“Yes, your bum does look big in that” to be a crime


Husbands who constantly criticise their wives over their weight or appearance may be guilty of domestic abuse, a Labour frontbencher has suggested.

If telling the wife that she’s got a bit porky is to be domestic abuse then what phrase do we then use for someone who belts their wife with an iron bar?

Seriously people, we’ve got to get back to having a sense of proportion.

And I assume that nagging a husband about his beer belly also qualifies as this new abuse? And if not why not?

15 thoughts on ““Yes, your bum does look big in that” to be a crime”

  1. It’s the Feminist demand that the “male” objective be replaced by the “female” (that is, feminist) subjective. I refer everyone again to Ms. Mackinnon’s legal theories which underwrite it all-

    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.

    -in other word, the liberal State’s legal system, by seeking objectivity (i.e. focussing on evidenced, recognisable acts) is intrinsically “male” and can only reflect the patriarchy. Feminist legalism must thus reflect the subjective; it’s not what is true, but what the woman feels, subjectively, to be “true”, for her. Abuse is what she feels to be abuse, rape is what she feels to be rape, etc.

  2. Because wimmin bad-mouthing men is not abuse per se, it’s constructive criticism and the man deserved it anyway as being male is a crime in itself. Anyone else noticed the correlation between the mass closure of the man’s place of refuge, the local pub, and the increasing incidence of domestic violence?

  3. Ok, that’s fine.

    But remember adultery? Is there anything quite so mentally abusive as having a bit on the side?

    So if you can get banged up for the “bum’s too big” I would suggest that MPs – who seem to have a habit of shagging a third party – should be summarily executed next time they play the field.

  4. Labour has no problems with their Government constantly harassing people about their weight, though. What a bunch of wankers.

  5. I think I said this before, but it appears that they intend to criminalise about 90% of the marital interactions depicted in soap operas. Stan and Hilda Ogden would presumably be serving life terms.

    I mean, if this were going to be gender neutral, which it obviously isn’t going to be.

  6. If you are going to jail for criticising her you might as well beat the shit out of her. And the costumed thugs they send for you. If your life is to be ruined over trivialities–you might as well do something to deserve it.

  7. Hmmm. I’m going to take the view that her comments require more context. From memory, the article quotes her as saying that comments about appearance may be an indicator of futureabuse. I didn’t read anything (it was a cursory glance) that suggested she was saying that comments themselves are a form of abuse. The article itself even acknowledges that she distinguishes from snide remarks.

    I’m quite happy to take a swipe at pols who say daft things, but I don’t think this is one of those occasions.

  8. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Judging by the pictures, that Seema Malhotra could do with a bit of Atkins.

    And James, unless you think Minority Report was a documentary, ‘indicators’ of future crimes* (if crimes they be) cannot be used as an excuse for persecuting people in the here and now.

    * other than things like ‘going equipped’, which need to have a pretty high bar set to be justly indictable.

  9. As it appears to only relate to husbands abusing their wives, I would like to proffer a truly neo-liberal response to this new law by setting up a service that will anonymously pass on constructive criticism to said spouse on behalf of a husband for a small fee (to cover admin costs, etc).

  10. indicator of future abuse… ?

    Crikey …. in terms of forecasts … if Labour get enough seats we’re all in for some future abuse.

    No doubt the lady has a team of party gophers and “motivated interns” feeding her this drivel. All convinced they can bring in laws to amend human behaviour to conform with their own ideas…

    I hope her despicable colleagues in Rotherham get their just deserts – but that seems unlikely. It would be nice to see her cornered and asked about Rotherham … – yes, I might pay to see that …

Leave a Reply

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