A Feminist Writes: Homicidal Lunatics - Are They Really All That Bad?

Backstory: a woman in the UK has just been jailed for three counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder, in each case the victim was a randomly selected man. Now read on as a Guardian journalist explains that we're all being kind of harsh on the psycho witch.

Women like Dennehy confuse us, unsettling our understandings of who women are and how they should behave.

Who's this 'us'? Some of us long ago lost our illustions about just what 'modern, empowered' wimminz were capable of.

Contemporary notions of femininity do not go hand in hand with fatal violence, so we develop another way of making sense of them – the "mad" or "bad" dichotomy.

In the "bad" approach, we take away their identities as women, remodelling them as monsters.

God forbid that anyone try and cast a homicidal lunatic as 'bad'.

In the "mad" approach we explain behaviour away in a mental ill-health vacuum. We have heard about Dennehy's well-documented issues in this regard – she is a long-term abuser of drugs and alcohol, on arrest she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act, and psychiatric assessments found her to have psychopathic, antisocial and emotional instability disorders.

That's practically a full house right there. At what point could we call her nuts? When she spends all day barking and demands we call her Princess Fruit Pie?

To put it another way, let's look at the scores on the doors: she's a mentally ill junkie, but she's not insane, and she slaughters innocent men, but she's not evil.  No, siree Jack, away with your Patriarchal logic:

However, if we are to develop a more meaningful understanding of this type of crime, we need to resist the urge to dismiss her as a mad or bad aberration and look at the bigger picture in which fatal violence emerged. It is her disconnect from mainstream society that we need to focus our attention on.

  

There's much, much, more but it's all the same: teh pay-tree-arkey is to blame.

All of which leads to an important point: feminists claim to be able to detect violent undertones in just about everything men write: novels, plays, restaurant reviews... even our own little tribe, men who by definition want as little as possible to do with the Hairless Lipstick Monkeys, has been accused of being full of secretly homicidal savages, but how often do you see men defending Jack the Ripper?

Just suppose someone wrote here about his admiration for Ted Bundy? Never mind the mods, how would the average member react? Right! But feminists write about how they think female murderers get a bum rap and the MSM not only doesn't condemn them, it gives them house room.

Just something to bear in mind the next time some feminist nut tries to bring out the tattered old 'violence' card.

The mangina is the downfall of any healthy male-female relationship but in most cases he isnt aware of his crime towards humanity and the damage he inflicts on society.
But dont forget the fact that some male serial killers on death row awaiting being put down by the state have a female fanbase who are willing to marry them before their execution.
Now is that sick or what?
That my friend is the state of the female mind that wants power over life & death and uses those criminals to execute her power over people who executed their victims and have taken lifes for their own pleasure.

"Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them."

no need for that, hamlet. women are monstrous enough on their own.

Fortunately, the courts are a little wiser than your average feminist.

Having "anti-social" tendencies and "emotional instability" doesn't rise to the level where one can plead insanity and avoid culpability for one's actions.  The feeble rationalizations and doing things like implying her antisocial tendencies somehow explain her actions don't pass muster in court which is why I assume she's going to jail.

Sometimes guys say "feminism doesn't bother me, it doesn't affect me".  It will.  I don't know how legal systems work abroad, but in the US juries decide criminal cases.  A good number of those jurors are women.  Feminism seeks to create bonds amongst women by the powerful notion of Identity (by gender).  That is "we're all playing for the same team".  Some very strange things happen to people when they succumb to tribalism of this kind.  IN-Group members (other women) are innocent until proven guilty (if ever), and out-group members are guilty with little chance of being proven innocent.  If you've participated in a political party, you know how this works on people's mindset.  It works along racial lines too; it's why when white serial killers kill, the question is often "What made him this way?"; whereas when Malvo and Muhammad went on a shooting spree, there was no such discussion- it was "put them down as fast as possible!".  Long story short, men who face a jury which include women are at a distinct disadvantage- especially if their supposed victims are women.  Even if you don't think feminism affects you directly, by polluting the mindset of 50% of the people you come across (and perhaps more with blue-pillers), you are affected in ways you don't immediately perceive.

The courts are biased in part because the jury pool has been tainted by feminism.  Men do not unite tribally.  But we will. MGTOW is one arm of a broader effort to create Fraternity amongst men. Men who act outside these parameters, and give importance to women, or undercut other men for selfish advantage will find that those techniques become less and less effective.

I live in europe where there doesent exist such a thing like a jury or "people" who determine your fate which is good in my opinion.
But I can definately see the problem with that in the US.
But nevertheless there seems to be no workaround to set society straight in regards to the popular opinion of how any legal matter in regards to domestic violence or rape should be treated like.
I am relatively good eduacated regarding the laws in my country but I think it ultimately should boil down to the law and not its far fetched interpretation by prejudiced individuals.
So if there exists some weight to the accusations of an individual it should be investigated thoroughly but it never should be assumed that someone is guilty because some "jury" has a subjective opinion on the "roles" of gender or race in society.
That has nothing to do with justice and is damaging to equal rights and treating someone equal who is innocent until proven guilty. Thats journalist garbage which shouldnt be taken seriously by any rightful penal system.
But unfortunately in many cases its the medias sensationalistic attention that is "launching" the investigation which in that case should be viewed with reserved feelings everytime.

The Gaurdian hacks are bravely trying to peddle their bullshit agendas in the face of rising opposition. When I first began posting in the commentary over there, which is a good debating forum sometimes, the feministas pretty much had it all their own way and even now dissent will probably be moderated after the Stalinist/Stasi fashion.
In the last couple of years though there had been rising well debated and informed opposition which they cannot handle and have trouble responding to. So much so that one feminst lately asked "are you guys being given scripts?" It may have been in the 'war on women' thread http://discussion.theguardian.com/discussion/p/3mm7c?orderby=newest&per_page=50&threads=collapsed&tab=all
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/13/stop-war-on-women (They're trying to present being called out on their bullshit a 'war'!) I have been very surprised and pleased to see many of the terms of reference from the dissenters seem to be from the writings of the manosphere. I'm also pleased to say that they dont know about MGTOW.

Jagrmeister wrote:

Sometimes guys say "feminism doesn't bother me, it doesn't affect me".  It will.  I don't know how legal systems work abroad, but in the US juries decide criminal cases.  A good number of those jurors are women.

You highlighted something really significant Jagr. Singapore and Malaysia abolished it's jury system in 1969 and 1995 respectively citing inter alia, the danger of jurors untrained in the legal profession delivering verdicts coloured by emotions or popular perception. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said describing his experiences as a trial lawyer, "I had no faith in a system that allowed the superstition, ignorance, biases, and prejudices of seven jurymen to determine guilt or innocence."

livas wrote:I live in europe where there doesent exist such a thing like a jury or "people" who determine your fate which is good in my opinion. But I can definately see the problem with that in the US.

Having lived in both Civil and Common Law jurisdictions there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

However, one great advantage of the Common Law jurisdictions is that if a particular law is deemed unfair or the mandatory sentence is too severe then the jury always has the option of ignoring the facts, evidence and even guilt of the defendant and declaring them not guilty, this is the concept of Jury Nullification.

To my knowledge, this does not happen in Civil Law jurisdictions, indeed to a certain extent I believe it is impossible under Civil Law.

So in a Common Law jurisdiction, there is always a means by which informed juries can reject unfair laws, indeed in the UK it was instrumental in the revocation of the death penalty as juries were finding those clearly guilty of murder, not guilty because the specific circumstances of the murder in some way mitigated their guilt (e.g. a husband who killed his wife in the heat of argument after she'd committed multiple adulteries and other provocation)

In the end, it is juries in the UK that are frustrating the feminazis by refusing to convict people charged with dubious, ancient sexual assaults and rapes without anything more substantial than the "he says / she says" evidence related to events more than 40 years ago (with the most recent trials).

The most egregious part of this is often the prosecutorial discretion available to prosecuting bodies such as the UK's Crown Prosecution Service which has been at the forefront of prosecuting men on the flimsiest of evidence to attempt to distract from feminists complaining that the low conviction rate for domestic violence and sexual offences against women are a sign of the contempt in which women are held by the male-oriented legal establishment {blah blah blah}

So I am still hopeful that juries refusal to convict will turn the tide on feminazi persecution in the courts, unless they get their way and have juries removed for cases involving sexual abuse or violence against women.