Thursday, August 21, 2014

Criminalizing dominance

Apparently since women are such helpless flowers, it is necessary to pass laws preventing the men with whom they are having sex from making them feel bad about themselves:
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.
If humiliating a partner or keeping them away from their friends is to be a criminal offense, I suspect considerably more women will be at risk of jail than men. Of course, we all know that despite the fig leaf of the prospective law's theoretical application to both sexes, the devil will be in the enforcement details. 

Social dominance can be interesting. The other day, I was at a party where one woman was holding a small group of men and women hostage as she moaned on and on about the various travails of her life. I was reluctant to join them, but I liked several of the people who were shooting me "kill me now" looks, so I felt it behooved me to rescue them So, I sat down, and promptly wrestled the conversational dominance away from the woman by turning each statement of hers into a question directed at a different individual.

Before long, everyone was contributing something to the conversation and the former monologuist had fallen silent. Within six minutes of my arrival, she sullenly stomped off, deprived of her audience. In most cases, direct confrontations are not required to establish dominance. It is usually sufficient to undermine whatever tactic the dominant individual is using to maintain his hold over the others. In the case of women, it usually the solipsistic technique of relating every possible subject back to themselves.:

Woman: "It's so hot today!"

Monologuist: "Oh, I know! I was just talking to my grandmother in Sante Fe, and can you believe it, it's hotter here than it is there! I was telling her, it's the middle of August and here I am wearing a sweater. I don't know if you know it, maybe you haven't seen it, it's the blue one I wear sometimes and I knitted it myself--"

Man: "So! I heard Manchester United lost this week--"

Monologuist: "Oh I LOVE soccer! You know, Jimmy, he's my youngest, he starts playing soccer in two weeks, and can you believe it, he doesn't have any shoes! So we were going to go shopping for them at the mall tomorrow, but I heard you can get better prices from the specialty stores. But I need to go to the craft shop, I'm working on a new sweater, you see..."

After three or four abortive attempts at changing the subject, most people just give up and suffer in silence. But the breathless monologuist is very attuned to how other people are submitting to her or not, and so you only have to cut her off and force a topic change three or four times before she'll give up and go in search of easier prey.

There is no need to say "Shut the fuck up, you narcissistic bitch! No one here gives even a quantum of a damn about your fucking sweaters, the present state of little Jimmy's podiatriac wardrobe, or the temperature in Santa fucking Fe!" Although sometimes it is tremendously tempting.

36 comments:

Crowhill said...

The state certainly seems like the perfect replacement for the husband for a modern woman. She wants somebody to protect and provide for her, but who isn't going to control her and tell her what to do.

Uh ... good luck with that. When does the state ever step in to help and not end up trying to control things?

sigbouncer said...

"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."

I understand where they are going with this. As after these power and control tactics finally start to fail. One would have to surmise (in many cases) physical violence would follow to accomplish these goals. I get what they are striving for here. But, it will be disaster for many an innocent male. Based on how easy the courts will make it to get a conviction.

The world is full of liars. Making laws where one person can say "he/she did this" with little burden of proof needed to back the accusation is just assinine in this day and time. Hell over half the population doesn't even believe in God. What do you think it means to those people when they are asked to put their hand on the bible and are directed to tell the truth?

sigbouncer said...

"The other day, I was at a party where one woman was holding a small group of men and women hostage as she moaned on and on about the various travails of her life. I was reluctant to join them, but I liked several of the people who were shooting me "kill me now" looks, so I felt it behooved me to rescue them So, I sat down, and promptly wrestled the conversational dominance away from the woman by turning each statement of hers into a question directed at a different individual.

Before long, everyone was contributing something to the conversation and the former monologuist had fallen silent."


Haha, well done sir...classic.

Salt said...

Tremendously tempting? At times it's delicious.

jimmy-jimbo said...

I stopped going to parties a long time ago.

Another reason for men to not marry. Or perhaps this is grounds for divorce (more likely).

everybodyhatesscott said...

If you're going to go to jail anyways, you might as well earn it. People respond to incentives.

peoplegrowing said...

I've been that woman. I've learned to take a hint (although sometimes I'm still slow). So, out of my solipsism and and all, I want to thank Vox for using (and describing the use of) such a tactic, which is about the kindest way I can think of to deal with the insufferable speaker.

JCclimber said...

Another example of women hearing horrible things about what goes on in muslim homes, or in the movies, or in thug culture houses.....
and think to themselves "We must pass a law to help these poor downtrodden womyns." And everyone else goes along because they've watched the same movies and tellie shows and read the same newspapers.

No one stops to realize that the women they are trying to help will not utilize these laws just as they don't utilize the laws already on the books to "help" them. It will be the hapless deltas once again who get the shaft as another stick is handed to the power hungry feminists.

Vox said...

I've been that woman. I've learned to take a hint (although sometimes I'm still slow)

Good for you. Here is the key. I've notice that solipsistic monologuists are often talking with their eyes nearly closed. They derive great pleasure from hearing their own voice. So, when you are talking, look at your audience. Are they engaged, leaning forward, eyes open, encouraging you to go on, or are they sitting back, slumped and defeated, not making eye contact with you?

If the latter, stop talking! Ask them a question or two. Encourage them to talk. The skilled conversationalist is not the one who can hold an audience, but one who can encourage others more reticent to engage. And don't be in a hurry to agree or amplify what others are saying. Learn to sit back and listen.

Owen said...

This has excellent black knight possibilities.

Even if they don't result in convictions, it's clogging and bogging the system, pulling people from comfy pedestles, and watching as they can't undo laws like this - once passed - because JUSTICE.

Cranberry said...

Oh, you know my SIL? Like peoplegrowing, I've been that woman too. I learned to STFU shortly after I started dating my husband. He never said anything to me, but his actions spoke volumes. I later met his sister, now my SIL, and realized just why he would turn off his ears when I started talking too much. I started to watch how other women talk to each other, and resolved to do the opposite of them. Like Vincent Vega, I try to listen, rather than wait to talk.

Eowyn said...

Was about to share a relevant story, then realized I'd be guilty of the very offense committed by the example in this post, relating the subject back to me. There has to be a way to train yourself not to constantly do that. Is it possible?

Cranberry said...

JCclimber, you've hit it. British women are threatened by the presence of submissive, faithful, religious women. No matter that this law is not specifically addressed to them; it's a reaction to the threat they represent. Despite my dislike of Moslems, they do have cohesive communities and high fidelity from their women (I know, beheading is a powerful demotivator for adultery).

Laws like this would be laughable if they didn't have such grave implications. I wonder if it's not a taunt, like a misbehaving child just daring his father to strike him and put him in his place. When does the revolution start, already?

Crowhill said...

I've notice that solipsistic monologuists are often talking with their eyes nearly closed.

That's an interesting observation. A physical manifestation of the attitude that "the only thing that matters is me speaking."

sigbouncer said...

"then realized I'd be guilty of the very offense committed by the example in this post, relating the subject back to me. There has to be a way to train yourself not to constantly do that. Is it possible?"

Yes it's called Cognitive Thinking. Vox uses it here all the time.

Corvinus said...

The state certainly seems like the perfect replacement for the husband for a modern woman. She wants somebody to protect and provide for her, but who isn't going to control her and tell her what to do.

Uh, the state does the other thing too. What do you think bureaucracy is?

Booch Paradise said...

I stopped going to parties a long time ago.

I hear you, but there are actually 2 types of parties.

In highschool I learned to simply not go to parties thrown by certain people.

But there was one guy who would throw parties that generally involved games of volleyball, basketball (probably 21, not actual official games), football (again, more like have 10 guys kick the ball to 1 guy and see how far he can run it back without being tackled than actually football), poker, video games, etc. I never once regretted going to one of his parties.

pancakeloach said...

@Eowyn
I've considered the female tendency to relate topic-relevant stories about themselves as a kind of strategy to strengthen herd bonds - the conversation isn't so much about trading information, but about forging emotional connections with other women (in a friendly group) or establishing social dominance (among those who never matured past middle school). I hear tell that men don't do this and find it rather tedious, so it's not an appropriate behavior for mixed company. I would lean toward keeping references to personal experience down to a brief mention, no more than a single simple sentence, and then passing the conversation to someone else. If people want to know more, they'll ask!

I have to resist the temptation to over-share in comments, too. Obsessively editing helps. XD

------

On the proposed law: restricting their access to money? Would that be their own paychecks, now? Because it sounds suspiciously like it's written so that SAHMs with no income of their own and problems with budgeting will now have legal grounds to steal their husbands' paychecks!

Crowhill said...

Corvinus, re-read what I wrote. We're saying the same thing.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

Another law to make it a crime to be a true husband. And allow a woman to get more cash and prizes in the divorce.

Northern Hamlet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Northern Hamlet said...

Similarly, if during a group conversation someone is cut off and you circle back around not long after and say, oh you were saying... Shows a subtle sense of awareness and command that most people appreciate.

Feather Blade said...

They really are trying to punish people (or convince them to punish themselves) for being married, aren't they?

I can't wait until a sodomite couple falls afoul of this law - that promises to be highly entertaining.

Corvinus said...

Corvinus, re-read what I wrote. We're saying the same thing.

Ha. I see that now.

But the first paragraph you wrote captures women's screwed-up thinking so well, that it doesn't hurt to punch it a second time.

Bob said...

"Another law to make it a crime to be a true husband. And allow a woman to get more cash and prizes in the divorce.

This will hurt even those who are not married, simply living together, or possibly even just in a relationship and not living together! As long as the woman can say she's "psychologically harmed" then she has a case.

Fucking disgusting treatment of men, NO proof is required any more, guilty until proven innocent etc. Also the main thing is that the girls ACTUALLY in violent / super controlling relationships are usually there by their own will! The girls I've seen around or known personally in those type absolutely LOVE their boyfriends (despite the bruises and crying) and would never shop them in!

The only guys who will be harmed by this are those who try to be a good bloke for their woman, or let their guard down. Suddenly they'll go from being a nice, loving guy, to a threatening, super suspicious, paranoid, controlling, vindictive boyfriend, purely because the girl wants a reason to make him look bad to everyone, so she can go fuck someone else. You know the horrid bullshit and lies that girls spout when they're breaking up with you already, (I'm one of the most calm dudes that ever exists , yet I had a "horrifying temper" apparently), imagine what it will be like with the law on their side too? Also define "access to money", who's money, and who "should" have access?

Consider the super-controlling bloke who had fucking CAMERAS allover his apartment, in which he kept his woman like a prisoner, then later threw her off the balcony to her death. His court appearances for that crime were accompanied by a new girlfriend on his arm.. : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514223/Simon-Gittany-guilty-throwing-ballerina-fiancee-Lisa-Harnum-death.html

Retrenched said...

People who make a living fighting "domestic violence" will never run out of "domestic violence" to fight.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand, when there are not enough abusers, one makes them, by declaring so many things to be "abuse" that it becomes impossible for a man to have any kind of relationship with a woman without breaking some sort of law.

Retrenched said...

So if male-led relationships are a crime, that makes female-led relationships the law by default, right? Since its impossible to have a relationship without one party ultimately becoming the dominant one.

haus frau said...

That's why I enjoyed GG's posts for the time she was permitted to comment. I compare my comments and thoughts to her posts and generally end up erasing them out of embarrassment. I'd never even heard of the term "solipsism" before reading here. It's been educational.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

Laws like this will only further push men to abandon marriage and swear off dating altogether. Why bother when you're going to jail over not giving her the right amount of money?

One Fat Oz Guy said...

This is already the legal definition of domestic violence in Australia, which got through with complete gender bias in the Violence Against Women and Children Act (think VAWA).
The was a guy who was charged with it because the company he was working for transferred him to a small town many hours from his and her family.
Being a stay at home wife, she went along with it until these laws took effect, now is taking him for all he's worth because he a domestically violent man doncha know!

Ghost said...

I love that being fiscally conservative is one of the signs of abuse. "He won't buy me new Jimmy Choos! Help help! I'm being oppressed!"

Corvinus said...

@One Fat Oz Guy @swiftfoxmark2

They're really cranking up the shit tests.

So... how do you deal with shit tests? ...

Jack Amok said...

Theresa May, the Home Secretary...

I think I see the problem.

Retrenched said...

Women outnumber and outvote men, and they use their power at the ballot box to elect politicians who pass and enforce laws which make the costs of marriage and relationships prohibitive for men. And then they wonder why men only want them for quick bangs and nothing else.

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/07/zenpriest-10-when-mens-trust-is-gone.html

DT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DT said...

Isnt this hypocrisy? A recent British study found that women are more controlling than men. Why aren't wives being held accountable?
http://antifeministsite.blogspot.com/2014/07/women-are-more-controlling-than-men-in.html

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.