Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

England And Wales Expand The Meaning Of Domestic Abuse

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • England And Wales Expand The Meaning Of Domestic Abuse

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...domestic-abuse

    This article states that things like psychological and emotional torment are to be treated as arrestable crimes by the police. The article gives some flippant lip service to the idea that men may occasionally suffer from such issues, but then blithely goes on to say that women suffer significantly more greatly. In my experience, women far more often use emotional torment to control men with whom they are in a relationship. As Tim Hunt rightly pointed out, a woman in tears can bring an important process crashing to a halt; a man confronted by a woman in a public space may well experience panic, since there is nothing you can reasonably do other than give in to her wishes, and he may well fear for his safety due to having made sweetie cry. A man experiencing emotional distress becomes an object of ridicule, and therefore likely explains why women so readily report (and thereby can avoid having to be rational or meaningfully argue their position in a relationship) and men are "statistically not suffering at the same rate" (that is, they aren't allowed to).

    The reason I point this out is that it seems to me that men in the west need our own "Roe vs. Wade" moment. We need to find a man genuinely and document-ably in distress due to his female partner, prepare an excellent case, fund some good attorneys (or barristers) and have the woman taken to court for committing emotional abuse. If you consider that the state of Florida in the U.S. was prepared to throw out alimony in family court due to the rising number of men suing for the same, but was overturned due to the "discovery" that it may cause some women that had been dependent upon it for their whole lives to go back to work (without regard for the men who became homeless, imprisoned, or killed themselves due to crippling alimony payments, of course), it seems possible to challenge such hateful sexism if it can be legally turned upon a woman.

    The other thing that it references is the "control of spending" as an abusive (and prison-worthy) offence. I know many men whose wives have happily spent them into penury; my own sister has been bailed out by my father twice for incurring incredible credit card debt (thereby encouraging her more, of course). In my 20 I worked in the mortgage industry in the U.S., and during the underwriting process there were thousands of foreclosure and bankruptcy explanation letters written by men telling of how their ex wives had accumulated tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of (marital) debt that he was unable to control or even outright unaware. In my experience, many women, regardless of how supposedly "modern" they are still consider their husbands to embody the role of "bread winner", and they reciprocally "cake eater"; taking it upon themselves to shovel as many dollars into the Chinese economy as possible. Would it not be abusive to drive a family into ruin as well? Seems like a good candidate for addition to the law, in my opinion.

    I wonder if Mike Buchanan would be interested in my idea of finding a man as a candidate to make a public show of how this law is corrupt by taking his wife to court for violating it. I know the man may feel embarrassed at first, but this is the 21st Century; he would be a hero like Vladek Filler.

  • #2
    I don't see the fact that men suffer from abuse mentioned anywhere in the article. Maybe they edited it out.

    I think this law is a horrible idea. I've been through emotional abuse, it was horrible, and I've had multiple simply brush it off. I also know for a fact that not only feminists, but also mainstream psychologists basically label a man setting boundaries or failing to pander to a woman's emotional immaturity when she's throwing a temper tantrum as abuse.

    And the government also has no right to interfere in the dynamics of a personal relationship unless there's actual violence being committed. That's basically saying that if you get into an argument with your girlfriend, the government can have you arrested. Someone who's a victim of any form of abuse, but especially abuse that's not physical, needs to take responsibility and get out.
    Last edited by Godzeta; 01-05-2016, 04:56 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      It isn't the article that mentions men, it's the abstract from the law, which is linked in the article. https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...y_guidance.pdf

      Comment


      • #4
        While the intentions may be good, I see it as more ammunition for the crazies to fuck up mens' lives. Since you can't tell who's whacko until it's too late, who wants to take fucking chances? I'm glad I'm old enough to take it or leave it when it comes to sex, but I feel sorry for young men who need to fuck. It's like playing Russian roulette: "will this woman completely fuck up my life or not?"

        The more power society gives women to rule mens' lives, the more men are going to say, "Fuck this shit!"

        If I live long enough I'm going to move to Phils and remarry and live there. Fuck the west.
        Last edited by oldblueeyes; 01-05-2016, 03:06 PM.
        Stay single and prosper!

        Comment


        • #5
          I think in the end I would rather my enemy have no weapon, than to have it with the hope I may use it against them.
          Jolie Rouge - The Pretty Red
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          He who learns must suffer
          And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget
          Falls drop by drop upon the heart,
          ...And in our own despair, against our will,
          Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

          - Agamemnon; by Aeschylus(Edith Hamilton's Translation,modified)

          Comment


          • #6
            "I would rather my enemy have no weapon" Jolierouge, that was my drift - I don't see this as a tool for men, but rather something that if the public saw a man using to protect himself would insist that it was a terrible idea since it could be "abused" (you know, used by a man) and demand that it be abolished. Just like the state of Florida wanting to get rid of alimony when men wanted to use it. Unlike alimony, this is new, and it's easier to get people to dislike change than to change something which many have come to like.

            Comment


            • #7
              Just to clarify my intent in my original post; I don't support this law - it's terrible and easy to abuse. Public has been trained to listen to women's "lived experience" while disregarding any issue a man has due to our supposed "privilege". My intent was to rely on the pedantic operation of a courtroom in an open and shut case to get a woman incarcerated for behaviour many men experience daily, thus creating resultant public outcry in order to "protect" further women from being treated the same. It's not dissimilar to how egalitarian activists in the US state of California demand that women's only activities be forced to accept men due to the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex. By using it fairly (although not in its obviously intended manner), it would become odious. It would also give Men's Rights something to point to as an example of how unfairly such things often are, and provide a visible victory over the one-sided political narrative that all problems are inherently male. It could become a rallying point, as I stated previously, like Vladek Filler, instead of just providing us with another long string of Earl Silvermans. We've got enough heroic martyrs like Nathan Hale, we need more Ethan Allens at Ticonderoga.

              Comment


              • #8
                its amazing by now that people still don't get legally and socially men have been put in the category of 'disposable sperm donor with bank account' and no longer 'human being with feelings, thoughts, loves, dreams a spirit etc' as a child female teachers would regularly advocate killing all men as we now have enough sperm in the sperm banks, these were teachers and they WERE teaching us our place if we don't get out from our computers and start using our power...she was teaching us that people will donate far more readily to a donkey shelter than a homeless men's refuge, that its comedy gold to strike a man in his reproductive organs which is sexual assault but a heinous crime if your hand touches a woman's bum by mistake, for the few women left that value us there is hope but unless men start to wield the incredible flaming sword of their spirit again and take back the power we all have within us allwe'll be lobbied, legally demonized and socially vilified in to a corner where we beg to be allowed to have the joy of ever talking to a child without being branded a pervert, where we labor in camps so women can 'have it all' i know this isn't my usual optimistic self but i've recently been severely fucked over by women again and aside from one woman i talk to and the women on here, right now, today i see little hope, maybe tomorrow I'll delete this who knows
                "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."
                Mario Savio

                "A single, seemingly powerless person who dares to cry out the word of truth
                and to stand behind it with all his person and all his life, ready to pay a
                high price, has, surprisingly, greater power, though formally disfranchised,
                than do thousands of anonymous voters."
                Vaclav Havel
                'if you want to know who rules you, look at who you're not allowed to criticise' Voltaire

                Comment


                • #9
                  I may be wrong, but I think that those things are already covered in the US under current domestic abuse laws.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "Give me money!"
                    No
                    "Abuse! Control!"

                    Meanwhile REAL emotional abuse, which %99 of women perpetrate thru nagging, gaslighting and poison-dripping will never be recognized by England's meathead cops and jowled prosecutors.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X