Hurrah! Nagging wives to be jailed!

HUSBANDS who keep their wives downtrodden could face prison under new plans set out by the Government today.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, published proposals for a new offence of “domestic abuse” designed to criminalise men who bully, cause psychological harm or deny money to their partners.

The law would make the worst cases of non-violent “controlling behaviour” a jailable offence.

Exact terms of the offence are yet to be defined, but it could involve humiliating, frightening or intimidating a partner, keeping them away from friends or family or restricting their access to money.

Because in our modern world we do have equality before the law for each and every gender, do we not?

Given that description the wife who won’t let a bloke wander off to the pub for a natter with £15 for a few beers gets put in pokey.

And quite right too of course.

That is the way it will work, isn’t it?



27 thoughts on “Hurrah! Nagging wives to be jailed!”

  1. I’m very much looking forward to the end of restrictions on my access to money. And so is my wife.

  2. Seriously, restricting a wife’s access to money will be a criminal offence? Doesn’t every man do this to some degree, out of pure common sense more than anything? Might as well make the UK the prison and the interior of HMPs the free state.

  3. Obviously there can be serious domestic issues but in their attempts to make the situation seem much worse than it actually is, I recall that at one point the feminist militia had widened the definition of domestic abuse to giving someone a ‘stern look’.

    But, Tim, you’re bang on the nail that the domestic abuse agenda is written solely in terms of nasty evil men v poor innocent women and whilst there are such situations the idea of a nasty evil woman seems to pass officialdom by.

    Take for example the endlessly quoted “two women a week are murdered by their partner” line. Statistically the number over the past few decades has been between 80 and 100 so putting the sleight exaggeration to one side, what about the 40 to 60 men killed each year over the same time-frame? Ever heard a minister say “one man a week is murdered by their partner”? No, nor me.

    (I expect the men deserved it. They were probably evil and the poor innocent woman had finally had enough)

  4. “Although the new domestic abuse offence is mainly designed to protect wives and girlfriends from male partners”

    So not getting married is no protection.

    “it will apply equally to men being targeted by women”

    Sure it will. Just don’t expect the feminist-trained CPS or our female-friendly judiciary to take your complaints seriously if you have a penis.

    “Women’s Aid, one of the groups working with the Home Office on the proposals, highlighted the case of a mother-of-two whose abusive marriage illustrated the kind of relationship that could be covered by the law.

    She suffered years of psychological abuse from her husband who, she said, would “put me down”, hide her possessions and “scream” at her if she came home late.

    “I wasn’t allowed any money for myself,” she said. “He would spend £200 a week at a strip club; I had to give a comprehensive budget of everything I was spending.”

    Because divorce is illegal in this country, or something.

    new offence would strengthen protection for people in relationships with each other, and could also cover abuse between family members and ex-partners.

    It’s a charter for bitter ex-wives to persecute their former husbands. No need to make false rape or kiddy fiddling allegations any more, you can get him criminalised and stop him seeing his kids just for being a bastard.

    Polly Neate, the chief executive of Women’s Aid, said: “This is a vital step forward for victims of domestic violence.

    “Two women a week are killed by domestic violence, and in our experience of working with survivors, coercive controlling behaviour is at the heart of the most dangerous abuse.”

    Typical woman’s attitude – the law can somehow force men to be nice. Note the sleight of hand in bringing murder – which is illegal – into a conversation about inventing a new crime to jail men who are merely “controlling”.

    But since she brought up domestic violence, this won’t stop women who are excited by dangerous men from shacking up with them and enabling their behaviour any more than existing laws against battery do. And that’s the dirty little secret of why abusive relationships persist even in our liberal society – a lot of women are turned on by violent, domineering men.

    So we have a “conservative” government which is supposedly “pro-family” seeking to further insert the blunt force of the criminal justice system into what we traditionally assumed was private family life. But we’d better all vote for the Little-Endians to keep the Big-Endians out, eh?

  5. This’ll ease the housing crisis! No more couples separating and taking up two homes, just chuck the man in prison.

  6. “The number of domestic abuse cases referred by police for prosecution reached a record high of 103,500 last year.

    Conviction rates for this type of crime have increased from just under 60 per cent in 2005-06 to nearly 75 per cent in 2013-14”

    I am probably being very thick here, but why are NEW laws needed?

    If the police / courts managed 75% for burglary, that would be a miracle.

  7. PF has it. This is a very roundabout way, fraught with unintended consequences of tackling an imported cultural problem, more easily but less sensitively solved by demanding women speak English, show their faces and stop marrying cousins.

  8. > Ljh

    The intention is there, but you can bet the implementation phase will be characterised by a substantial loss of nerve.

    One more law designed to rein in minority community excesses, ending up applied to WASPs alone.

    Soon they will ban female genital mutilation and only enforce the ban on vajazzlers.

  9. Ian B – agreed. Even if this was some disguised attempt to curb Islamic domestic abuse (and it’s not, and the authorities are so terrified of being called racist that they allowed Muslim rape gangs to prey on English girls for well over a decade and seemingly aren’t interested in ethnic voter fraud either), it wouldn’t work.

    Because – even if they are, to outsiders’ eyes, oppressed – there’s no reason to believe Muslim women in general want to change their situation.

    But it’s clear where this is heading. Your kids feel they’re not loved enough because they don’t get the latest iPads and trainers? Soon it’ll be a criminal matter. Had arguments with your wife over her spending? The police will intervene to decide if you were a big bully or not.

    If we pass enough laws, everybody will be nice.

  10. Realistically, like all bad laws this will be watered down until its main victims are people too unfashionable for the establishment to want to defend. There won’t be mass lawsuits against men.

    What is nauseating to me is the leftist establishment’s ability to control the debate in this country. There’s barely a murmur against the feminist lobby’s conflation of word and deed.

    Life in Britain these days seems to be regulated by the little girls who would cry “um, I’m telling” at primary school – grown up but not much.

  11. Life in Britain these days seems to be regulated by the little girls who would cry “um, I’m telling” at primary school – grown up but not much.

    Yup, like the mate of mine who went internet dating with a woman of 40 in London a few months back. She was somewhat of a dick to him so he, being rather pissed off, told her exactly what he thought of her. Next thing she’s gone running to plod who immediately dished out a harassment warning and threats of arrest. That’s modern feminism for you: things get tough, run for a policeman.

  12. I’ve been peddling this quote I dug out of Catharine Mackinnon’s Towards A Feminist Theory Of The State a bit over the past few days-

    Formally, the state is male in that objectivity is its norm. Objectivity is liberal legalism’s conception of itself. It legitimates itself by reflecting its view of society, a society it helps make by so seeing it, and calling that view, and that relation, rationality. Since rationality is measured by point-of-viewlessness, what counts as reason is that which corresponds to the way things are.

    Mackinnon is probably Feminism’s primary legalist, who can take more credit than anyone else for legalist Feminism. It’s hard to find a pithy Mackinnon quote because she’s such a terrible writer, but this gives an idea of her legalist basis for the Feminist state; objectivity is a male trick to maintain male power. The court system that enshrines “point-of-viewlessness” is articulating the patriarchy. Ergo, the only way to achieve justice for the victims of men (women and children) is to actively abandon objectivity and insert a deliberate point of view. The concept of the objective is discarded as a lie, and the Feminist subjective becomes the guiding principle.

    This is what is occurring in our courts (and across the Western world). You cannot take these policies on face value. They are not intended to address genuine issues or crimes. They are part of an ideological and political programme, the purpose of which is to create a State powered not by the “male objective” but the “feminist subjective”.

  13. Tim N, that’s most of feminism in a nutshell – I’m a strong independent woman, and as soon as I get men to invent my iPhone, pay for my maternity leave and lock up other men who make me feel uncomfortable, you’ll see then that I just don’t need a man. No siree.

  14. Charlie Suet – “There won’t be mass lawsuits against men.”

    True. But the threat will be there, dangling over the head of every husband and parent.

    The term “Orwellian” is horribly overused, but a common feature of repressive societies is the overwhelming range of ways the State can “get” people and the resulting tendency for people to behave as if they’re constantly being watched. We’re headed that way, bit by bit.

  15. If I invite a friend to the pub and he says he’ll have to ask his Mrs for a pass, should I call the police or social services?

  16. Steve – You say that “a lot of women are turned on by violent, domineering men”. And your evidence for that would be…what? Or did you just make it up?

  17. @Churm

    Straight from the horses mouth:

    ” I have a bit of a weird relationship with “traditional masculinity”. I’ve looked critically at it enough to know how much damage it does as a paradigm. I’ve seen the harm it can do to both men and women on an individual level. I’ve been subject to the violence it encourages. But despite all that, holy shit does it ever turn me on.


    There’s just something about assertiveness (let’s be real, sometimes flat out arrogance) that does it for me. No matter how much I can be attracted to someone emotionally and intellectually, my swoons only happen when confronted by a powerful, competent man.

    This has lead to some issues in my personal life. Who knew being attracted almost exclusively to men that inherently make bad partners wouldn’t work out well for me?”

  18. Andrew: “I recall that at one point the feminist militia had widened the definition of domestic abuse to giving someone a ‘stern look’.”

    Blimey. Paddington Bear could end up doing porridge for giving Mrs Bird a Hard Stare.

  19. Churm Rincewind – see Gary’s post. If you’re looking for scientific evidence, I’m sure you can find studies via Google. Like this one:

    Results indicate that dominance and the traits associated with it predict men’s mating success, but attractiveness and the traits associated with it do not.

    My personal conclusions are based on observation. Ever wondered why so many women prefer “bad boys”? Ever wondered why so many women throw themselves at violent convicts, even murderers on death row?

    Ever wondered why women in abusive relationships return to violent men time and time again? It’s not because they’re unable to leave.

    Steve’s back-of-a-fag-packet hypothesis: aggression and dominance in males equals evolutionary fitness. Women are drawn to dominant men because of thousands of generations of sexual selection for male aggression as a trait not only increasing the chances of quality (in Darwinian terms) offspring, but also because the aggressive male is more likely to be able to defend his women and children from other men.

    Just as exaggerated sexual characteristics help peacocks and monkeys and other animals find a mate, the same goes for humans.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *