BBC show on psychological violence ban
I will be on the BBC radio (along with other guests) show "Have your say" today between 1:30 and 2:30 eastern time talking about the new law in France banning psychological violence. There will be people from around the world calling in to discuss this topic. If you want to listen live, you can go to the BBC website and click on "Listen live" on your far right to hear the show.
Update: Well, I only got a few minutes in but learned a lot. I made the point that if this law was enforced fairly, a lot of women would end up in jail. A french lawyer came on to talk about how the law is written so that men would be included-- that is, a man could also bring charges against his wife if she was emotionally abusive. I pointed out that this sounded good legally but wondered if it would work out this way in practice. How many women would really end up in jail? A man from Kenya heard what I said about men and stated that since women were more expressive, they might end up being the ones charged. It was really interesting to hear perspectives from around the world.
Update: Well, I only got a few minutes in but learned a lot. I made the point that if this law was enforced fairly, a lot of women would end up in jail. A french lawyer came on to talk about how the law is written so that men would be included-- that is, a man could also bring charges against his wife if she was emotionally abusive. I pointed out that this sounded good legally but wondered if it would work out this way in practice. How many women would really end up in jail? A man from Kenya heard what I said about men and stated that since women were more expressive, they might end up being the ones charged. It was really interesting to hear perspectives from around the world.
Labels: media stuff
posted by Helen at 12:47 PM
7 Comments:
I heard your contribution to World Have Your Say this morning and wanted to thank you for it. I am a man and have been a victim of psychological and physical abuse perpetrated by women and until today was unable to fully express my experiences for fear of the very real stigmas applied to male victims in our culture. I resonate with your statements on the show as they echo my personal experience; it has been my observation that we, as a society, assume men are either the instigators or, as you expressed with the example of Tigar Woods, somehow had it coming. I hope to learn more regarding this subject and share these learnings on my own blog. Speaking of blogging I am myself prolific (though a software engineer by trade I've always been a psychologist at heart) but have not followed anyone elses; I plan to change that starting now. Thank you so much for your contribution today and if at all possible I'd like to get in touch by e-mail in order to get access to the studies you'd referenced during the program.
All my best,
- Aslynn
Aslynn,
Thanks so much for commenting. There are so many men who feel unable to express how much psychological damage is being done to them by the anti-male culture. You can reach me by email at violentkids at hotmail dot com if you would like to get in touch with me.
How do you even prove this? How would you even go about proving it short of selectively taping, etc.?
Actually proving, in context, what happened would be nigh impossible in a system that values standards of evidence.
In the absence of hard evidence or an eyewitness (who might be extremely biased, or lying), many domestic cases will end up as she-said he-said. At that point, outcome is dependent on the inclinations of a judge (or jury, if there is one), and culturally today this situation greatly favors the female, at least in the US. Until relevant cultural bias is eliminated, there will not be equality under the law no matter how fairly written. Radical feminists have understood this and pushed certain civil courts toward an automatic "woman victim unless otherwise proven" position for decades.
My money is on this ridiculous law being repealed within 3 years. It's got STUPID written all over it.
In traditional marriages, while husbands and wives might bicker, argue, scold, turn aloof or sullen, and show all manner of arrogance and contempt, men and women somehow managed to resolve conflict, shove it aside or bury it, and to get on with a life together or bail out. It might seem miraculous today that even a few solid relationships could have existed with no government intervention.
In what we might call feminist marriages, which are becoming the norm, either spouse (meaning the woman) is now more than welcome to make accusations against her mate, charging violence, sexual assault, and now bad manners, and all without requiring a shred of objective evidence.
Men could accuse women, of course, but seldom do. Human nature is chivalrous, and we sympathize when men mistreat women but we expect men to take care of themselves. Is it any wonder that the marriage arrangement is falling apart?
I suggest a solution which should be acceptable to everyone (joke). Since we have two forms of marriages, we should provide a choice, and issue two forms of marriage certificates. Those who choose a traditional marriage are expected to work it out together or to get out of it, and assault provisions would apply only to intentional injury (which is assault by any reasonable standard). In contrast, a feminist marriage would allow either spouse(meaning the woman) to bring charges based on anything and everything, and have the alleged perpetrator and former husband removed from the house and handed over to the courts.
Traditionalists should approve, as the arrangement maintains the fundamentals of marriage. Feminists should be pleased (but might not be) to see their programs set into law and fully implemented among those who choose to partake.
A little choice can go a long way. Anyone want to bet how many red-blooded American men and women would choose a feminist marriage?
drD (Richard Driscoll)author of
Opposites as Equals,
with Nancy Ann Davis, PhD
There are already bifurcated marriage systems in many countries. France has a traditional marriage and something I believe called "Pax" which is more like a civil union.
Great Britain and Canada IIRC have Sharia marriages where any disputes are decided by Islamic courts.
In the US we are moving toward something similar with civil unions for gays. Since marriage is a contract it is impossible to see why there should just be one type for everyone. Perhaps we should haggle over the terms a bit more before entering into such an agreement. I can't help but think that a lot of friction could be avoided later on were this the case. We are certainly much more careful in our business dealings to make sure everyone is on the same page.
Post a Comment
<< Home