A week or two ago, I ran a thread to see whether a woman inciting suicidal behaviour from a man would be prosecuted should he have physically retaliated in self defence. Reds and blues alike mocked me, saying that physical violence always trumps emotional abuse. Apparently the law in America does not recognise emotional abuse as a crime. ('Good' news for you Yanks, this OP does not affect you directly, but you might find enlightening regardless.)

Not so anymore in the UK.

Domestic abusers who control victims via social media or spy on them online could face up to five years in prison under a new law which is now in force.

The legislation will target those who subject spouses, partners and family members to psychological and emotional torment but stop short of violence.

It paves the way for charges in cases where there is evidence of repeated "controlling or coercive behaviour".

The Crown Prosecution Service said the type of abuse covered by the new offence could include a pattern of threats, humiliation and intimidation.

It could also involve stopping someone from socialising, controlling their social media accounts, surveillance through apps and dictating what they wear.

Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, said: "Controlling or coercive behaviour can limit victims' basic human rights, such as their freedom of movement and their independence. "This behaviour can be incredibly harmful in an abusive relationship where one person holds more power than the other, even if on the face of it this behaviour might seem playful, innocuous or loving.

Amused mastery anyone?

"Victims can be frightened of the repercussions of not abiding by someone else's rules. Often they fear that violence will be used against them, or suffer from extreme psychological and emotional abuse.

Cases will be heard in magistrates' or crown courts and evidence could potentially include emails and bank records.

This is really quite a touchy subject. On the face of it, this is another step towards equality. No reasonable person wants victims of abuse and DV to suffer in silence, of either gender. However, in practice, I don't expect this bill to be remotely egalitarian.

Consider even the bias of the above image from the BBC; a woman, quaking in fear as touched in a corner of what is obviously an angry, violent man clenching his fist. Always woman: victim, man: aggressor.

Consider also some of the terms that are included under abuse. Stopping someone from socialising. Telling them what to wear. These aren't things regularly inflicted on men. These are all examples of women being victimised.

In particular, consider:

Across the entire western world governments have welcomed this programme and rejected all other attempts at allowing men to attend therapeutic programmes that are primarily aimed at helping men to understand and come to terms with (in most) cases toxic, dysfunctional, abusive parenting. These programmes do not demonise men and do not adhere to the feminist mantra that all men are violent.

In order to double their funding the feminists (both male and female) workers talk about this model as a ‘community based project.’ Part of the community based project is that the women, who in many cases are just as violent as the men they have denounced, are offered ‘community safety worker.’ These workers are assigned to keep the victims safe. The woman is always the ‘victim’ in this model and she has her safety worker who will inform her of her partner’s progress or lack of progress.

She is also in a powerful position because she gets to say if she decides to have her partner back whether he is succeeding in controlling his violence or not. At any time she can tell her safety worker that he is not controlling himself and he will be either imprisoned or removed from the house and barred from seeing his children while he re-enters the programme.

The most commonly-used statistic on domestic abuse is that it affects one in four women and one in six men in their lifetimes. Yet, this takes no account of the relationship between victim and perpetrator (they could be brothers, for example) - or of the gender of the perpetrator.

Simply, the systematic, repeated victimisation of women is being ignored.

[…] It has given rise to what must be one of the most unthinking mantras around domestic abuse: 'Domestic violence doesn't discriminate, why should we?'

It's as though someone 'choosing' to commit a crime against you can be compared to the weather 'choosing' to spoil your picnic. As the true statistics uncovered by Professor Walby unequivocally show, discriminate is exactly what perpetrators of domestic violence (overwhelmingly men) do.

This is not to argue that men are not victims of domestic violence. They are - as the work of the specialist service for male victims, Respect, demonstrates -albeit in relatively low numbers. They tend to experience less severe violence and are less likely to be seriously injured or killed by a current or former partner. And they need support that is specific to their needs.

That means everyone responsible for services - from national policy to local commissioning and delivery - should be turning their backs on gender neutrality.

Domestic abuse could not be further from gender neutral. It is about gender, and so should our response to it be.

The entire article is charged with weasel words pulling the heart strings and guilt-trips inspiring urgency a la sensationalist tabloids, such as 'searing accusation', 'painstaking review' ad 'severe damage'. The weather analogy is nonsensical and near irrelevant. Not appropriate for a broadsheet such as the Telegraph, but happened anyway because, as they misattribute to Voltaire, "to learn who rules over you, find out who you are forbidden to criticise."

  • That Respect is open and therefore male victims are sufficiently accommodated, is a dishonest argument. [Respect is ran by feminists. It uses the Duluth Model. It does not endorse any model but this. It believes that women get provoked into violence by toxic partners, and 'react inappropriately', compassionately teaches them how not to react that way. There is little accountability on the female perpetrator's part.] (http://whiteribbon.org/mega-featured/duluth-model-buries-key-facts-on-domestic-violence/)

*In England our government gave the accrediting of male perpetrator programmes to an organisation called ‘Respect,’ a group administered by ideologically biased feminists. I am not surprised that Respect then refused to accredit any other programmes other than The Duluth Model.

The Duluth Model does have programmes for women who are violent they too can be sent to a similar programme but in their programmes women are taught ‘how not to allow men’s control of them to cause them to ‘react inappropriately.’ Men yet again blamed initiating the violence.

Imagine telling a judge that when you battered your wife, you were 'reacting inappropriately'?

Women's Aid is also promoting educational talks on the 'rape culture epidemic' in campus universities, the consent talks such as that which George Lawlor was named and shamed as misogynist for refusing to attend which we reviewed earlier this month.

The ManKind Initiative has four part-time staff who work alongside volunteers. It receives little funding, with an income of only £49,938 in 2010.[3][17][18]

The organisation receives no government support, relying on donations. Funding partners include: The Tudor Trust, The Lankelly Chase Trust, The Nationwide Foundation, The National Lottery, The Royal Agricultural University, Newman University, Weston-Super-Mare Carnival and Hogg Robinson.[19][20]

4 permanent staff alongside volunteers, £50,000 a year income at last census and no government funding, for a national charity. That is fucking shocking.

Compare to the 10 MILLION government subsidy for women's domestic violence charities thanks to political lobbying.

Fun fact: I once tried to debate a WHTM subscriber on another platform. They basically told me, "I won't debate with you until you first admit that TRP is misogynistic and wrong and then agree with everything I say about entitled Nice Guys." Great debate that.

[How does that work, Polly? How can we live in a culture which endorses horrid behaviour against women and overestimates such behaviour against, yet the general public will socially condemn such behaviour against women yet ignore male victims?] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymkwdf7XPKc)

This doesn't seem to be a law to protect 'abused partners'. This is another law protecting women under the pretence of equality, and on top of this, belittling the stats which drew attention to male victims. In practice, I foresee that the Duluth Model will once again ensure that cyber-stalking an ex boyfriend is just 'casual drunken laughs with the girls' while-as I tried-unblocking an ex girlfriend or wife on Facebook to try and re-initiate contact is 'harassment' and 'patterns of controlling behaviour, if she feels that way. That's 5 years of time for a Facebook friend request or email.

By the sounds of it, the victim's feelings on the matter 'objectively' determine whether the sentence will be valid:

Critical to the offence is the repeated or continuous nature of the conduct and the ability of a reasonable person to appreciate that the behaviour will have a serious effect on its victim.

A defence is also included to provide a further safeguard against inappropriate use of the new offence.

It will apply where the defendant can show that they believed they were acting in the victim's best interests and that their behaviour was objectively reasonable.

An example might be someone caring for a mentally ill spouse, who has to keep them in the home and make them take medication for their own protection or in their own best interests.

Here, the spouse's behaviour might be considered controlling, but would be reasonable in the circumstances.

In order for the offence to apply, the pattern of behaviour alleged must have a "serious effect" on the victim, Home Office guidance says.

This means they must have either feared violence will be used against them on at least two occasions or they have been caused serious alarm or distress which has a "substantial adverse effect" on their usual day-to-day activities.

And the fun part is, I am sure that these people will be monitoring my ISP soon if I continue on the Xemnas account, as suggested by my thread on the Investigatory Powers Bill 2 days ago.

This is why some of us MRAs, once disillusioned feminists waking up to hypocrisies, and many now disillusioned campaigners for egalitarianism, are turning in begrudging resentment to rational self interest; The Red Pill. Because nobody else gives a shit, and attempts to make people give a shit are crushed by the emotional manipulations of the Cathedral.

Discuss. :)