Quote from dad_savage

I agree with those who say that, in theory, this could be good for men. The thing is even those who say 'but the law won't be gender-neutral, it will be bias,' still arn't seeing the full problem. Even if the law were completely gender-neutral it would still unduly target men. All laws do.

Examine Warren Farrel's piece on women who kill, specifically the twelve 'female only' defences, many of these are applicable to every law, regardless of how gender neutral its implementation is. Consider the double-standard in regards to time served when men and women commit the same crimes. Consider that there are something like four-hundred men in jail, in America, for every one woman (most men in prison for drug charges, women are not less prone to use drugs, just less prone to being held accountable) or the fact that in England they're seriously considering the idea of doing away with women's prisons entirely. There are simply deep physiological double-standards which exist for the majority of people including those who make up juries, judges, police and lawyers. Granted some crimes (like rape and sexual harassment) are pretty well designed to target men, and that seems to be their purpose; putting men in jail, but even crimes which do not have that explicit purpose still have a disproportionate effect on men, because of the general level of misandry in society, and the propensity to absolve women of responsibility for their actions.

Women will, of course, be charged on occasion for this crime, but there will always be a reason to soften or nullify their punishment. PMS, Post Natal Depression, refusal to deprive children of their mother, drugs use, drinking, stress, fatigue, etc. I mean if our society refuses to hold women accountable for literally killing their own children, or husbands what makes anyone think it will hold them accountable for being unable to control their mouths?

You make a lot of great points, but please clarify how this law would be
good for men.

Your comments made me think of the descrimination that exists just in describing relationships. People usually describe a woman's husband or boyfriend by saying things such as "He's good man" and "He treats her well", as if it were something being scrutinized or in question. A man's wife or girlfriend, however, is described by such statements as, "He's lucky to have her," "He married up", "He doesn't deserve her." Again, the man is the one whose behavior or qualities are in question, not the woman's. The assumption of guilt for men and innocence for women is fully-ingrained in society to the extent that people are surprised if a man is good or if a woman is bad.

Quote from Dylan MacVillain

Also, children in America are asked by their pediatricians if there are any guns in the home. The government wants to keep tabs on everyone for everything.

In the UK doctors are obligated to ask only female patients whether they are suffering domestic violence, even if the woman only has a flu.

I think this law actually could be advantagous to married men in France; a big part of domestic abuse done by women is psychological abuse, and so this new law clearly must contribute to more convicted terrorizing wives?

Not sure about the law in general though, how effective and provable it would be. How can you really prove the wrecking subtleties of psychological violence?

Quote from Pat Rie Arch

I think this law actually could be advantagous to married men in France; a big part of domestic abuse done by women is psychological abuse, and so this new law clearly must contribute to more convicted terrorizing wives?

In theory more women would 'technically' be committing such abuse, but as we see with every other law that purports to be gender neutral - there is a blatant two-tiered framework of detection and punishment in practice. It's delusional to believe this law will be applied without the usual bias interjecting.

I don't know who trains the judges in France on DV, but in many western countries it's feminist groups who teach (indoctrinate) the judges. Of course, that's a bit like having the klu klux klan train judges on interracial violence. No guesses how decisions are going to go there.

Not sure about the law in general though, how effective and provable it would be. How can you really prove the wrecking subtleties of psychological violence?

Again, we can look at existing ubiquitous examples whereby men are arrested and prosecuted for DV just on the word of the woman alone, no evidence. Do you really think prosecuting psychological violence will be any different? This will be another additional weapon used against men in divorce and child custody disputes. Another nail in the marriage and cohabiting coffin!

Quote from Celtic Druid

In theory more women would 'technically' be committing such abuse, but as we see with every other law that purports to be gender neutral - there is a blatant two-tiered framework of detection and punishment in practice. It's delusional to believe this law will be applied without the usual bias interjecting.

I don't know who trains the judges in France on DV, but in many western countries it's feminist groups who teach (indoctrinate) the judges. Of course, that's a bit like having the klu klux klan train judges on interracial violence. No guesses how decisions are going to go there.


Again, we can look at existing ubiquitous examples whereby men are arrested and prosecuted for DV just on the word of the woman alone, no evidence. Do you really think prosecuting psychological violence will be any different? This will be another additional weapon used against men in divorce and child custody disputes. Another nail in the marraige and cohabiting coffin!

I couldn't put it better. Have we not learned yet that what the law says, and how it is interpreted and enforced, are two often completely different things?

You make a lot of great points, but please clarify how this law would be
good for men.

I said it could be good for men - in theory. Which is to say if there were no double standards, if the justice system were fair, if the law were implemented fairly, it would protect men from emmotional abuse, which we know women are the primary instigators of.