Women commit significantly fewer murders than men and are perceived to be less violent. This belief about women’s non-violence reflects the discourses surrounding gender, all of which assume that women possess certain inherent essential characteristics such as passivity and gentleness. When women commit murder the fundamental social structures based on appropriate feminine gendered behaviour are contradicted and subsequently challenged. This article will explore the gendered constructions of women who kill within the criminal justice system. These women are labelled as either mad, bad or a victim, by both the criminal justice system and society, depending on the construction of their crime, their gender and their sexuality. Symbiotic to labelling women who kill in this way is the denial of their agency. That is to say that labelling these women denies the recognition of their ability to make a semi-autonomous decision to act in a particular way. It is submitted that denying the agency of these women raises a number of issues, including, but not limited to, maintaining the current gendered status quo within the criminal law and criminal justice system, and justice both being done, and being seen to be done, for these women and their victims.

The existing legal definition of rape in England and Wales is gendered, only recognising men as offenders. The law also only recognises as victims of rape those who are penetrated by a penis, either vaginally, anally or orally. This therefore excludes the female perpetrator–male victim paradigm, and more specifically those cases where male victims are ‘forced to penetrate’ female perpetrators. This paper argues that consideration needs to be given to legally recognising and thus labelling forced-to-penetrate cases as rape. Applying a methodology that draws upon the lived experiences of male victims, it is argued that there are significant similarities between compelled-penetration cases and those cases legally recognised as rape, not only because they both involve non-consensual penile penetration, but because there are clear similarities in the aggressive strategies used by perpetrators and the subsequent harms experienced by victims.

This article reports findings from the first empirical study in the United Kingdom on forced-to-penetrate cases, where a man is forced to penetrate a woman either orally, vaginally, or anally with his penis and without his consent. Using an online survey, data were collected in relation to the physical and emotional impacts experienced by 154 men following their most recent forced-to-penetrate experience. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through the use of closed and open-ended survey questions, where participants were asked about the context and circumstances of their most recent experience and whether they had suffered any physical injuries. A unipolar scale was used to measure the emotional impact on participants, with an open-ended follow-up question gathering qualitative data. The majority of participants did not report suffering physical injuries, but those that did suffered injuries to their genitalia and upper bodies. Participants most frequently indicated that their most recent forced-to-penetrate experience had had a severe negative emotional impact on them. Negative emotional impacts disclosed by participants were complex, ranging from anxiety and depression, to self-harm and suicidal thoughts and attempts. Quantitative analysis highlighted that when certain variables were present, participants more frequently reported physical injuries, as well as higher average levels of emotional harm. The findings from the study challenge existing understandings of masculinity and rigid sex and gender roles, which assume that men will always consent to sexual activity with a woman and that they cannot or do not experience emotional or physical harms at the hands of a woman. The findings are also considered in relation their implications for law and legal discourse, where evidence of harm is used as a justification for the criminalisation of certain behaviors and the severity of the legal response through sentencing.

In this article I explore the ways in which legal language, discourses, and narratives construct new dominant identities for women who kill their children. These identities are those of the ‘bad’, ‘mad’, or ‘sad’ woman. Drawing upon and critiquing statutes, case law, and sentencing remarks from England and Wales, I explore how singular narrative identities emerge for the female defendants concerned. Using examples from selected cases, I highlight how the judiciary interpret legislation, use evidence, and draw upon gender stereotypes in carefully constructing macro-narratives which produce gendered identities for filicidal women, thus nullifying the challenge these women pose to appropriate femininity and the motherhood mandate. Each of the narrative identities discussed deny the agency of the female defendants that they are attached to, albeit in subtly different ways, by denying their ability to make any degree of choice in relation to their filicidal actions. Although such identity construction and agency denial may not always be damaging to these filicidal women per se, its pervasiveness within legal discourse reinforces and reproduces damaging gender stereotypes surrounding women and femininity.

“Forced-to-penetrate” cases involve a man being forced-to-penetrate, with his penis and without his consent, a woman’s vagina, anus, or mouth. This article presents the first quantitative and qualitative research findings regarding such cases in the UK, exploring aggressive strategies used by women, as reported by 154 men who experienced them. The most frequently used strategies include coercion, taking advantage of men’s intoxication, and the use of force and threats of physical harm. Novel evidence is presented of women combining multiple strategies within the same incident. The article also argues that some of the strategies used by women are particularly “gendered,” with them taking advantage of their roles as women. The findings presented here raise questions for criminal justice professionals working in the area of sexual violence, as well as highlighting the need for future research.