There has been so much to follow in recent times, particularly around the stolen election, the Deep State, and the elites’ obsession with control through coronavirus restrictions, lockdowns, and vaccines.
Meanwhile, a large number of states, including Britain, Canada and Australia, have or are looking to criminalize so-called “coercive control” in relationships.
From The Guardian (archived so you do not need to worry about giving advertising click dollars to them):
“Intimate terrorism” is a phrase used in this article. Whilst no one here will dispute the immorality of banning someone from leaving the house or chaining them in the basement (or behaviors less totally egregious than this but still bad), such instances and someone simply laying down their relationship expectations, for example, are more or less conflated under the amorphous umbrella of “coercive control”.
I have read a large number of so-called “checklists” for coercive control, ones so broad that potentially any major relationship argument could be used against a man retrospectively as a sign of such “control”. It is also very evident that women would never be held to the same standards as men. Even male criticism of a woman’s habits or appearance (pretty relevant if the man rightly feels his partner is letting herself go) seems to easily fall under the definitions being bandied about.
If someone’s family is a bad influence, for instance, their male partner refusing to see these relatives could be construed as “alienation” of the wife or girlfriend from their social circles. The reasoning here, if you can call it that, is going to be abused from the outset.
In addition, as we know from #MeToo, no proof is needed to level female-on-male accusations. Massive inconsistencies or plain lies are merely used as examples of “trauma” or “imperfect victims”.
Why are we seeing this? I have a few theories:
1) The functional reversal of the onus of proof in criminal investigations, prosecutions and trials. Men must show exculpatory texts etc. to challenge a woman’s accusations. Beyond reasonable doubt standards are basically dead for proving guilt.
2) The lack of “epidemic” levels of violence against women, hence the need to broaden the definitions ridiculously. Even with mass hysteria about male behavior, they just cannot find the numbers to match the hysteria.
3) Cultural rot. Beyond the criminal justice system, cultural norms are so degraded that this nonsense will fly. Unchallenged retrospective regret in relationships is a big element of this, too. Hookup culture leads promiscuous women to feel nothing/compromised, leading to a heightened desire to lash out and blame.
4) Cultural Marxists need to continue to instil fear and regulate behavior. The threat of criminal intervention is enough to help further break down gender roles.
This piffle, of course, will never be applied to the stereotypical henpecking wife who demands a man stay away from his friends. A man should never let this happen with his choice of partner in the first place, true, yet male partners are going to be attacked by these legislative measures.
Meanwhile, a large number of states, including Britain, Canada and Australia, have or are looking to criminalize so-called “coercive control” in relationships.
From The Guardian (archived so you do not need to worry about giving advertising click dollars to them):
“Intimate terrorism” is a phrase used in this article. Whilst no one here will dispute the immorality of banning someone from leaving the house or chaining them in the basement (or behaviors less totally egregious than this but still bad), such instances and someone simply laying down their relationship expectations, for example, are more or less conflated under the amorphous umbrella of “coercive control”.
I have read a large number of so-called “checklists” for coercive control, ones so broad that potentially any major relationship argument could be used against a man retrospectively as a sign of such “control”. It is also very evident that women would never be held to the same standards as men. Even male criticism of a woman’s habits or appearance (pretty relevant if the man rightly feels his partner is letting herself go) seems to easily fall under the definitions being bandied about.
If someone’s family is a bad influence, for instance, their male partner refusing to see these relatives could be construed as “alienation” of the wife or girlfriend from their social circles. The reasoning here, if you can call it that, is going to be abused from the outset.
In addition, as we know from #MeToo, no proof is needed to level female-on-male accusations. Massive inconsistencies or plain lies are merely used as examples of “trauma” or “imperfect victims”.
Why are we seeing this? I have a few theories:
1) The functional reversal of the onus of proof in criminal investigations, prosecutions and trials. Men must show exculpatory texts etc. to challenge a woman’s accusations. Beyond reasonable doubt standards are basically dead for proving guilt.
2) The lack of “epidemic” levels of violence against women, hence the need to broaden the definitions ridiculously. Even with mass hysteria about male behavior, they just cannot find the numbers to match the hysteria.
3) Cultural rot. Beyond the criminal justice system, cultural norms are so degraded that this nonsense will fly. Unchallenged retrospective regret in relationships is a big element of this, too. Hookup culture leads promiscuous women to feel nothing/compromised, leading to a heightened desire to lash out and blame.
4) Cultural Marxists need to continue to instil fear and regulate behavior. The threat of criminal intervention is enough to help further break down gender roles.
This piffle, of course, will never be applied to the stereotypical henpecking wife who demands a man stay away from his friends. A man should never let this happen with his choice of partner in the first place, true, yet male partners are going to be attacked by these legislative measures.
