“Look what he made me do!” as a murder defense.

Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.

–Mary Kassian

Fox News explains that a wife who shot and killed her husband was trying to give him a wakeup call in Arkansas woman convicted of killing husband for his refusal to quit porn

Hill was infuriated that her husband had repeatedly subscribed to a porn channel on their Dish Network, despite her protests, Hill’s attorney said in court Monday.

…She said she didn’t know that shooting at his feet could kill him as he bent over. She said she only meant for the shooting to get his attention.

In other words, this was about power and control.

According to a local news story, her attorney explained that she shot her husband because what he was doing was an affront to her and God:

James said Frank Hill’s watching pornography was a “personal affront to her (Patricia Hill) and to her god. She told him over and over again to stop, and he said he would but went right back to doing it.”

According to People, Patricia Hill was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years.

Not surprisingly, none of the news stories I’ve found on the trial frame Patricia Hill as a domestic abuser who killed her victim in a fit of rage when she couldn’t exert power and control over him.  Yet if the sexes were reversed this would be a textbook case of the Duluth model.  As the founders of the Duluth model explain, domestic violence is always an expression of men feeling entitled to dominate and punish their women, which they blame on Christianity:

The underpinnings of the Duluth curriculum do come from a historical analysis. When Europeans came to this continent, they brought religion, laws, and economic systems that institutionalized the status of women as the property of men through marriage. From the church to the state, there was not only acceptance of male supremacy, but also an expectation that husbands would maintain the family order by controlling their wives. Various indiscretions committed by wives were offenses to be punished by husbands.

…Violence ends arguments. Violence is punishment—it sends a powerful message of disapproval.

That her own attorney felt free to present her desire to exert power and control over her husband as wholly natural speaks volumes.  The reality is that nearly everyone in our society wholeheartedly supports domestic violence so long as the wife is the one exerting control.  Hill’s offense in the minds of most is not her desire to dominate her husband.  That is seen as good by everyone from feminists to complementarians.  Her offense is the method she used to achieve power and control.  Flying into a violent rage and breaking things would have been the preferred complementarian reaction, and Kathy Keller smashing the couple’s wedding china with a hammer is offered up as the model for Christian wives to follow. As Family Life explains, often times a wife has to result to violent measures to ensure that an “issue” is resolved.  From Cycle of Unresolved Issues:

“What will it take to get your attention?” In the book The Meaning of Marriage, authors Tim and Kathy Keller relate how Kathy got Tim’s attention by lining up some of her good china, and as soon as Tim walked in the door, breaking it with a hammer. She got his attention!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Domestic Violence, Duluth Model, FamilyLife, Mary Kassian, Tim and Kathy Keller, Too traditional to be traditional, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to “Look what he made me do!” as a murder defense.

  1. This is Fourth Wave feminism – the quest for superiority – taken to its logical conclusion.

    That her behavior is not seen as the exercise of power shows how fourth wave feminism has become normalized – mainstream thinking in America. That’s what winning looks like.

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    Not surprisingly, none of the news stories I’ve found on the trial frame Patricia Hill as a domestic abuser who killed her victim in a fit of rage when she couldn’t exert power and control over him. Yet if the sexes were reversed this would be a textbook case of the Duluth model.

    In fact it is also a classic example of “Who? Whom?”. There is a lot of that in modern society at all levels.

    Frankly, a 12 year sentence is about twice what I would have expected. Perhaps she wasn’t able to cry hard enough in court at the right time.

  3. white says:

    How many men will see this and conclude “see, women just want your attention”
    How many women will gladly let them continue in their delusion

  4. Damn Crackers says:

    In an older post, Emperor Constantine mentioned this:

    “So on the one hand we have God creating an institution that mercifully meets the needs of his flock (the “Old Books” arrangement as Rollo calls it); yet on the other we have Satan via feminism corrupting this institution to such a degree that it is now used to do the inverse of what it was supposed to do (remember, Satan’s will is the inverse of God’s). That is, marriage is being used to DENY men access to sex. They can’t get it from their wives, and they can’t get it from any other women because they are married.

    “I don’t know what the solution is here anymore.”

    That last line is where we are now. For men to get their authority back, some sins are going to have to take place, whether it be porn, violence against women, fornication through prostitutes or mistresses. There is no way to get back otherwise.

    Unlike some commentators here, I don’t believe sexual sins are the worst sins a man can commit. I’ll put genocide, murder and torture above them all. But, even the Code of Canon Law mentions that certain sexual sins, such as prostitution, are attenuated by social pressure.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

    With that being said, men are going have to sin in lesser ways to avoid the greater sins that can happen from the lack of marital sex, such as violence, unneeded divorce, etc. This fact has been stated by St. Augustine and St. Thomas before.

  5. Novaseeker says:

    Most men are going to read that news article and say to themselves: “well, that’s what you get for looking at porn, you scumbag”. And that’s that.

  6. white says:

    @Novaseeker
    Not when so many men watch porn themselves. Chivalry dictates men grant innate virtue to every women, and her lawyer provided the excuse. She can’t possibly mean harm nor want power, she just wants attention! Men, are you paying attention to your women??

  7. Iowa Slim says:

    I am NOT blaming the murder victim here. With that said, I’d bet anyone on here $100 that this murdered husband was one of the “I can’t afford to divorce her” guys back when he still had choices.

  8. feeriker says:

    James said Frank Hill’s watching pornography was a “personal affront to her (Patricia Hill) and to her god.

    Anybody else catch that? Anybody care to hazard a guess as to who/what her “god” is? We know it sure ain’t the God of the Bible.

  9. goFigure says:

    IBB,

    Why should a husband do anything of the sort? So, she can tell anyone who will listen how sexually perverted he is? Plus convince them that he is sexually abusing her by exposing her to this? Then firmly plant him in the rapist/ toxic masculinity group.

    Why would you want a husband to act in a way that gives his wife more power? Some of the things you say are just exactly the opposite of what a man or husband should do.

  10. Dalrock says:

    IBB, are you trolling on purpose?

  11. innocentbystanderboston says:

    IBB, are you trolling on purpose?

    No. Actually I didn’t know I was trolling. So no.

  12. vfm7916 says:

    @IBB I like the cut of your giblets there. Dread game is effective. But it would be better to go out for a drink in a bar and chat with other women than watch porn if she kicks your example out. If you’re going to send a message it should be that you’re going to make the rubble bounce.

    Game is critical for any man. From the occasional dread reminders, to the application of the golden ratio, to the management of shit tests, it’s critical. It’s always preferable to not get into the situations you’ve so eloquently expressed, and to have a toolkit of things to do if things go wrong.

    I guess I speak in general terms here, but I basically figured out where I wanted to end up, listened tweaked a few items, and then ignored the people who told me I would fail. I have a family, and so far with even my poor game skills it’s still chugging along, with regular sex. That said, I have made it clear that I’ll make the rubble bounce if it fails. Yeah, that will suck.

    You get peace when the alternative is MAD. You have to have the will to do so. You have to paint the pain. You have to instill dread. You have to do it right from the start, from the very first time a wife tries to use sex as a weapon.

    That last bit is critical. If there’s a takeaway from this response it’s that you have to alphastrike the very first time. You have to leave the door open for forgiveness and reconciliation, but make the rubble bounce.

  13. American says:

    She murdered her husband (and blamed him for it afterwards). I vote to put her on death row and assign her an execution date.

  14. goFigure says:

    IBB’s idea is not alpha and there is no dread game in it. It is week and creates the a situation where the man is basically begging his wife to take sexual pity on him.

    Only a redneck hick of a woman would fall for it. Every other woman (meaning all of them) would mock him and gossip the story to the world. Probably even end up on facebook.

  15. thedeti says:

    Where’s IBB’s post? Dalrock, did you remove it?

    [D: Yes.]

  16. thedeti says:

    Pretty clear why this is a second degree murder conviction. First degree is premeditation; second degree is “crime of passion”. The typical example of second degree murder we law students learned is the normal mild mannered husband who loses his marbles seeing his wife in bed having sex with another man, then gets out his gun and shoots them. It’s not premeditation; it’s not insanity; but it is becoming so overwhelmed with anger and rage that the perp does something he would not ordinarily have done.

    You could make a case for premeditation here – Wife was really pissed about the porn channel getting started again, this argument had been going on for months, she was arguing with him that day in the shed about it, she then leaves, gets a .22 Beretta, returns to the shed, and starts shooting “at his feet”.

    I suppose 12 years is in the sentencing range under Arkansas law. But If it were a man, the sentence would have been at least 20 years. So there’s some pussy pass going on here.

  17. CSI says:

    When Europeans came to this continent, they brought religion, laws, and economic systems that institutionalized the status of women as the property of men through marriage.

    Is this what the creators of the Duluth model believe? This is what I’d expect to read on some wacky 4th wave Intersectional Feminist website. “Patriarchal marriage” isn’t some invention of the evil white man. Its commonplace throughout human history, in most human societies, including native American ones.

  18. Novaseeker says:

    Is this what the creators of the Duluth model believe? This is what I’d expect to read on some wacky 4th wave Intersectional Feminist website.

    Duluth comes largely from the same folks — different specialty, same worldview.

  19. Emperor Constantine says:

    @larrykummer said:

    “This is Fourth Wave feminism – the quest for superiority – taken to its logical conclusion.

    That her behavior is not seen as the exercise of power shows how fourth wave feminism has become normalized – mainstream thinking in America. That’s what winning looks like.”

    And yet in the face of this men must stick to their wedding vows with these She-Beasts or be cast into outer darkness.

    Not a great way to make Christianity appealing to men.

  20. Emperor Constantine says:

    From the OP:

    James said Frank Hill’s watching pornography was a “personal affront to her (Patricia Hill) and to her god.

    @feeriker then said:

    “Anybody else catch that? Anybody care to hazard a guess as to who/what her “god” is? We know it sure ain’t the God of the Bible.”

    The order is telling. We know who [H]er real God is.

  21. Jake says:

    No such thing as heat of passion and going and getting your gun. This is second degree in terms of reckless disregard for human life. You knew it could kill someone you just didn’t care.

    It’s an edge case probably supported by some forensic evidence, one of the bullets being on the foot. Good defense lawyer, probably innocent seeming woman, poor prosecutor. She gets second degree instead of first. 12 years is a light sentence. That’s all judge

  22. First of all, how is it that men in Arkansas are not aware of Pornhub and other free online internet sources, no subscription required?

    Second, I always find this notion of American Christian wife indignation about husband porn use rather amusing.
    Especially when you consider that most of these same holier-than-thou wives have 50 shades of gray stored on their ipads and possess stacks of smut novels by Alexa Riley and Madison Faye. And that’s before we get to the fact that she owns multiple sex toys – one for her nightstand/dresser drawer, and the other in her purse.
    These pious wives are fooling no one. Least of all the God almighty.
    Yet the ultimately irony is that despite all of this, we have Christian men forming Bible study groups where they criticize and damn each other, and enlist phone-a-friend “accountability buddies” for temptations to masterbate because God game them a healthy masculine sex drive.
    File under “you can’t make this $h#* up”

  23. feeriker says:

    Not a great way to make Christianity appealing to men.

    I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that institutional Christianity (a.k.a., churchianity, its changeling substitute) doesn’t want men at all. One wonders how long it will be before all of those few men who remain affiliated with it abase themselves by removing themselves altogether from even the most minor positions of leadership and then submit themselves to the churchian women as slaves, publicly declaring themselves unworthy of any of God’s blessings other than the degradation of serving His Daughters.

  24. feministhater says:

    Indeed. If only said, sub human male had groveled before her and submitted to her divine godliness, all would have been well and he wouldn’t have forced her to shoot at his feet. Typical male filth, using his male gaze at a computer screen to oppress his poor wife in a sexless marriage, forcing the poor dear to have to go to such extremes.. what a monster he is! Can’t believe she is being sent to jail! A travesty of justice. They should exhume his body, put him on trial and kill him again, just for being such a dastardly male pig.

  25. Bruce says:

    Female oriented porn is ubiquitous e.g. romance novels, Gray’s Anatomy, etc. it just isn’t as visually explicit as male oriented porn.

  26. To my first comment, Frank Hill was 70 years old. He went from VCR to Dishnetwork. Probably didn’t have internet, or even a computer.

    Here’s the TV news story of the trail and more details of what happened, and what Frank was doing. Sad story. They married each other later in life, but still married for 17 years.
    Notice the expression “she busted him” for porn use before.
    Looking at her (age 70) and her religiosity, it’s very likely that Frank, despite his advanced age, had a significant sex drive, and unfortunately zero sexual outlet left.
    We need to ask ourselves how many men age 50 to even 80 face the same dilemma in their marriages. And how many wives, post-menopause, try to cope with it as well.

    https://katv.com/news/local/pine-bluff-woman-who-killed-husband-over-porn-channel-takes-the-stand

  27. Pingback: “Look what he made me do!” as a murder defense. | Reaction Times

  28. Swanny River says:

    It’s just best if men repress their desire for attractive women and their repulsion at gay affection. Anything else?

  29. Opus says:

    I am a little confused.

    1. Dish Network seems to be a satelite TV network.

    2. Surely no one pays for Porn when it is so effortlessly available should one be inclined (but see 1.),

    3. I bow to Deti’s knowledge of the laws of Homicide but I would have said that in England she would have been charged with Manslaughter rather than Murder because she lacked the mens rea necessary for the latter Crime – and I would not have thought anything more onerous than a suspended sentence would have been the penalty. It was not IMHO even a crime of passion not that that cuts any weight in English courts.

    4. Her Mug shot reveals a wasp-chewing visage that could surely turn any man to Porn (or suicide).

    5. Guns are dangerous – I had no idea that aiming at ones husbands feet might send him to meet his maker.

    6. Even seventy-year-old crones are envious that younger fitter women can even momentarily attract their equally elderly husbands.

  30. sipcode says:

    From what I read here it looks like the Duluth Model gets the understanding of Christianity right.

    But His ‘shitfaced priests’ [Malachi 2:3] don’t.

  31. Iowa Slim says:

    From the news report :

    “Hill’s family and friends described her as a caring person who cared for just about anyone. Hill’s marriage to Frank was her third marriage. Hill’s attorney, Bill James, told KATV her first husband had a mental illness, and her second husband had problems with drinking.”

    She drove husband #1 crazy, or picked out a mentally ill man to prey upon or paint herself as superior to/the victim of. She drove husband #2 to booze, or picked out an alcoholic to paint herself as superior/the victim of. She drove husband #3 to a life of hiding in a shed, drinking beer, and choking the chicken. Couldn’t leave him to enjoy that paltry amount of pleasure. Cornered him out there and shot him. She’s a serial sociopathic predator. Reverse the sexes and they’d have charged capital murder and gotten the conviction.

  32. John James R says:

    She’ll be out in, what? Five years for good behavior? So basically a woman killing a man can’t really be up for any legitimate, full-on murder charges because men, by definition, did something to deserve it and justify it. Simply by being a man, the woman is justified in killing. That’s how things are now. I can’t believe that ordering porn could ever factor into a murder case. That’s a behavioral issue and a point of contention in their marriage but has nothing to do with murder and its justification. Imagine a man killing his wife and introducing her romance novel collection as evidence, subsequently knocking 15 years off the sentence. And the drawings on the front have men with eight-packs instead of six-packs, that should get his sentence reduced by even a few more years. Imagine what Huffpo, buzzfeed and Cnn would do with that case where a judge is very lenient on a man due to a woman’s porn habit..

  33. Frank K says:

    Guns are dangerous – I had no idea that aiming at ones husbands feet might send him to meet his maker.

    I suppose that if the bullet severs an artery that one could quickly bleed to death. The article says that she was a nurse, so she should have been very aware of the potential harm plus she should have been able to treat him until the ambulance arrived, assumed she summoned one in a timely manner.

  34. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Iowa Slim

    Fine give her second degree murder instead of life based on her bullshit reasons for losing her cool.

    In Colorado that’s 48 years.

    Rot in prison with your ridiculous excuses She-Beast.

  35. Warthog says:

    Some pretty woman was complaining about men infringing the right to her body on Twitter, in reference to the Alabama abortion ban. I replied that I wouldn’t touch her body while wearing a hazmat suit. A dozen feminists replied defending her, accusing me of laying my eyes on her body. I said I get 1000 points for every triggered feminist. My last comment was, feminists have zero power apart from male desire. At that point she deleted the entire thread. Win. Hands down.

  36. RichardP says:

    She killed somebody. She claims it was accidental. The law provides a rememdy for sentencing in the absence of perfect information. Not a perfect solution, but the best one we have. Beginning, middle, and end of story. Why make it about something more?

    The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 1 Corinthians 7:4.

    What is that word used there? Power?

    She has power over his body. Bible doesn’t define how she exercises it, but it does say she has power. This thread is full of criticism that she exercised such power. She should just submit right, because the Bible uses the word “submit” so we must pay attention to it. But ignore that the Bible gives her the right to exercise “power” over her husband’s body.

    Logic?

  37. Robert What? says:

    Of course we don’t know for certain but my money is on Dead Bedroom Syndrome, the staple of modern American marriages. She wasn’t giving him sex but blew a gasket when he got it elsewhere.

  38. Red Pill Christianity says:

    I am actually surprised she got actual prison time. I thought she would have gotten probation or a couple years of mental counseling. Maybe things are improving… not! LOL

    1. This is not the first time this has happened and this will not be the last, honestly, I expect to see more of this more often. Look up Mary Winkler of TN and Andrea Yates of TX for some other examples. Winckler murdered her husband who was a respected and loved pastor of their church because (and I kid you not), he allegedly “forced her” to wear high heels in bed. OMG, how dare a man ask that his wife wear something sexy for him in bed!!! Perish forbid! Winkler got away almost completely scotch-clean with executing her husband with a 12ga when he was asleep, even though she had no bruises, marks, and she never filed any police complaint at anytime.

    2. In places like Colorado, women can (and do) use “hormonal imbalance” (having her period) as a defense (codified into statues) as defense to crimes, sort of like an insanity defense. In NY, “minorities” (in a city that is 15% white) can use “racial rage” as a defense. There are other States that allow women to commit a variety of violent rimes and get probation. The woman who helped that psycho weirdo kidnap, abuse, and hold prisoner Elizabeth Smart of Utah, she is out now. She basically got “time served” when she should have gotten life.

    3. When men think of “evidence” in court, we are thinking expert testimony, DNA, forensics, ballistics, and observations of police experts. When women and the left think of evidence, they think of feelings and personal testimony. To the un-initiated in American jurisprudence, understand that a woman’s testimony in court is viewed as actual evidence. That is why in “he said, she said” cases the woman almost always wins, very few exceptions. When a woman accuses a guy of rape or domestic violence, her word is evidence of fact in court. A man’s words are questioned and actual evidence is demanded of the defendant, even though the Prosecution has the technical “burden of proof”.

    4. There are 4 legal systems in America: the women’s system where they are almost never held liability for their actions and crimes and have almost supreme advantage in family court; the (special person) one, where groups of a certain religion protect each other at all costs in court; the illegal alien one, where they receive criminal sentences that are far below the average across the country and are immune to prosecution for crimes like identity theft, document fraud, perjury, fraud, unlawful entry, trespassing, burglary, and others; and the one for everyone else.

    5. Take a look at sentencing disparities between male and female teachers who engage sexually with their students. A 21 year old male teacher who is engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with an almost 18-year old female student will get 20 years in prison when a 40-year old female teacher molesting a 12-year old boy will get probation. This is pretty standard. Relampago compiled a list of this stuff, worth looking at: https://relampagofurioso.com/2018/02/05/the-face-of-sex-offenders-in-americas-public-schools/

    6. This is all a result of “social justice”… To right perceived wrongs of the past by punishing entire groups of people today (all men, worst for white males). Duluth is a well-known model and it is nationally recognized and used by police, especially in domestic situations, which is where men are most vulnerable to female false criminal accusations. The woman has literally total control and power over men when they make false criminal accusations, unless you can provide video evidence that she is lying.
    The way to combat false criminal accusations by a woman in your life is to use violent surveillance. The cost is your personal privacy and risk of being hacked. “Telling the truth” is a way to ensure a trip to jail and possibly prison and to give the woman a huge advantage in divorce court.

    7. Dal just made the case for MGTOW. I am not MGTOW and I do not believe in things like AWALT, as you can never universally say something “always” and “never” is/are… life is more nuanced and complicated than that.

    8. The “Pu$$y Pass” is very real thing, fellas. The only way you can fight against this is to use surveillance cameras and recorders in your car and personal residence. This is not a good solution, but it is what we have for now. Legislative change is almost impossible to do as women are majority of voters in the United States and legislators are terrified to do anything that can disrupt women’s privileges. Changing the judges will take decades to do, since judges in most jurisdictions are appointed for life and “elected” judges are almost never removed form office. Women like security, that is why we have this massive “social safety net” which is the unsustainable welfare system and a legal system completely biased towards them.

    The core problem is legislated unfairness and bias. That is exactly why Feminist created this system, with support of raging Beta males – to give women every privilege and benefit without consequences. The other side of the coin is to destroy boys starting in kindergarten, by overmedicating boys and preventing them from playing with blocks, which develop a young boy’s minds. Even women who support fairness for men fear giving up their privileges.

    Short of a shock to the system of some sort, I see no other solution to this problem, except to deploy extended private surveillance in your life and carefully watch and vet the woman in your life. Break-up with your woman on camera and document it by e-mail and never let a woman live in with you. Be mindful that if you marry, all of these legal risks will be intensified x50. Again – what men need is more of this, more information so they can make good, fully-informed decisions when dealing with women, marriage, and legal matters.

  39. DeepThought says:

    Kathy Kellar is insane.

  40. Gunner Q says:

    “Surely no one pays for Porn when it is so effortlessly available should one be inclined”

    This could be the real reason she shot him. According to a couple reviews on this case I read, the killing happened on the same day the cable bill arrived.

    They say couples argue most often over money….

  41. Ofelas says:

    @ RichardP
    Do you usually try to get peoples’ attention by shooting from a deadly weapon in their direction? Would you turn a loaded weapon against your wife, if she was refusing to stop titillating herself by reading romance novels?

    Your argumentation about power over one’s spouse’s body appears to be based on a premise along the lines that not only that a spouse should not deprive the other of his/her body (we dont know whether he did or did not in this case here) , but also that he/she should not do with his/her body what the other spouse doesn’t approve of. Taken into extreme that would mean that a wife has a power over what and whether at all a husband can eat?

  42. feministhater says:

    She said she didn’t know that shooting at his feet could kill him as he bent over. She said she only meant for the shooting to get his attention.

    RichardP says:

    She killed somebody. She claims it was accidental.

    Do you not see how stupid you sound? If you take drastic action such as shooting at someone’s feet, you as a reasonable person should have considered that you could either injure them badly or indeed, kill them. It is not an ‘accidental’ death by a long shot.

    She has power over his body. Bible doesn’t define how she exercises it, but it does say she has power. This thread is full of criticism that she exercised such power.

    Are you indeed saying that she can shoot her husband because she controls his body?

    You have just made the perfect argument for the abandonment of marriage. Thanks Richard. Please continue.

    Do you see the phrase ‘in all things’ in your above quote, as is the case with the ‘submission’ quote in the Bible? No? That means there are indeed such restrictions of the ‘control’ one can have over their spouse’s body and yet no restrictions on the submission of wives towards husbands. It is in ‘all things’. Your argument falls flat. Nevermind that the Bible explains that this ‘power’ is in regard to sexual fulfillment and not the ability to injure, harm or murder your spouse.

    Why are you trying to draw a similarity between the two, when the actions above are so obviously wrong? Let’s just allow wives to fuck over husbands otherwise they can exercise their Biblical mandate of power over their husband’s body and kill him. Is that right?

    Did you just go full feminist?

  43. T says:

    In effect, he got the death penalty for looking at porn.

    The leftist feminists, manginas, and other parasites are all about “freedom of expression.” For many, that includes porn, which many of them call “liberating” and “beuatiful.” Then again, others call it “exploitative” and “violence.” Very confusing.

    We see woman-as-victim, even when she commits a murder. This can’t continue forever. When nature is distorted to the extent it has been in recent times, there has to be a reaction. I don’t know when it will be, or what it will look like.

    And for those of you who say, “It’ll never happen [Insert gloom-and-doom pessimism here]”: the USSR was widely seen as utterly impregnable. Many thought it would long outlast the United States. Then, suddenly, in a very short time, it was riven apart by the forces of its own internal corruption. Although there were dicey moments like the Russian coup, for the most part, the Soviet Evil Empire collapsed not with a bang, but with a whimper. I suspect that will happen with this stuff.

  44. Novaseeker says:

    Why are you trying to draw a similarity between the two, when the actions above are so obviously wrong? Let’s just allow wives to fuck over husbands otherwise they can exercise their Biblical mandate of power over their husband’s body and kill him. Is that right?

    Did you just go full feminist?

    If you remember, RichardP generally only posts comments when he wants to take a contrarian view. He doesn’t really agree with us, he is here to poke at us.

  45. Hazelshade says:

    @Damn Crackers

    “So on the one hand we have God creating an institution that mercifully meets the needs of his flock (the “Old Books” arrangement as Rollo calls it); yet on the other we have Satan via feminism corrupting this institution to such a degree that it is now used to do the inverse of what it was supposed to do (remember, Satan’s will is the inverse of God’s). That is, marriage is being used to DENY men access to sex.

    Good catch by you and/or Emperor Constantine. We have inversion of marital roles and inversion of the very purpose of marriage.

  46. She was a nurse for decades.
    Frank was 70 years old.
    The man lived in Arkansas.
    That means high carb, high fat diet. No exercise. High blood pressure, risk of stroke, diabetes.
    You could probably bet your left testicle the man was on blood thinners (Xarelto, Pradaxa).

    A .22 cal bullet is small, but can do a lot of damage to an elderly person – lacerate arteries, tumble around and smash an old person’s bones and marrow to smithereens.

    The poor man probably slowly bled to death.
    Alive long enough to hear her crying, nagging, scolding and prayers until he reached oblivion.
    What a horrible, sexless existence. And what a horrible way to go.

  47. Spike says:

    Twelve years?
    She only got twelve years for murdering her husband?
    At least things are getting slightly better. When Kiranjit Aluwaliah burnt her husband alive using a home-made mixture of napalm she assembled herself (indicating malice aforethought), she got just 3 years. It was later followed by a medal awarded by Cherie Blair, wife of British PM Tony Blair. She had cited a decade of abuse and violent threats from which she could never escape, despite her husband working huge shifts as a taxi driver.
    In Manginaland, aka Australia, women always get sentenced for the lesser crime of “manslaughter” or the accidental death of a husband or male companion under such circumstances. Never murder, despite clear evidence of malice aforethought. WHY the inequality in sentencing?

    By the way Dalrock, there is a massive inconsistency in the ”underpinnings of the Duluth model” text that the authors are unaware of:

    ” When Europeans came to this continent, they brought religion, laws, and economic systems that institutionalized the status of women as the property of men through marriage”

    The word “property” gives it away. Nowhere in the ancient European world, nor the Middle east before Islam was a wife considered ”property”. Slaves were considered ”property”, where they were indentured to owners for debt, birth or other circumstances.

    Wives were never property, because a husband owned her sexuality, not her person, which is the difference. The old-world contract was thus: When a man married a woman, she owned her sexuality and its’ products – children. In exchange, his surplus labour – his ability to work in excess of his needs – ensured she would live in relative comfort. Marriage was the exchange of HIS labour for HER sexuality. That’s why children have HIS name. They are HIS because he PAID for them via his surplus labour. Thus, she is a wife, not a slave. There is a difference, and that difference is lost on whoever wrote the Duluth script.

  48. info says:

    @Spike

    That’s why the wrath of God is upon Britain. Allowing women to get away with murder is innocent blood crying out to God for vengeance.

    May they either repent or God punish the Nation that refuses to prosecute women for their crimes.

  49. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    thedeti: Pretty clear why this is a second degree murder conviction. First degree is premeditation; second degree is “crime of passion”. The typical example of second degree murder we law students learned is the normal mild mannered husband who loses his marbles seeing his wife in bed having sex with another man, then gets out his gun and shoots them.

    I think you’re confusing Second Degree Murder with First Degree Manslaughter. The latter is a “crime of passion.” Not the former.

  50. Novaseeker says:

    I think you’re confusing Second Degree Murder with First Degree Manslaughter. The latter is a “crime of passion.” Not the former.

    This varies by state. Some states consider it manslaughter, some second degree murder. In a very general, “multistate bar exam”, type of sense, the distinction would depend on the degree of “intentionality” — ie, pointing a gun at your spouse’s head and pulling the trigger, in many states, has a degree of intent to kill that is sufficient to meet murder’s definition, but it may be mitigated due to “passion”. In other states, that mitigation degrades you right out of murder and into manslaughter, but not in all states.

    In this case, there would be “intent to kill” issues with a murder charge in many states, but perhaps not in all. Criminal law really does vary a lot by state.

  51. feeriker says:

    The poor man probably slowly bled to death.
    Alive long enough to hear her crying, nagging, scolding and prayers until he reached oblivion.
    What a horrible, sexless existence. And what a horrible way to go.

    Forget fire and brimstone. The ultimate and absolutely unimaginably insufferable Hell would be to spend eternity with a screaming, bitchy, “crying, nagging, scolding” woman shackled to you who kept at it, non-stop.

  52. info says:

    @spike
    You assume ignorance on the duluth model authors? Thats wrong. They know exactly what they were doing.

    They are not lost on anything except to destroy the christian family.

  53. Hank Flanders says:

    What’s interesting is that the defense’s entire story could have been completely fabricated but that they thought a man viewing porn could be considered heinous enough that it could have been used to show the defendant as a victim. Now, whether she genuinely was mad about porn or something else altogether, I definitely think the “shooting at his feet” part of the defense is fabricated, considering she that she shot him twice.

  54. Isaac says:

    —“Patriarchal marriage” isn’t some invention of the evil white man. Its commonplace throughout human history, in most human societies, including native American ones.—

    It’s even funnier than that. In an un-evangelized, native culture, a man’s wife was as likely as not to be traded for a canoe if her husband needed one. Assuming she wasn’t enslaved as war booty in a raid by a neighboring tribe, her children from her first husband killed and tossed into a shallow grave. If only those evil Christians hadn’t come and ruined everything for women.

  55. Red Pill Christianity says:

    This woman is not insane at all. She is behaving EXACTLY as a woman who has been pampered, spoiled, and privileged by an entire legal and social system. She is behaving as a typical western woman who grew up in a feminist society created to cater to her every need. And when these needs are not catered to the way she wants, she commits a violent crime, expecting to face no (or very light) consequences for her actions.
    I am surprised she did not do this sooner, the very instant she felt an even slight annoyance at her husband. Maybe we will codify that “right to kill husband” into law next time the Democrats hold all 2 branches, just as they did in Brazil.

    What is surprising to me is that she actually got some prison time, even if that is by male standards, a slap on the wrist. She will likely serve less than half, due to “gain time”, good behavior, and will be paroled out. For a first degree murder (which is what she committed), she got off easy extremely. Men get this much prison for lightly spanking his kids and being reported to cops these days under “child abuse” and “battery” laws.

    Can I say something controversial here? The fact that porn is free, widely available online, and to this husband, clearly so much better than his lunatic wife, this tells you a lot at the state of the women in our country today. Some guys are getting more value out of that than a real person. That is a sad state of affairs.

    It also begs the question: why are some guys fussing so much after pu$$y when it is so cheap and so universally easy and available today? Why do some guys worship women when they are offering guys such low ROI (Return On Investment) for the fruits of our hard work, time, and energy?? Boggles the mind (this coming from someone who is not a MGTOW).

  56. Red Pill Christianity says:

    Wanna know what is funny? This whole defense she is using reminds of the movie Don Jon. LOL The girl, Scarlet Johansson, goes crazy over Jon watching porn (but uses “lying to her” as an excuse for her overraction) and breaks up with him in an erratic and crazy manner, leaving him stunned and wronged.

    I hate to say it, ladies.. porn is not the same as an affair. It is a sin against God, since it is lusting, but it is not the same as going to bang another woman. I am sorry, it is not. And Biblically-speaking, it is not justification for murder or divorce, even.

    But of course, who cares? You will get a slap on the wrist anyway and you can always divorce and destroy the patsy anyway. And churchians will rally around you, you poor thing, victim of an evil man.

    Again, I am not a MGTOW, but stuff like this makes dudes really consider going that way.

  57. Paul says:

    At the core, society as a whole, and especially the church, are failing to hold women responsible for their actions. If a wife does wrong, she is quick to blame it on the husband. Of all institutions, churches should be aware of sin in people, but it seems they’ve put women in a separate category of creatures that cannot possibly sin. It is an heretical error of the gravest kind. Many churches exactly follow current culture in idolizing women, and slide into emotionalism and fully support feminism. It’s a big spiritual deception.

  58. Robert What? says:

    Reminds me of the old joke (Henny Youngman, maybe):
    Q) Why do husbands die before their wives?
    A) Because they want to!

  59. Novaseeker says:

    Of all institutions, churches should be aware of sin in people, but it seems they’ve put women in a separate category of creatures that cannot possibly sin. It is an heretical error of the gravest kind.

    It’s more that the churches generally see women’s sin as deriving from men’s sin, and being enveloped by men’s sin, such that men’s sin is primary and responsible, whereas women’s sin is derivative of men’s sin. This is based on their interpretation of Genesis 3, where they see Adam as being responsible for Eve’s sin (even though the text doesn’t say this). It all flows from that, since that is the paradigmatic text.

  60. Paul says:

    @Novaseeker

    It depends on what churches you’re talking about, it happens in different degrees. I think what you refer to is called Federal Headship, which is not a widespread theology as far as I know. But throughout the years Dalrock has been calling out various leading church men who adhered in one form or another to idolizing women to the point of nearly being incapable of sin.

  61. BillyS says:

    info,

    Murdering babies (abortion) is far more heinous than letting a very small number of women get away with killing a husband. The latter is bad, but God’s Judgment is not as clear cut as it might seem. Societally sanctioned abortion has been around far too long and things go on. Consequences do come, but not as directly or clearly as we think or wish.

    Also, the Duluth authors may have had intent, but many who accept it now do so because of ignorance. I would expect even some who initially supported it didn’t really think things through as well since that is quite common among lots of progressive left idiots today. (Or even the conservatives that claim to oppose them.)

  62. Jon Patch says:

    Any time a wife speaks openly to or about her husband with “boundaries” terminology, it’s all over. This case was clearly deep into a full-on sex embargo. It’s content like this that can make Dalrock very difficult to read.

  63. Warthog says:

    In Game of Thrones season 8 5th episode, Daenarys snaps and torches the entire city to death after they surrendered.

    If you keep watching until after the credits, there is a director’s clip where they basically white knight for Daenerys saying she did it because she didnt feel loved. Funny that she felt such a strong urge to defend the character.

  64. feeriker says:

    At the core, society as a whole, and especially the church, are failing to hold women responsible for their actions. If a wife does wrong, she is quick to blame it on the husband. Of all institutions, churches should be aware of sin in people, but it seems they’ve put women in a separate category of creatures that cannot possibly sin. It is an heretical error of the gravest kind. Many churches exactly follow current culture in idolizing women, and slide into emotionalism and fully support feminism. It’s a big spiritual deception.

    It’s all about economics. The church in the West has no legal enforcement powers over anyone and has essentially been reduced to begging/bribing people to affiliate with it – and thus give it $$$$$. The churchian Powers That Be know that women have control over the vast majority of $$$$$, and therefore are the target “customer base” for churchian executive “leadership.” Thus the attitude that vagina can do no wrong, which is really just another way of saying “the customer is always right.”

    To alienate vagina is cut itself off from $$$$$, as well as expose itself to potentially devastating worldly sanction, so vagina is elevated to the most essential commodity in heaven an on earth.

  65. Lost Patrol says:

    This is based on their interpretation of Genesis 3, where they see Adam as being responsible for Eve’s sin (even though the text doesn’t say this).

    Most of the church men that stand by this interpretation are married, I’ll wager. So they know exactly what’s going on in the story because they live it most days. It just can’t be admitted for reasons we all understand.

    Eve eats, passes it to Adam, and he immediately thinks; at this point I should probably say something about how we ought not be doing this, and maybe come up with a way to set things right. BUT, I’ve learned that things will be a lot easier on me if I just go along with her.

    Ha!

    And so with the sons of Adam to this very day…

  66. feministhater says:

    Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.

    Or basically what a person in authority does, thereby making ‘submission’ in the wife’s case completely erroneous and disingenuous. The one who is ‘submitting’ does not get to draw boundaries or enact consequences.

    Clown World indeed!

  67. Paul says:

    […] BUT, I’ve learned that things will be a lot easier on me if I just go along with her.

    The temptation is strong, but instead men should have dominion over their wives

    “To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. ” Gen 3

  68. feministhater says:

    How does the submissive party get to enact consequences on the dominant party? It’s a complete reversal of the roles. In reality, this is done by involving a third party, the true ‘dominant’ one, i.e. the state, which then itself submits to the wife and does her bidding against the supposed ‘sinful’ husband.

    Nice marriage contract you have there, would be a real pity if no one decided to enter into it. Hard to enforce if the man decides to sidestep the minefield, put up ‘beware of mines’ signs to cordon off the danger area and then walks off into the sunset.

    It’s all for play, there is no real submission on the female’s part, she is always the one in the back with the strings, pulling her husband this way and that; until his usefulness has ended at which point, she cuts the strings, pulls the floor out from under him and then uses her society enforced levers of guilt shaming to strip him of all remaining worth.

    The marriage contract now plays completely to the vanity of the female, to her whims; it is not a solid contract with obligations on both parties. It is a one sided contract, with benefits flowing one way and responsibility in the other. Playing with marriage is now playing with fire.

  69. Paul says:

    @feministhater

    That’s about the situation. Some exceptions exist where wives will go counter-cultural and follow a biblical model, but the moment she’s tired of that, it’s all over for the husband.

  70. Asaph says:

    Same. I unironically think that an eye for an eye is the best method of punishment

  71. Anon says:

    This is exactly the type of situation that excites cuckservatives to an extreme degree. They believe that it can never be the woman’s fault ever, and if the woman is even slightly inconvenienced, the answer is more brutal legislation against men.

  72. Red Pill Christianity says:

    All contracts require that both parties get something out of it. The problem with government-controlled and gov-enforced marriage is that the govt can reinterpret that contract arbitrarily and with almighty powers anytime it wants, for any reason.

    It had been public policy in the US to enforce all contracts “as written” short of a truly abusive, one-sided situation. Then the Family Courts decided unilaterally to reinterpret and disregard Prenuptial Agreemments, which are contracts, in favor of the woman.

    So the government, through unelected judges, come in, disregard valid contracts, reinterprets marriage contracts at will, then re-makes the marriage model that had worked for 5,000+ years on a whim? No wonder guys are bailing out of the marriage system like crazy.

    As Dalrock said about the “Cutness of the Complementarians”… ‘it would be cute if it wasn’t so serious’. The movie “Divorce Corp” is probably the best documentary on the topic ever made.

    Buyer beware, is the type of disclosures that are needed for alll men before getting married.

  73. locustsplease says:

    If only she had access to a chemical castration kit at a local pharmacy this tragedy could have been avoided:)

  74. info says:

    Sure murdering babies ensures a cry of vengeance more powerful than that of murdered men. But the fact that such blood goes unavenged adds up a nations cup in preparation for gods vengeance. Although I hope that men and women who let women get away with murder should receive more immediate chastisement to change their course.

    God avenges all blood. No way he ignores even the small number of men murdered by their wives.

    Or have their families destroyed through duluth model and no fault divorce and alimony.

    God is just. He must avenge.

  75. wodansthane says:

    @Paul
    From which translation did you draw your quote? Serious question.

  76. Gary Eden says:

    This isn’t the logical conclusion to 4th wave feminism. It’s the logical end of all feminism. You can have male rule or female rule, there is no in between.

    As these judicial discrepancies show, equality won’t work at any level; not even equality under the law.

    Might as well just make women property again, it would certainly be a more just system.

  77. feeriker says:

    As Dalrock said about the “Cutness of the Complementarians”

    I know that bolded part is a typo, but you’ve created a very useful neologism here. That is a VERY apt and accurate description of complementarianism.

  78. feeriker says:

    Red Pill Christianity says:
    May 21, 2019 at 5:27 pm

    Marriage in the U.S. has long been an adhesion contract for men, even long before 2WF was a force to be reckoned with. That such a contract is considered de facto null and void under any other legal circumstances but marriage for men, and that it has been this way for the last 100-plus years, shows how deeply embedded the concept is. Change is unlikely to be brought about through legal, peaceful means.

  79. Anon says:

    That is a VERY apt and accurate description of complementarianism.

    I say ‘Cuntiness’ is better.

  80. Jim says:

    Cunts are gonna cunt.

    Gary Eden says:
    May 22, 2019 at 9:54 am

    This isn’t the logical conclusion to 4th wave feminism. It’s the logical end of all feminism. You can have male rule or female rule, there is no in between.

    As these judicial discrepancies show, equality won’t work at any level; not even equality under the law.

    Might as well just make women property again, it would certainly be a more just system.

    Finally somebody gets it. Either you’re the property or the bitches are. You have no other choice.

  81. theroyalfamilyi says:

    @feeriker:
    Marriage in the U.S. has long been an adhesion contract for men, even long before 2WF was a force to be reckoned with. That such a contract is considered de facto null and void under any other legal circumstances but marriage for men, and that it has been this way for the last 100-plus years
    The link you give directly contradicts your conclusion. Hell, you (and I) signing up with Discus or WordPress or whatever to comment, “signing” (by checking a box) a contract that…who the hell knows what, shows that such contract forms are perfectly fine and legal.
    Not to say that the fact that marriages are like that is a good thing at all.

  82. BillyS says:

    Signing up for a WordPress account doesn’t require you to pay them money for some indeterminate future time, especially not based on how much you make (or could/should make).

    You may want to look up what an adhesion contract is to gain more clarity here.

    It is easier to get out of a car lease than a marriage and they can only hit you up for the cost the car should have, not the full value of your money and future earnings. Nor are even car leases completely one-sided affairs.

  83. Pingback: Friday hawt chicks & links – It’s great to be a white guy edition. – Adam Piggott

  84. wodansthane says:

    @Paul
    Thank you. Very useful resource.

  85. Paul says:

    You’re welcome. Although Biblehub’s search function is not the most advanced, it has very good support for multiple translations, and integration with commentaries. Especially the interlinear Hebrew and Greek will allow you to get very close to the original text.

  86. OKRickety says:

    I prefer Blue Letter Bible for everything Paul mentioned except for commentary, where I find Biblehub to be superior.

  87. Paul says:

    All tools that help you to learn more about the bible are of course useful, but I haven’t found an equivalent to Biblehub’s integration and awesome interlinear per chapter (not only verse). Look at these examples, it’s fantastic how it integrates the original language, Strong’s numbers, transliteration, translation, and grammatical function:

    https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm
    https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/3.htm

    It even will show you parallel Greek, allowing you to see textual variants
    https://biblehub.com/texts/1_peter/3-1.htm

    May you be blessed in your study of God’s word, food for the spirit, and consolation for the soul.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.