Legalized uxoricide is a radical patriarchist proposal to allow men to kill their wives if they wish. The idea is that a man's having the flexibility to dispose of his property as he wishes will make him less reluctant to enter into marriage to begin with, thus benefiting women by making it easier for them to get quality husbands.
Radical patriarchists recognize that women who have lost their virginity are less valuable in the mate market and therefore if she proved to be an unsuitable mate she might be hard to place. They view euthanasia as potentially a more humane option than turning an unwanted wife loose to fend for herself, which some jurisdictions might frown on anyway, the same way they would frown on turning a domesticated animal loose.
It is theorized that women who have hit the wall might be prime candidates for uxoricide, unless they find some other way to remain relevant and helpful, for example by cultivating a pleasant personality to offset their declining physical beauty.
Neoreactionaries view uxoricide in some cases as a necessary culling of inferior women that can benefit the population as a whole. Culling a troublesome woman frees up resources that can go to give a better life to a higher-quality woman and prevents her from passing on any inferior genes, parenting her children poorly, or otherwise being a nuisance and a disruption to a happy family life.
It is bad for a wife to cook poorly, because this is a crime against her husband's stomach. But this falls in the category of misdemeanors, because they can always order a pizza if she burns the steak. For her to cut her hair short falls in a much more felonious category, that of crimes against her husband's penis, in that she has wrecked her body in such a way that he will not find it nearly as arousing as he did before.
No, by committing a transgression of this magnitude, she has committed an offense so grievous that he could rightfully consider it worthy of death, depending on just how much hair she cut off. If it's only a few inches, a stern warning and a spanking (followed, of course, by rape, as all spankings of a woman should be, preferably in all three of her holes) might suffice. But if she cuts off several feet of hair, to the point that it's basically ear-length and would take years to grow back, then he should consider just killing her and getting a new wife, because this one is unsuitable. If she would that, what else would she do? Best to get rid of her rather than find out the hard way.
Another possibility, though, is just to treat her like shit and use her exclusively as a fucktoy from that point onward in the most degrading ways, essentially relegating her to plate status and denying her all the dignities and privileges that would ordinarily be given a wife. He could relegate her to the status of the lowest of the low, beneath the level of a slave, and more freely take out his aggressions on her, using her as a punching bag.
Uxoricide of adulterous wives and wives raped by men other than their husbands
Less radical proposals for dealing with female adultery would call for an adulterous wife to be executed, but for a wife raped by a man other than her husband to be spared. For example, Deuteronomy 22:22-27 states:
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Radical patriarchists say that her husband can play the role of legislator, judge, jury, and executioner, deciding whether she deserves to die, and for what reason, if any. Nathan Larson describes how this would work:
Suppose you catch your wife in bed with another man, and she cries, 'Help, rape!' In a patriarchal society, you would have the right to kill that man regardless of whether (1) he raped her or (2) she willingly opened her legs to him. Either way, he's getting shot to death.
Under patriarchy, your wife would be your property, and you would be allowed to kill her whenever you want, for any reason you want. She can't cook worth a damn? Or she refuses to suck your dick and lick your ass? Or she's 10 years older than when you met her, and no longer as pretty as when she was 15? That's worthy of execution, at your discretion.
So you caught her with another man. Do you want to believe her story that she got raped? Either way, you can kill her. Maybe you decide that, even if she was raped, you don't want to have a woman around who has had another man's penis in her, so you're just going to execute her. It's up to you.
This would give a wife an incentive, if sexually assaulted by a man other than her husband, to resist as although her life depended on it.