“Murder in the Feminine” by Lisa Downing is important because it shows us how 19th century perceptions of the female murderer have carried on into modern times. Then and now, accepted social behaviors for men are very different than for women. Debates over what is acceptable for female behavior are generated from popular cases of female murderers, such as the Casey Anthony trial. In the reading, the Casey Anthony of 19th century France was Marie Lafarge, who was demonized for poisoning her husband. In Lafarge’s time, passivity, submissiveness, and maternal instinct were considered to be highly feminine virtues. Naturally, some found it difficult to reconcile society’s perceptions of feminine nature with Lafarge’s cold-blooded and calculated act. In fact, Edith Saunders’s “The Mystery of Marie Lafarge” contained the following:
” ‘I was, at first, very much predisposed to believe her innocent. The cold-blooded murder seemed so impossible an act for the charming, cultured girl to have performed…’ ” (Downing, 124).
Therefore, female murderers such as Lafarge posed a threat to society’s gender expectations and the social order. The social order was particularly threatened by female child- and husband-killers. Note that the following quote could also apply to women who kill their children:
“The husband-killer in particular occupied a special place in such taxonomies of aberration. The woman who killed her husband from the very seat of the prescribed feminine domain of domesticity threatened the social order from within” (Downing, 125).
Because of the contradictions they inflicted upon male dominated societal gender roles, female murders were portrayed as the most deviant of human monsters by 19th century criminologists.
In 2009, Rekha Kumari-Baker was sentenced to a minimum of 33 years for the premeditated murder of her two children, one of the longest prison sentences ever handed to a woman in England! And, the jury only took 35 minutes to reach the verdict! The judge’s words on the case also clearly displayed sexism and society’s expectations for women’s behavior. Note his singling out of mothers. Shouldn’t the judge find it inexcusable that a PARENT could kill their child, not just mothers?
In sentencing, the judge said: “Most people will find it inexplicable that a mother (my emphasis on mother, not the article’s) could kill her own children, and you have given no explanation for it.” He is right, but does it not also seem that we unconsciously accept crimes of this nature that men commit but reserve a special sort of hatred for women?
The article cites previous cases of paternal filicide where the sentences for the father child-killers were either reduced or prosecution was abandoned altogether in lieu of psychiatric treatment! What is amazing is that Kumari-Baker had been treated for depression, yet this was rejected by the jury to be a defense to diminished responsibility.
The article states one way in which society may view a man killing his children:
“As in this case, where men kill their children, no thought for the children as humans is given whatsoever – they are mere cannon fodder in a scheme to extract revenge. Some men kill their children and then themselves if they are depressed and feel hopeless, usually if the mother of the children has left him. Whatever the reasons, entitlement and control are generally at the forefront, along with rage, jealousy, revenge and hatred.”
Then the author juxtaposes this to how mothers who murder their children are viewed:
“The general view on these matters seems to be that men can’t help themselves, but women can. Women are expected to love and care for their children above all else, whereas men can be distant and even cruel but still considered “good enough” fathers.”
While the author and I feel no sympathy for this woman who murdered her innocent children, we would both like to see fathers and mothers who kill their children get similar sentences, and not reserve the lengthier sentences for females due to society’s perceptions of what gender roles should be.
– Kelly Reznick
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/24/rekha-kumari-baker-sentencing
This sort of double standard has always existed. The gender role of women belonging in the domestic sphere. Within this sphere they are expected to be nurturing and take care of the household, the children, etc. So when a mother becomes, not only a bad mother, but a murderer, the shock factor is doubled. How could a mother do this to her children, is the first question that comes to mind–already we have placed the “feminine role” into the equation subconsciously. Using this norm as justification for giving a harsher sentence to a woman opposed to a lesser sentence given to a man who’s committed the same crime is immoral. In Kumari Baker’s case, there was evidence that she had been previously treated for depression. However, this was rejected. Instead what was highlighted by the prosecution is that she killed her children to destroy her ex-husband’s happiness with another women. Now there is this horrible murder with no solid background or context. Not that I would excuse her in any way–murder is murder. However, why was she depressed? How much medication had she been on? Could these meds have made her homicidal? What was her relations with the ex-husband? How would killing her children destroy her ex-husband’s happiness with another woman? The last question in particular seriously confuses me. Instead of asking these questions, all sympathy and possible understanding was pushed aside, and the judge concluded that “most people will find it inexplicable that a mother could kill her own children.” Although I could care less how harsh her sentence was, it’s the principle behind the sentence that annoys me to no end.