From: The Myth of Male Power.

 THE PMS DEFENSE (“MY BODY. NO CHOICE”)

 In 1970, when Dr. Edgar Berman said women’s hormones during menstruation and menopause could have a detrimental influence on women’s decision making, feminists were outraged. He was soon served up as the quintessential example of medical male chauvinism.12

 But by the 1980s, some feminists were saying that PMS was the reason a woman who deliberately killed a man should go free. In England, the PMS defense freed Christine English after she confessed to killing her boyfriend by deliberately ramming him into a utility pole with her car; and, after killing a coworker, Sandie Smith was put on probation—with one condition: she must report monthly for injections of progesterone to control symptoms of PMS.13 By the 1990s, the PMS defense paved the way for other hormonal defenses. Sheryl Lynn Massip could place her 6-month-old son under a car, run over him repeatedly, and then, uncertain he was dead, do it again, then claim postpartum depression and be given outpatient medical help.14 No feminist protested.

 In the 1970s, then, feminists were saying, “My body, my choice.” By the ‘80s and ‘90s, they were saying, “ ‘My body, my choice’ if that increases my freedom to kill,” and “ ‘My body, no choice’ if that increases my freedom to kill.”

Ms. magazine justified these contradictions with, “Well, each woman is different.”15 True. But PMS as a legal defense for murder is sexism against women waiting to happen. Why? If a woman could murder while under the influence of PMS, couldn’t she be a reckless driver while under the influence . . . and if she doesn’t know when she is under the influence, doesn’t this become a reason not to let women drive? We are back to women as children.

 The “hormones affect some women more than others” excuse allows one woman to apply for an executive position and say, “Hire me—PMS doesn’t affect me,” while another murders and says, “Free me—PMS affects me.” It also allows a woman to get a job as an executive, murder later, and say, with legal clout, “Free me—PMS just started affecting me.” If raging hormones continue to be a legal defense for females who murder, it will soon be a legitimate question for female employment. Discrimination for women begets discrimination against women.

 The PMS Defense also paves the way for the TP Defense—the Testosterone Poisoning Defense. If women can murder and claim PMS, why can’t men rape and claim testosterone poisoning? The solution? Punish the crime—with female or male hormones as only a minor mitigating factor.

 III. THE HUSBAND DEFENSE

 The film I Love You to Death was based on the true story of a woman who tried to kill her husband when she discovered he had been unfaithful. She and her mom tried to poison him, then hired muggers to beat him and shoot him through the head. A fluke led to their being caught and sent to jail. Miraculously, the husband survived.

 The husband’s first response? Soon after he recovered, he informed authorities that he would not press charges. His second response? He defended his wife’s attempts to kill him. He felt so guilty being sexually “unfaithful” that he thanked his wife! He then reproposed to her. She verbally abused him, then accepted.

I Love You to Death was a true story produced as a comedy. Imagine the protests if a true story of a husband attempting to murder his wife was produced as a comedy.

 Is this Husband Defense an isolated example? No. You won’t believe this one. . . . The headline summarizes it: “Woman Who Shot Mate 5 Times Gets Probation.”16

 When Jennifer Eidenschink and her husband, Steven, separated, Jennifer bought a gun. She invited Steven over to remove a deer head from the wall, and then, while his hands were occupied, she unloaded all eight shots from her .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol.17 Five shots entered him—three in the abdomen.

 Steven, an athlete, suffered irreparable nerve damage and a permanent limp that would prevent him from playing the sports that meant so much to him. Jennifer said he had abused her. But because Steven survived, he was able to present evidence that made her acknowledge she was lying.18 The Dane County Court of Wisconsin did not sentence her to a single day in jail or prison . . . just counseling and two and one half weeks of voluntary service. For attempted murder. The judge was influenced by two things: the children’s needs for their mother, and Steven’s testimony on his wife’s behalf.19 But that’s only the beginning. . . .

 When Steven recovered, he moved back in with his wife—just like in the movie! Oh yes, the state did order Jennifer to pay $22,000 for her husband’s medical bills. But Jennifer was not working. Guess who paid his wife’s bill for shooting him?

 It’s easy to think, “Oh, my God, they deserve each other!” But something else is going on here. I call this the Husband Defense because I have yet to hear of a wife providing the legal defense for a husband who premeditated her murder.

 The Husband Defense is quintessential learned helplessness. When women display even a fraction of this learned helplessness, we recognize it not only as a disease but as a disease that overpowers her to such a degree that it can now be used as a defense to kill a man and go free. When a man experiences this learned helplessness, he can never use it to get away with trying to kill her, only to defend her for trying to kill him. It works like this . . .

From: The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell