So these two silly people have decided to hook up. I know. It’s pretty creepy and has the ‘icky effect’ written all over it. The brazen MRA/MGTOW John the Other who hates women has finally decided to date one. Diana Davison is a cheezehead MRA as well. They’re perfect for each other. They’ve also decided to write together, which is promising since neither of them are any good at it. If you’re in any doubt of that last point then check out this and this.
Besides fucking our shit up with research and creeping us out with rapey male sexuality, they’ve decided to tackle the latest book, Defending Battered Women on Trial: Lessons from the transcripts, by Canadian law professor Elizabeth Sheehy. I haven’t read the entire book but I have read an article in the Ottawa Citizen that explains Liz’s views and several of her statements in relation to the book. Sheehy’s book uses the stories of women who killed their abusive husbands and court cases to illustrate the need to change the law.
She has noticed that women who kill their abusive husbands are forced to plead guilty to manslaughter in order to avoid a trial for murder. In her view battered women should be charged with manslaughter, the lesser charge. She is not suggesting that the evidentiary standard be changed. She says:
‘We would never say of a prisoner of war that it’s not just that she or he kill their captor to escape. It is just to kill to escape that kind of enslavement.’
In Canada the legal system allows women to plead guilty to manslaughter on compassionate grounds but Sheehy says a charge of manslaughter is more accurate so women don’t have to plead guilty just to get a lesser sentence.
With total incompetence John and Diana have interpreted this to mean that Liz advocates murdering husbands.
‘A Canadian professor of law is publishing a book arguing for the legalization of murder – specifically of men – we must wonder how someone this rabid can be “respected.’
Liz is respected in Canada. She received a prestigious award from the Canadian Bar Association for her scholarship on women and the law. I think she knows more about the Canadian legal system than those two cheezeheads John and Diana. They also add some personal insults in their rant about Liz. They call her a:
‘sociopathic academic in an ugly dress’
‘evil and violent’
To add insult to injury they try extrapolating this very specific recommendation to the legal system to something completely unrelated. In a sudden outburst John writes:
‘If a woman can use past abuse to reduce a murder charge then, if your son is bullied at school, he can legally bring his dad’s glock to school the next day and gun down his bully.’
Neither of them have really thought about the difference and once again, dear readers, I’m sure you can figure it out.
What I find so interesting about their thinking is that they don’t actually understand domestic violence and how it affects people and yet they simultaneously claim that men are the majority of victims and that many men on the site have been abused. Here is and example of how they frame it:
‘Women, unlike anyone we might think of as adults, or even as “people”, are so weak, so infantile, and so free of self-actualization, will, or personal volition that when they suddenly find themselves (as if blown by the wind) caught in a dysfunctional, abusive sexual relationship they are incapable of leaving.
Women, apparently, are merely the possessed dolls of their spouses or romantic partners. A woman in an abusive relationship, mystically becomes incapable of finding her shoes and walking out the door, dialing 9-1-1, contacting the police, or locating a publicly-funded shelter.’
‘The existing “theory” called Battered Woman Syndrome, used to excuse murder and other violence by claimed abuse victims, is essentially a pile of shit.’
Women do get trapped. Women are psychologically isolated and have problems leaving and so are men. They’d know that if they truly advocated for male domestic violence victims. It makes me wonder if any men in the ranks of MRA’s have actually been in an abusive relationship because they don’t seem to understand the prison that it creates for a victim. It could also be that men handle domestic violence differently but I know men stay in these relationships.
I’ll leave you with a stunning twist of writing by the new couple in love:
‘Let’s call this the Herstory of Elizabeth Sheehy, in which she is completely innocent of advancing any personal agenda or exercising her position to install a pussy pass for murder into the legal system.’
I wonder if Diana has a pussy pass and whether she’ll be using it on Hambling. Their little love foray should give me plenty to write about until it ends badly and the Manosphere explodes.
MRA’s need to stay away from legal arguments. They can’t comprehend them.