable position shouldn’t be acceptable, surely? ‘Slow burn’ provocation is just a convenient invention to provide women with a provocation defence after the much more reasonable and fair provocation defence was removed for men. The feminists and white knights will abide no restraint on the privileges of women, and the right to murder looks set to become yet another female privilege. This case shows how close we are already to that.

Note also that in none of the news coverage we have seen has there been any mention of the father of this child. Fathers are irrelevant it seems. And we know nothing about why this woman was raising the child by herself. Our government’s encouragement and reward of sole parenthood, paying mainly women for the irresponsibility of depriving their children of intact family units, will have contributed to this situation.

25 Responses to “Women Should be Allowed to Murder”

  1. Jerry says:

    How unfair convicting her at all. And what a waste of police and the the courts time. Mrs Aubrey-Thompson of Feilding repeatedly attempted to kill her autistic daughter {Circa 1997}. Eventually successful, she dumped the body in a car outside Palmerston North police Station. Convicted to jail I think, but the feminists rallied and she was out before Xmas. not sure if she got an apology. But whatch this space too. The precedent was set- Will she be out for Easter?

  2. MurrayBacon says:

    Once in a generation isn’t really the issue.
    The important issue is that after several such examples, Government cost cutting reigns supreme over taking care of many children.
    1997

    So 19 years later, the same is still happening. The cases in the news are the tip of a larger iceberg of relatively non-complaining parents.

    19 years – only just a generation?

    It is so easy for overpaid bench legal workers to criticise the parents(s). But they really are not even lending their weight to contributing to public understanding of these instances or recommending constructive solutions either. What are these people really worth?

    I guess it all reflects a substantial lack of competence in many Government organisations. Accountability that actually works, is going to be necessary if we want to move our society forwards.

  3. Jerry says:

    No, the issue here is not Govt cost cutting. The issue is “the same time for the same crime”. If a custodial father faced the same challenges, he would certainly not have any more support than a mother would get, and in fact I say he would receive much less support and less understanding. Indeed I know first hand of a case where the victim safe father was attacked by the authorities, falsely accused – certainly not helped or supported. Parenting organisations exist for mothers, but not much for Dads. Also having killed their child such a father would not get the protesters in support. So no, it isn’t about Govt cost cutting at all. More over in addition, solo fathers can have problems mothers don’t have to cope with. Problems that cause huge stress poverty despair and difficulty on top of the issues mothers face = for example being falsely accused. As males we are doubtful around women and children, just because we exist.
    But its not just two cases in nineteen years either. A female friend asked me what I thought about this case. I responded about Aubrey-Thompson, and she responded citing other examples I had not noticed. So I understand there are more cases like this.
    But there are other cases which can cause huge stress. Some women and politicians think that in cases where males who are violent, abusive or just falsely, it should be legal to kill them, but not kill women who behave exactly the same. Come on, lets have gender equality.

  4. DJ Ward says:

    So she is proven to be a violent person.
    But she was not violent in the events that took place?
    How much of what she said was just a story.
    Did he get drunk because she was nuts.
    And was deciding to kick her out.
    And she stabbed him to get revenge for that?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5431260/Woman-found-not-guilty-of-murder

  5. DJ Ward says:

    In 1997 the BWS was used in the murder trial of Luciana Manuel. She stabbed her partner William Reti in the neck during an argument. Because he was violent to her before the defence argued that this damaged her judgement so she was unable to act reasonably. Not guilty of murder and manslaughter.

  6. DJ Ward says:

    How was this not murder.
    The judge said she had exaggerated her claims.
    If a women said I’m leaving you and the male then beat her to death with an axe, or hammer for a more recent example.
    Would the male be guilty of murder.
    Hell yes.
    Notice the arbitrary, she has kids.
    Lighter sentence please.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=201213

  7. DJ Ward says:

    Interesting part to what is said in this case

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1792861

    “But Sue Stephens said what was not mentioned in court was how her son was a baby brother who got on with everyone and dearly loved his two sons.”
    Not allowed to say anything good about the male.

    “Sue Stephens said she did not believe everything said about her son in court.”
    Women wouldn’t embellish the truth for there own benifit would they.
    Who counter argued against these false claims?
    Nobody obviously.

  8. DJ Ward says:

    “When some family members left that night, the couple fought and Mr Stephens punched her after she pushed him up against a window.”
    She was the aggressor and he acted in self defence?

  9. DJ Ward says:

    This case should scare the shit out of every male

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11200832

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11201442

    I had no intent to kill him.
    I just wanted things to be better.
    So I plunged a large knife into his chest where his heart is.

    So if a female wants the relationship to be better.
    She can kill the male and it won’t be murder.

    Nope.
    She was having an affair.
    Wanted to leave.
    And didn’t want him to have 50%
    That’s far more likely.

  10. Man X Norton says:

    DJ Ward @4. Thanks for this 2011 case. One wonders whether there was any real evidence that he was attacking her as she alleged? He of course was dead and unable to defend himself against her allegations. And was there good evidence of the injuries that she claimed he had caused her?

    Regardless, the criterion for any man claiming the ‘self-defence’ legal defence is that reasonable force was used. Use of a type of force that was greater or more lethal than the force being used against you isn’t considered reasonable force and the self-defence argument is rejected, that is if you’re a male. When an unarmed person is attacking or threatening you, then using a knife is usually not accepted as reasonable self-defence. This can be unjust for a man with no fighting experience who was being attacked by a gang member, but if that man used a knife he would be found guilty at least of manslaughter because the force he used was unreasonable.

    However, there is one law for men and another for women and this applies both to the gender-specific laws that are written to favour women and the interpretation and application of other laws that are not written in gender-specific terms (some of which however were written with only or mainly women’s interests in mind).

  11. Man X Norton says:

    DJ Ward @ 6: Of course it was murder, but the pussy pass was applied in this 2001 case. Interesting that the defence lawyer referred to the Law Commission’s call even way back then for women to be allowed to murder a partner with reduced punishment if he were alleged to have been ‘abusive’ to her. The Law Commission continues that white knighting line and has progressed it further to call for a full defence of ‘self-defence’ for women in such cases. Let’s rewrite the laws so there’s a whole separate lot for women huh? Gender apartheid.

  12. Man X Norton says:

    DJ Ward @ 9: Yes, the Scollay case was just another of the many appalling examples of men’s lives being treated as worthless and women being excused to one degree or another for their horrible behaviour. These previous posts on MENZ Issues considered the Scollay case. It seems that her subsequent behaviour in prison gives more of an accurate idea of her self-centred and unreasonable attitudes that led her to commit what was certainly murder despite the jury’s granting of a pussy pass.

    Yes, the man-hating femalists will be rubbing their hands in glee to see the extent to which women are being allowed to harm and kill men.

  13. DJ Ward says:

    In the Scollay case.
    Married for 20 years.
    Child 20 years old.
    His mental illness began shortly after the birth of the child.
    Was this a case of
    I’m pregnant.
    You have to marry me.
    And being trapped in a bad marriage.
    Caused him to become depressed?

    Then caught in the drug dependency nightmares of some doctor prescribed drugs.

  14. voices back from the bush says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9823503/Woman-who-killed-husband-jailed-for-six-years

    SCOLLAY, Guy Christian – 20.2.1964 – 10.2.2013 Dearly loved husband of Lulu, and loving father and friend of his son, Louis.

    She just wanted him to SEE the knife – and realise how desperate the situation had become.

    So she rolled him over while he was asleep, got on top of him and plunged the knife into his back and through his heart.

    We have a police database accessible to all women who might be concerned that their new partner might’ve been SUSPECTED of violence in the past.

    Where is the list for her?

  15. brent says:

    Ten cents worth! After reading all the arguments for and against I have come to the conclusion that if you are in a bad marriage, or relationship then bloody LEAVE! If drugs were an issue or domestic violence then WTF, LEAVE. So often somebody always has an excuse why they didn’t.

    Excuses r like ass-holes, everybody has got one! I feel sad for the child that had to endure 20 years of shit because he had two incompetent parents. Neither of them thought how destructive an environment it was on him. Hopefully he has all the support to move on with a more productive life and personally they both should have been given the bullet.

  16. Jerry says:

    Re #15 by Brent. So what do you recommend a father do if mum is harming the kids? To take the kids, he becomes a kidnapper, will be vilified in the media, hunted and prosecuted by police and probably convicted in the courts – and what is gained? – Safety for the kids? No! because they will go back to mum back to their abuser. These arguements which claim its such a simple no-brainer sound so reasonable to those who have not been in the situations and had to act for the best interests of their children. We do not live in a country which has a competent legislative and legal system. Its a prejudiced country where the law enforcers are a part of the problem, often applying laws which do not exist. Its a country which farts on about family and children but has no sincerity to back that up. Its a hypocritical country full of folks who opine about other’s affairs without looking in thteir own glasshouse first. Women need to do a lot to be jailed and yet many are. And they have, keep and raise kids in jail – Dads need not apply. Check out NZ Herald today http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11798163

  17. DJ Ward says:

    #16
    How many of these involve.
    I was arrested.
    Quickly got pregnant. (Without consent of the male victim)
    Don’t send me to prison, I’m pregnant.
    Please, pretty please judge.

    The likely to be the principle caregiver qualifier is a joke.
    Just because that’s the case, doesn’t make it right.
    If the father hasn’t been legally banned from having kids.
    Or in prison himself.
    He gets the kids.
    Or the mums mum.
    Or the dads mum. (Uncommon)
    Or the mums dad. (Yeah right)
    Or the dads dad. (Have to believe in unicorns)
    Etc etc.
    Why is females bonding with children important.
    But they don’t give a shit about fathers bonding.

    Oops forgot.
    They are fantastic people.
    Dad can’t have the child.
    Mothers pretending she does not know who it is.

    Like every government department.
    In regard to men.
    Something does not exist.
    The Human Rights Act.

  18. Man X Norton says:

    @ 16 & 17: Yes, a heart-warming story about female prisoners who are allowed to have their babies with them until the age of 2 years, and for which Corrections provides them with houses that are

    ‘in a sunny corner of the prison grounds…light and bright, with big comfy couches, colourful artwork on the walls and everything the women need to care for their babies’.

    ‘They can apply to take their children on outings – Tanuvasa says Butterfly Creek and supermarket shopping are popular requests, giving the kids an opportunity to see the real world and engage in simple everyday things like petting an animal, seeing new food and people for the first time or travelling in a car – but approval is not guaranteed.’

    There is also a

    ‘…feeding and bonding room where inmates who cannot have their kids inside full-time can spend a few hours of quality time…’

    Unlike any male prisoner, these female inmates ‘can access some benefits to help provide’ and this journalist sees that as being equivalent to the women paying ‘for everything they need for their babies out of their own pockets’.

    This policy of course makes sense to some degree, but it is simply and utterly sexist that male inmates have no bonding room and there is absolutely no provision for father inmates to care for their children. Male inmates, if they have behaved themselves, get to see their babies and children in the same bleak areas where they and their co-prisoners see other visitors.

    Note that the article made absolutely no mention of these babies’ fathers. Fathers are irrelevant to the welfare of children it seems under the philosophy that set up these units. There is no mention that fathers are able to come and visit or spend some ‘quality time’ with these children in the special houses or in the mothers’ feeding and bonding room. The women are probably prohibited from allowing their children any contact with their fathers during the outings they go on.

    The system appears to promote and enforce solo motherhood. Its underlying message is that fathers don’t matter. Corrections National Commissioner Jeremy Lightfoot is quoted as saying

    “Every child deserves a good start in life. They deserve a stable, supportive environment with a mother who is committed to what is best for that child”.

    Mmm, so fathers just won’t do huh? And children don’t deserve a stable, supportive environment with fathers. No, let’s not get carried away; criminals’ children aren’t THAT deserving.

    This system was based on a philosophy of harm reduction in our Corrections system towards babies and young infants and that is laudable, but the philosophy is confused and contradictory. Promoting a system of sole motherhood introduces a new harm for these children. Failing to have a program whereby fathers and/or key extended family members have an opportunity to bond with and look after those children means that when they reach 2 years old and the mothers aren’t yet allowed out of jail, those children will experience the trauma of sudden loss of their unusually exclusive primary attachment figure, causing them another form of harm. Exposure to the outside world for these infants and other things that would assist their development (and that will include any visits – in the prison’s normal visiting area – by the children’s fathers) are considered by Corrections ‘a privilege, not a right’. The philosophy seems to confuse goals of reducing harm to infants versus using the infants to help the mothers feel better and to assist in the mothers’ rehabilitation. One of the inmates quoted saw it being all about the mothers, saying

    “I just didn’t want to be separated from her at all, I have heard of cases in here of mothers who have had that happen and the psychological damage it does to people, not being able to see your child, not being able to breastfeed – it’s so terrible”.

    Yeah, so terrible for the poor offender mothers but no mention of the harm to the babies, and of course male inmates’ distress at being separated from their children isn’t even worth considering.

    This article (by Anna Leask) promotes motherhood and by exclusion trivializes fatherhood. It’s another display of feminist propaganda, describing all the nice, cuddly aspects of this policy but making no mention of problems, disasters or risks that have arisen since this special treatment for women was introduced. The offences these women committed are not specified; we wouldn’t want people to start seeing women realistically now would we?

  19. Jerry says:

    Apologies. I cannot put this anywhere else. If he was a woman then this would be “VIOLENCE”. Take a look – http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/baby/89318443/dad-labelled-disgusting-for-feeding-daughter-in-shopping-centre-parents-room

  20. Man X Norton says:

    Jerry @ 19: Hate speech sure and simple. If it had been a man talking that way to a woman we would see him hunted down and charged with something.

  21. Jerry says:

    I’ve had that guy’s experience myself.I can tell you that the atmosphere in the parenting room reeks with soiled nappies. And the females are far from arousing as they tend to their babies. I spent as little time in there as I could. But also where can a guy go to feed or change a baby? – if not there then where? The men’s loo? or out in the open? Yet the babies and toddlers need to be fed and to be relieved and cleaned. Such brainless people – their minds are so ill that they have can only think sex and deviant thoughts.

  22. DJ Ward says:

    Another example.
    Guess what.
    Caught out not telling the truth.
    Never mind.
    It was only a defenceless child.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11802253

  23. Man X Norton says:

    DJ Ward @22: Mmm yes, females must be so fragile that they can never be held responsible for their behaviour. So put a child’s murder down to a ‘panicked reaction’, claim (against the evidence) that the killer didn’t plan it, and make some irrelevant comment that it ‘didn’t seem like anything you would label as an adult-specific act’ so this female murderer can avoid any state sanction.

    Any same-aged male who did exactly the same thing to a baby he didn’t want would be subject to the normal law of that State, i.e. teenagers accused of murder are dealt with in the adult court and will be subject to adult consequences. That may not be a wise law but this lack of wisdom won’t be acknowledged if it isn’t applied equally to males and females. It seems only male teenagers will suffer from this harsh law, as indeed males are treated with less caring in most spheres. The feminists can then see the law as a thoroughly good idea to clamp down on violence by young males, relieved of the need to see young females treated with the same harshness.

    Considering that female teenagers mature sooner than males, how is it that female teenagers are treated as less responsible for their behaviour than same-aged males are?

  24. Voices back from the bush says:

    DJ @22, I looked up the article about the callous throwing away of the baby and the next article was about this woman who killed and dismembered her partner with a skilly. I notice a common theme with these kinds of (femsle killer) articles Is that the majority of the reporting is about the murderers situation often not even mentioning the name of the murder victim.
    The defence that she was in an abusive relationship is becoming most common.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2019 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar