If a man was rewarded for brutally murdering his abusive wife, how would you feel?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1651234.stm

Answer 1

Wow. She even got her KIDS back. Let me re-state that: a woman who SET SOMEONE ON FIRE got her KIDS back!

Unbelievable. This is like throwing a parade for a convicted rapist. Then again, maybe it's not so surprising. Women are already sentenced more leniently for committing the same crimes as men (just as blacks are sentenced harsher than whites); why not go ahead and stop pretending there's any justice and just buy her a present?

Also, to Opalina above me, name one instance of a man killing his abusive wife where he was lauded for it. Name. Just. One.

Opie: You didn't say anything about "should." You said that's how it would be if it happened (that it was your opinion doesn't change this fact at all; it's the same thing. Silly little girl). Misinterpretation is pretty much a foregone conclusion if you don't write clearly. I'd work on that if I were you.

Answer 2

If a man were subjected day in day out to a violently abusive wife, and he was mentally seriously affected by his treatment and one day snapped. Then her murder would be "understandable" may even be "forgivable" depending on the circumstance, although should not be rewarded.

The same as if it were the other way around.

EDIT: Ok, I understand the thunbs down, but I am am not advocating murder in any way shape or form, but in SOME circumstance, and I mean highly abusive relationships where the life of the abused is threatend regularly it is "understandable". That's totally different to saying "acceptable" the subtle differences are important.

There are NO black and white senarios, each case has it's own story and set of circumstance.

SERIN: If you read my post i am stating MY OPINION. which is infact that men should be treated EQUALLY to woman. I know of no case so cannot state "just one" but that isn't what I am saying, The question was "HOW WOULD YOU FEEL" so I stated how I would feel.

See, even when a feminist DOES support the men's issues she STILL gets misinterpreted. SHEESH!

Serin: the question clearly asks for an opinion, therfore no clarification required. Where exactly have I stated it "would" happen? You see if you don't read things properly it's easy to misunderstand what somebody writes. I'd work on that If I were you.

"silly little girl"? LOL have nothing more to add other than personal insult? I'm sticking up for men here, saying it shouldn't be any different and I'm still getting abuse? blimey all this over a misunderstanding from BOTH sides. But hey you carry on with your insults.

Answer 3

No one should be rewarded for murder. It goes both ways. It's one thing if the murder was an accident and it happened in self defense. Something should have been done before it would end in murder of the abusive wife. She should have been punished long before being killed.

Answer 4

I'd understand if somebody killed an abusive spouse, male or female, but to reward someone for killing seems to me to be pushing things more than a bit. I do understand that this woman was being rewarded more for breaking a stereotype than for killing, however, and from all I have heard of Indian society, that was something that took a hell of a lot of guts to do.

Answer 5

If men were historically beaten, killed, harassed and oppressed how would you feel? I don't think this woman should have been rewarded, however, I don't think it is fair that she suffered 10 years of brutality either. Where was the legal system and social resources during this time? Don't ask "Why did she stay?" Instead try asking "Why did he abuse her? and What effect did the abuse have on her?" Take a Women's Studies Class at your local university.

Answer 6

Rewarding murdered whether they are victims or not should not happen, the problem is the world will live in. We make people famous who were convicted with wrong doing.

Answer 7

It is disgusting no matter what the scenario. Brutally murdering your spouse when you could just walk away is always wrong.

Answer 8

I suppose you think this woman, who had no way of leaving, no money of her own, no family who would take her in (as it is a social taboo in many Asian countries), should have just continued to take the abuse until he finally killed her. Is that what you think? Hell, she may have only beat him to it by a couple of days. She had NO legal recourse in her country. In our society it is easier, (though NOT "easy") for an abused spouse to walk away from abuse, and because of that we assume that must be true everywhere. That is NOT the case. This is an extremely complicated issue, and should not be treated with the flippancy and exploitation you are. Men get awards for killing the "enemy" all the time, this woman did what she had to do to survive. And WOULD I mind if the man had suffered for years, and had NO recourse whatsoever? The honest answer is no, I would recognize that he did what he had to, as probably anyone would in that situation.
"Rewarding" someone for murder, in my opinion, is wrong. Then again, as I stated, men are awarded medals for the "most kills" in war ALL the time...so...what IS the difference?

EDIT--"Happy Bullet" YOU are the one "cluelessly bigoted," as you prove time and again. In another question, didn't you imply that women were being murdered by intimates (spouses, etc.) at a greater rate (25% more) because MEN had little recourse in abusive situations? (Yes, you did.) Didn't you suggest that feminists (and the victims themselves) were to blame for this (NOT the murderers, of course!--I mean, using your logic, whatever she did, she didn't kill him, did she?). Yes, you did. What's the difference? So, I use the same logic that YOU DID to address a situation, where, it is a FACT that CANNOT be argued, that women in many cultures in Asia CANNOT leave abusive situations because they have no legal recourse, no money of their own, no family who would risk the "shame" of taking them back, and I'm bigoted? I would never make that comparison to women in the West, OR men. I've PROVED that DV LAWS protect men and women equally in the West, though society does make it harder for men to admit to, and even recognize, being a victim. Based on YOUR rhetoric, I'm sure that you would jump at the chance to "reward" men who murdered their abusive wives. I stated that I thought rewarding murder, regardless of the circumstances, is WRONG. YOUR problem is that you are so myopic you don't even recognize when someone uses the SAME logic as you to apply to a similar situation, and call an argument "bigoted" that you have already used yourself. (Though, to be fair, it was PROVED that this woman was abused, systematically, over a period of ten years, in your case you just SURMISED that these women had abused their husbands, and blamed them with no "proof" whatsoever...whatever is convenient to explain away women being murdered more often, right?). So, by your logic, only men suffer abuse and have no recourse in this world, and thus only men should be able to murder their spouses as a means of escape. But I'M bigoted? Again, the hypocrisy doesn't occur to you? And what needs to "stop" is your hypocritical, bigoted, hyperbolic b.s. that seeks to demonize women, even if they use the same argument and logic as you.

EDIT--(again) "Happy"-LOL...I guess calling someone "hysterical" is your only "out" when your argument has been completely ripped to shreds. Far from being hysterical, I love these little opportunities you constantly provide for me to show that women aren't so "inferior" after all. By using the "hysterical" card, you admit capitulation...and it's a good thing,'cause I don't know how much more of a "bruising" you could take, (I meant that metaphorically, of course, I wouldn't want you accusing me of "abuse".)

Answer 9

I agreed yet on condition that she comprehend a thank you to safeguard him . some spouse do not do something the ignored toddlers . the do not do there chores in the homestead . a actual spouse is the guy who to blame for the full family individuals and would decide .that she would be able to maintain the family individuals solid via one yet another .

Answer 10

I would feel betrayed that my society's legal system would allow it to happen. Then I'd feel insecure and extremely sceptical of politicians and governmental officials. Then I'd probably start a riot.