Main Edition
US
FR
Justice is disgracefully hard to come by. Getty Images.
“He would wait until I was relaxed, and then start doing things like making me take off his boots and telling me how ugly I was,” Cheryl tells me. Six months ago, she escaped an abusive man who routinely humiliated her “for fun”. “He would tell me that I stank and that my hair looked like rats’ tails. If I went out to the shops, he would time me and call me on my mobile if he thought I was taking too long. It was like I was a hostage.”
Cheryl’s experience is not uncommon. The most important lesson I ever learned about domestic abuse was when I first met the residents of a refuge where I had volunteered in the Eighties. I had expected the women to have been beaten to a bloody mess of broken bones — and some were — but the majority spoke about living in abject fear of “what would happen next”.
We call it “coercive control” now, but back then, there was no particular language to describe the non-physical abuse that every one of those women had endured at the hands of abusive men. These perpetrators often had no need to lock a woman in a basement or hold a gun to her head — all they had to do was keep them in a state of perpetual fear, while keeping up the façade of a happy relationship.
According to the latest annual Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), coercive control is the most common type of domestic abuse faced by women today. Yet it wasn’t until 2015 that coercive and controlling behaviour was finally made a criminal offence in England and Wales. The law covered any behaviour designed to intimidate, punish or frighten a family member or partner — including isolating them from friends and family; constantly criticising their clothing and appearance; dictating where they could go and who they could see; controlling their finances; and threatening violence.
Now, politicians are promising to crack down even further. Last week, Rishi Sunak vowed to put controlling or coercive behaviour on par with physical violence. This means that offenders sentenced to a year or more in prison for coercive behaviour will now — like violent abusers — be actively “managed” by the police, prison and probation services to avoid future offending. Offenders will be placed on the “Violent and Sex Offenders Register”, and will be required to notify police of any change in name, address, banking or passport information, as well as any foreign travel plans.
The policy sounds good on paper. The problem is that it is rare for any domestic abuser to be arrested — let alone convicted and given jail time. This means that the vast majority of perpetrators will never end up on this register. While the number of police-recorded domestic abuse-related crimes increased by 7.7% in the year ending March 2022, there has been a steady decline in charging, prosecution and conviction for the crime. When it comes to coercive and controlling behaviour, it is even worse: 94% of cases reported to the police last year did not result in a conviction.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI would urge all readers of this article to refer to the 2019 appeal judgment regarding Sally Challen to which this article refers. Its not long and sets out the salient facts succinctly:- https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/916.html
Relevantly:-
Convinced that her husband was having an ‘affair’, she asked a neighbour to spy on him. In 2010 she found out how to access text messages and voicemails remotely and began to access his emails and voicemail messages. She looked at a dating agency website used by the deceased and looked up the names of women with whom he had contact. She checked his Facebook page. She became obsessive about trying to find out what the deceased was doing and with whom.
In June 2010 he agreed to her request for a reconciliation but on condition that the divorce went through and she entered into a “post-nuptial agreement” on terms that were not favourable to the appellant. The appellant was advised by a solicitor to be cautious about entering into the agreement. Nonetheless, she agreed to her husband’s terms.
In the week before the killing, the appellant viewed the deceased’s Facebook page several times, and in particular, she saw an entry for a woman whom the deceased had arranged to meet socially and with others on Sunday, 15 August. On Saturday, 14 August the appellant took a hammer with her and she went to the former matrimonial home to help her husband clear out the house and garage. At about 3.30 pm she went out to buy food for lunch. In her absence the deceased telephoned a woman and left a voicemail message. When she returned, the appellant noticed that the phone had been moved. She called the last dialled number and realised the deceased had called another woman. Knowing he had made arrangements to meet her, the appellant asked the deceased if she could see him the following day. He replied, “Don’t question me.”
She made them something to eat. As he was eating, she took the hammer from her handbag and repeatedly hit him over the head with severe blows. He must have tried unsuccessfully to defend himself because there were nine sites of injuries to his hand and arms consistent with defensive wounds. She then covered his body with blankets and left a note which said, “I love you, Sally”, changed her clothes and went home.
Shortly before midday, she telephoned her cousin and told her she was calling from the car park at Beachy Head. Her cousin immediately called the police and a chaplain. As the appellant walked towards the cliff edge, she was approached by the chaplain, Mr Hardy. She told him that she had killed her husband and said, “If I cannot have him, no-one can.”
The reason that Sally Challen killed her husband had nothing to do with bacon and eggs. It is disappointing that this article implies otherwise. It is also unfortunate that the article implies that Challen successfully appealed her conviction on account of her husband’s supposed ‘coercive control’; in fact the court expressly said that “had it stood alone”, that ground of appeal would not have been sufficient. She was acquitted on the grounds of her mental instability, which may well have been exacerbated by the abusive conduct of her husband.
Even so, a woman who stalks her husband before bludgeoning him to death in a pre-meditated fashion on suspicion of infidelity is indeed a very strange poster-child for victims of domestic violence.
Thank you for posting this and exposing the dishonesty and disinformation laced throughout this article. The author is entitled to her own twisted opinions, but the falsification of the basic facts should not get past the editors.
I’m a psychotherapist. I’ve had at least a dozen male clients who were married to abusive women. One humiliated father of 3 was a judge. The abuse was physical as well as psychological but, apart from the children, I was often the only person who knew what was going on.
I would hazard a guess (from personal experience) that most female on male abuse goes unreported. Men are ashamed, humiliated and terrified of losing their children (and home). They may be threatened with false accusations and financial terrorism.
I have seen battered wives, and I know some men are controlling and abusive, but I have also found that some women have a history of abuse (ie they go from one abusive relationship to another). I am always mystified as to how they ‘fall in love with’ and marry men who have once shown them violence.
So I don’t know if more men than women are abusive to their partners. I do know that more women than men are murdered by partners, but ‘coercive control’ can occur in any relationship where one person has undue influence or power over another.
Thank you for posting this and exposing the dishonesty and disinformation laced throughout this article. The author is entitled to her own twisted opinions, but the falsification of the basic facts should not get past the editors.
I’m a psychotherapist. I’ve had at least a dozen male clients who were married to abusive women. One humiliated father of 3 was a judge. The abuse was physical as well as psychological but, apart from the children, I was often the only person who knew what was going on.
I would hazard a guess (from personal experience) that most female on male abuse goes unreported. Men are ashamed, humiliated and terrified of losing their children (and home). They may be threatened with false accusations and financial terrorism.
I have seen battered wives, and I know some men are controlling and abusive, but I have also found that some women have a history of abuse (ie they go from one abusive relationship to another). I am always mystified as to how they ‘fall in love with’ and marry men who have once shown them violence.
So I don’t know if more men than women are abusive to their partners. I do know that more women than men are murdered by partners, but ‘coercive control’ can occur in any relationship where one person has undue influence or power over another.
I would urge all readers of this article to refer to the 2019 appeal judgment regarding Sally Challen to which this article refers. Its not long and sets out the salient facts succinctly:- https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/916.html
Relevantly:-
Convinced that her husband was having an ‘affair’, she asked a neighbour to spy on him. In 2010 she found out how to access text messages and voicemails remotely and began to access his emails and voicemail messages. She looked at a dating agency website used by the deceased and looked up the names of women with whom he had contact. She checked his Facebook page. She became obsessive about trying to find out what the deceased was doing and with whom.
In June 2010 he agreed to her request for a reconciliation but on condition that the divorce went through and she entered into a “post-nuptial agreement” on terms that were not favourable to the appellant. The appellant was advised by a solicitor to be cautious about entering into the agreement. Nonetheless, she agreed to her husband’s terms.
In the week before the killing, the appellant viewed the deceased’s Facebook page several times, and in particular, she saw an entry for a woman whom the deceased had arranged to meet socially and with others on Sunday, 15 August. On Saturday, 14 August the appellant took a hammer with her and she went to the former matrimonial home to help her husband clear out the house and garage. At about 3.30 pm she went out to buy food for lunch. In her absence the deceased telephoned a woman and left a voicemail message. When she returned, the appellant noticed that the phone had been moved. She called the last dialled number and realised the deceased had called another woman. Knowing he had made arrangements to meet her, the appellant asked the deceased if she could see him the following day. He replied, “Don’t question me.”
She made them something to eat. As he was eating, she took the hammer from her handbag and repeatedly hit him over the head with severe blows. He must have tried unsuccessfully to defend himself because there were nine sites of injuries to his hand and arms consistent with defensive wounds. She then covered his body with blankets and left a note which said, “I love you, Sally”, changed her clothes and went home.
Shortly before midday, she telephoned her cousin and told her she was calling from the car park at Beachy Head. Her cousin immediately called the police and a chaplain. As the appellant walked towards the cliff edge, she was approached by the chaplain, Mr Hardy. She told him that she had killed her husband and said, “If I cannot have him, no-one can.”
The reason that Sally Challen killed her husband had nothing to do with bacon and eggs. It is disappointing that this article implies otherwise. It is also unfortunate that the article implies that Challen successfully appealed her conviction on account of her husband’s supposed ‘coercive control’; in fact the court expressly said that “had it stood alone”, that ground of appeal would not have been sufficient. She was acquitted on the grounds of her mental instability, which may well have been exacerbated by the abusive conduct of her husband.
Even so, a woman who stalks her husband before bludgeoning him to death in a pre-meditated fashion on suspicion of infidelity is indeed a very strange poster-child for victims of domestic violence.
Women do all this to men too.
There’s a report in the Telegraph about a woman who brutalised her husband for two decades. She’s been jailed for four years, would a man receive a longer or shorter sentence I wonder.
Clearly, men do this far more than women and Julie’s work in trying to prevent this is honourable and important but just a little nuance now and again would be welcome.
I am not so sure men do this far more than women. Ally Fogg (progressive but honest) quoted that domestic abuse was about evenly divided, and the majority was a sort of ‘reciprocal violence’ rather than coercive control. Except for the most violent bits – here men (being stronger?) did far more than women.
Indeed, Christina Hoff Sommers wrote about this 25 years ago in Who Stole Feminism? An awful lot of feminist ‘research’ is driven by ideological possession & misandry rather than the desire to get to the truth.
I should have been clearer. It was the violence and especially the violence that causes damage is attributable mostly to men. Women are just as capable of manipulation and vindictiveness.
Not quite, Jonathan. Women do resort to violence. It’s the kind of violence that counts here. Usually, women rely on weapons at hand: throwing cups of scalding coffee, dishes of hot food, knives and so on. Sometimes, they get male friends (or hire male strangers) to do the dirty work for them. Only when women lack weapons or accomplices are they more likely than men to be seriously injured, given that (most) men are physically bigger or stronger than (most) women.
Not quite, Jonathan. Women do resort to violence. It’s the kind of violence that counts here. Usually, women rely on weapons at hand: throwing cups of scalding coffee, dishes of hot food, knives and so on. Sometimes, they get male friends (or hire male strangers) to do the dirty work for them. Only when women lack weapons or accomplices are they more likely than men to be seriously injured, given that (most) men are physically bigger or stronger than (most) women.
Agreed, this kind of psychological abuse is as open to women as to men. I think the only difference is that usually men have the physical size to protect themselves if it became physical, but we all know it’s not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. So that doesn’t follow automatically. Like many stats on men v women there is an overlapping and slightly offset bell curve. With the extreme being the very aggressive men prone to extreme violence.
I would agree. I have witnessed far more women than men exhibiting controlling/abusive behaviour.
Indeed did not Ms Bindel fess up to some behaviour along these lines in a BBC documentary
Wouldn’t be surprised. Kind of like psychologists going into the biz to figure themselves out.
Wouldn’t be surprised. Kind of like psychologists going into the biz to figure themselves out.
Indeed, Christina Hoff Sommers wrote about this 25 years ago in Who Stole Feminism? An awful lot of feminist ‘research’ is driven by ideological possession & misandry rather than the desire to get to the truth.
I should have been clearer. It was the violence and especially the violence that causes damage is attributable mostly to men. Women are just as capable of manipulation and vindictiveness.
Agreed, this kind of psychological abuse is as open to women as to men. I think the only difference is that usually men have the physical size to protect themselves if it became physical, but we all know it’s not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. So that doesn’t follow automatically. Like many stats on men v women there is an overlapping and slightly offset bell curve. With the extreme being the very aggressive men prone to extreme violence.
I would agree. I have witnessed far more women than men exhibiting controlling/abusive behaviour.
Indeed did not Ms Bindel fess up to some behaviour along these lines in a BBC documentary
I am not so sure men do this far more than women. Ally Fogg (progressive but honest) quoted that domestic abuse was about evenly divided, and the majority was a sort of ‘reciprocal violence’ rather than coercive control. Except for the most violent bits – here men (being stronger?) did far more than women.
Nonsense law, nonsense article.
“As the appellant walked towards the cliff edge, she was approached by the chaplain, Mr Hardy. She told him that she had killed her husband and said, “If I cannot have him, no-one can.”
It may be the author’s background, but she has a really weird idea of what marriage is. She wants to criminalize men who are “criticising her clothing and appearance; dictating where she could go and who she could see; controlling her finances”. This model of marriage is apparently a man and woman coming together for cohabitation, meals, and maybe sex, but otherwise, living separate lives in whicih the interests and opinions of the other are irrelevant.
To be blunt, why shouldn’t a husband have an opinion about how his wife dresses, who she socializes with, or how she spends money? It would be weird if he didn’t. And that goes both ways; she’s entitled to opinions about his choices in those areas too. And in love, each submits to the other’s will to the greatest degree possible. That’s marriage. Julie Bindel’s civil-union / cohabitation / friends-with-benefits arrangement is not.
Women do this to other women, as well. Psychopathy is prevalent in both sexes (and wasn’t it Julie who coined the term “cry-bullies”?). I am sympathetic to all those who are, as Dr. Peterson puts it, too “agreeable” and therefore vulnerable to the psychopaths, but it is in no way a man vs woman phenomenon. Just look at what middle school girls do to their “friends”. I went through it myself in 7th Grade – long before the invention of social media.
Julie Burchill came up with cry bullies.
I have a little interest in Bindel’s writing but Burchill is superb even when I think she’s talking bollocks
Julie Burchill came up with cry bullies.
I have a little interest in Bindel’s writing but Burchill is superb even when I think she’s talking bollocks
There’s a report in the Telegraph about a woman who brutalised her husband for two decades. She’s been jailed for four years, would a man receive a longer or shorter sentence I wonder.
Clearly, men do this far more than women and Julie’s work in trying to prevent this is honourable and important but just a little nuance now and again would be welcome.
Nonsense law, nonsense article.
“As the appellant walked towards the cliff edge, she was approached by the chaplain, Mr Hardy. She told him that she had killed her husband and said, “If I cannot have him, no-one can.”
It may be the author’s background, but she has a really weird idea of what marriage is. She wants to criminalize men who are “criticising her clothing and appearance; dictating where she could go and who she could see; controlling her finances”. This model of marriage is apparently a man and woman coming together for cohabitation, meals, and maybe sex, but otherwise, living separate lives in whicih the interests and opinions of the other are irrelevant.
To be blunt, why shouldn’t a husband have an opinion about how his wife dresses, who she socializes with, or how she spends money? It would be weird if he didn’t. And that goes both ways; she’s entitled to opinions about his choices in those areas too. And in love, each submits to the other’s will to the greatest degree possible. That’s marriage. Julie Bindel’s civil-union / cohabitation / friends-with-benefits arrangement is not.
Women do this to other women, as well. Psychopathy is prevalent in both sexes (and wasn’t it Julie who coined the term “cry-bullies”?). I am sympathetic to all those who are, as Dr. Peterson puts it, too “agreeable” and therefore vulnerable to the psychopaths, but it is in no way a man vs woman phenomenon. Just look at what middle school girls do to their “friends”. I went through it myself in 7th Grade – long before the invention of social media.
Women do all this to men too.
Emma Pattinson may not be the best example to use. The last article I read on the terrible case said that husband had to call the police on her for beating him and that it was hushed up for fear of her career. Is this even disputed by the author? Why can this not be discussed in the same way as Sally Challen? Or the case of the prison reform chief who was yesterday given 20 years for beating her husband? I thought this last would be at least mentioned in the article seeing as it was in the papers but no, not relevant.
Unfortunately Julie Bindel is so myopic that she doesn’t realise that the law just introduced would be more appropriately used against women (see paragraph 4). I am sure most men reading “criticising of their clothing or appearance” or “isolating them from friends or family” will have had a twinge of recognition without ever having considered it abuse. Unherd would do better to get a men’s rights activist on this topic as they don’t deny the abuse of women at the hands of men but just give balance to the common wisdom that abuse is only ever inflicted by men on women. There was no mention of abuse suffered at the hands of gay/lesbian couples which again would make an interesting article by someone who knows their stuff – perhaps this author?
Research into domestic abuse which doesn’t look into the abuse suffered by men is advocacy, not terrible in and of itself but something to bear in mind when reading the link the author includes.
Just looked up the article on Emma Pattison striking her husband – in 2016 police attended and arrested her. He had no previous record of violence towards partners and was “quiet and introverted”. This is not to say he couldn’t have abused her (of course he could) but all the articles prior to that on the website were full of people saying it was such a shock, they were a perfect family, she was a faultless wife etc., those articles should be updated with a little asterisk.
I would suggest Deborah Powney as someone who could do this for Unherd.
The prison rights woman got four years
Just looked up the article on Emma Pattison striking her husband – in 2016 police attended and arrested her. He had no previous record of violence towards partners and was “quiet and introverted”. This is not to say he couldn’t have abused her (of course he could) but all the articles prior to that on the website were full of people saying it was such a shock, they were a perfect family, she was a faultless wife etc., those articles should be updated with a little asterisk.
I would suggest Deborah Powney as someone who could do this for Unherd.
The prison rights woman got four years
Emma Pattinson may not be the best example to use. The last article I read on the terrible case said that husband had to call the police on her for beating him and that it was hushed up for fear of her career. Is this even disputed by the author? Why can this not be discussed in the same way as Sally Challen? Or the case of the prison reform chief who was yesterday given 20 years for beating her husband? I thought this last would be at least mentioned in the article seeing as it was in the papers but no, not relevant.
Unfortunately Julie Bindel is so myopic that she doesn’t realise that the law just introduced would be more appropriately used against women (see paragraph 4). I am sure most men reading “criticising of their clothing or appearance” or “isolating them from friends or family” will have had a twinge of recognition without ever having considered it abuse. Unherd would do better to get a men’s rights activist on this topic as they don’t deny the abuse of women at the hands of men but just give balance to the common wisdom that abuse is only ever inflicted by men on women. There was no mention of abuse suffered at the hands of gay/lesbian couples which again would make an interesting article by someone who knows their stuff – perhaps this author?
Research into domestic abuse which doesn’t look into the abuse suffered by men is advocacy, not terrible in and of itself but something to bear in mind when reading the link the author includes.
‘The first time it was mentioned in a court of law was in 1782, when a judge stated that a man may beat his wife so long as he uses “a rod not thicker than his thumb”. ‘
Straightforwardly not true. No such law has ever existed and (AFAIK) no judge ever endorsed it. There’s no clear record of the judge JB refers to (Sir Francis Buller) saying it – he was widely pilloried on the basis of a rumour he’d done so but there seems to be no hard evidence. It certainly didn’t establish a precedent that was used in other cases.
It’s a spurious explanation for the origin of the innocuous phrase ‘rule of thumb,’ to which (consistently horrified) reference has been made in wife-beating cases over the years to emphasise that “we don’t tolerate this sort of thing any more.” It was hearsay then and it’s hearsay squared now.
‘The first time it was mentioned in a court of law was in 1782, when a judge stated that a man may beat his wife so long as he uses “a rod not thicker than his thumb”. ‘
Straightforwardly not true. No such law has ever existed and (AFAIK) no judge ever endorsed it. There’s no clear record of the judge JB refers to (Sir Francis Buller) saying it – he was widely pilloried on the basis of a rumour he’d done so but there seems to be no hard evidence. It certainly didn’t establish a precedent that was used in other cases.
It’s a spurious explanation for the origin of the innocuous phrase ‘rule of thumb,’ to which (consistently horrified) reference has been made in wife-beating cases over the years to emphasise that “we don’t tolerate this sort of thing any more.” It was hearsay then and it’s hearsay squared now.
Ceorcive people hide in plain sight.
Ceorcive people hide in plain sight.
Julie,
If the coercive behavior is domestic abuse then this is NOT a single gender issue.
There are PLENTY of husbands out there who would tell you that their wives subject them to this kind of behavior all the time.
You see a great many broken men who have been subjected to this.
Might be time to do some research. I doubt you will ever solve this problem without understanding how universally human these behaviors are. We just notice it more when men physically beat women a) because of the damage they are capable of doing and b) because as a society we have a particular abhorrence to women being assaulted.
But, if I had to lay a bet, it would be that more women than men engage in coercive type behavior. It is a battlefield to which they are better suited than men.
.
You should see how my neighbor treats her husband. It makes me weep for that gentle soul.
.
You should see how my neighbor treats her husband. It makes me weep for that gentle soul.
Julie,
If the coercive behavior is domestic abuse then this is NOT a single gender issue.
There are PLENTY of husbands out there who would tell you that their wives subject them to this kind of behavior all the time.
You see a great many broken men who have been subjected to this.
Might be time to do some research. I doubt you will ever solve this problem without understanding how universally human these behaviors are. We just notice it more when men physically beat women a) because of the damage they are capable of doing and b) because as a society we have a particular abhorrence to women being assaulted.
But, if I had to lay a bet, it would be that more women than men engage in coercive type behavior. It is a battlefield to which they are better suited than men.
And in the papers today is the case of a man who was physically and verbally abused by his wife for 20 years. Had he “snapped” and killed her, would Julie Bindel now be campaigning for his release from prison?
Justice for Women is literally a pro-domestic violence organisation, so long as the perpetrator of the violence is female.
What have I learned today? When women are violent, it can be men’s fault. However when men are violent, it’s also men’s responsibility as well.
What have I learned today? When women are violent, it can be men’s fault. However when men are violent, it’s also men’s responsibility as well.
And in the papers today is the case of a man who was physically and verbally abused by his wife for 20 years. Had he “snapped” and killed her, would Julie Bindel now be campaigning for his release from prison?
Justice for Women is literally a pro-domestic violence organisation, so long as the perpetrator of the violence is female.
Coercive women hide in plain sight
See would wait until I was relaxed, and then start doing things like making me take off her boots and telling me how ugly I was,” Charlie tells me. Six months ago, he escaped an abusive woman who routinely humiliated hin “for fun”. “She would tell me that I stank and that my hair looked like rats’ tails. If I went out to the pub, she would time me and call me on my mobile if she thought I was taking too long. It was like I was a hostage.”
Charlie’s experience is not uncommon. The most important lesson I ever learned about domestic abuse was when I first met the residents of a refuge where I had volunteered in the Eighties. I had expected the men to have been beaten to a bloody mess of broken bones — and some were — but the majority spoke about living in abject fear of “what would happen next”.
We call it “coercive control” now, but back then, there was no particular language to describe the non-physical abuse that every one of those men had endured at the hands of abusive women. These perpetrators often had no need to lock a man in a basement or hold a gun to his head — all they had to do was keep them in a state of perpetual fear, while keeping up the façade of a happy relationship.
Coercive control is the most common type of domestic abuse faced by men today. Yet it wasn’t until 2015 that coercive and controlling behaviour was finally made a criminal offence in England and Wales. The law covered any behaviour designed to intimidate, punish or frighten a family member or partner — including isolating them from friends and family; constantly criticising their clothing and appearance; dictating where they could go and who they could see; controlling their finances; and threatening violence.
Now, politicians are promising to crack down even further. Last week, Rishi Sunak vowed to put controlling or coercive behaviour on par with physical violence. This means that offenders sentenced to a year or more in prison for coercive behaviour will now — like violent abusers — be actively “managed” by the police, prison and probation services to avoid future offending. Offenders will be placed on the “Violent and Sex Offenders Register”, and will be required to notify police of any change in name, address, banking or passport information, as well as any foreign travel plans.
How do I complain about the ‘coercive control’ by the government and main stream media? As I read the descriptions, “behaviour designed to intimidate, punish or frighten” I’m pretty sure the behavior over the last few years checks all those boxes.
Another civil overreach, depending on the subjective interpretation of the complainant. Rather like the nonsense categorization of “hate speech” with assault. Next they will prosecute someone for silently praying on a public street! (No wonder fewer young people want to enter into a marriage if one can be criminalized when the magic dims.)
How do I complain about the ‘coercive control’ by the government and main stream media? As I read the descriptions, “behaviour designed to intimidate, punish or frighten” I’m pretty sure the behavior over the last few years checks all those boxes.
Another civil overreach, depending on the subjective interpretation of the complainant. Rather like the nonsense categorization of “hate speech” with assault. Next they will prosecute someone for silently praying on a public street! (No wonder fewer young people want to enter into a marriage if one can be criminalized when the magic dims.)
Coercive women hide in plain sight
See would wait until I was relaxed, and then start doing things like making me take off her boots and telling me how ugly I was,” Charlie tells me. Six months ago, he escaped an abusive woman who routinely humiliated hin “for fun”. “She would tell me that I stank and that my hair looked like rats’ tails. If I went out to the pub, she would time me and call me on my mobile if she thought I was taking too long. It was like I was a hostage.”
Charlie’s experience is not uncommon. The most important lesson I ever learned about domestic abuse was when I first met the residents of a refuge where I had volunteered in the Eighties. I had expected the men to have been beaten to a bloody mess of broken bones — and some were — but the majority spoke about living in abject fear of “what would happen next”.
We call it “coercive control” now, but back then, there was no particular language to describe the non-physical abuse that every one of those men had endured at the hands of abusive women. These perpetrators often had no need to lock a man in a basement or hold a gun to his head — all they had to do was keep them in a state of perpetual fear, while keeping up the façade of a happy relationship.
Coercive control is the most common type of domestic abuse faced by men today. Yet it wasn’t until 2015 that coercive and controlling behaviour was finally made a criminal offence in England and Wales. The law covered any behaviour designed to intimidate, punish or frighten a family member or partner — including isolating them from friends and family; constantly criticising their clothing and appearance; dictating where they could go and who they could see; controlling their finances; and threatening violence.
Now, politicians are promising to crack down even further. Last week, Rishi Sunak vowed to put controlling or coercive behaviour on par with physical violence. This means that offenders sentenced to a year or more in prison for coercive behaviour will now — like violent abusers — be actively “managed” by the police, prison and probation services to avoid future offending. Offenders will be placed on the “Violent and Sex Offenders Register”, and will be required to notify police of any change in name, address, banking or passport information, as well as any foreign travel plans.
“He would wait until I was relaxed, and then start doing things like making me take off his boots and telling me how ugly I was,”
“He would tell me that I stank and that my hair looked like rats’ tails…”
Hi, Julie. I hope you see this question I have for you below. I don’t need an answer but I hope you will consider it. I’ve read enough of your work to know that you generally have a poor opinion of men – pretty much all men – particularly in how they behave towards women. I am not trying to be a jacka** here. A bit of backstory for reference:
After getting divorced about a decade ago, I tried to get to know a few women (just a few). I heard two stories that were similar to the ones like that above. I tiptoed around the question as to why they didn’t walk away earlier, if not immediately. But, there was one question I wasn’t sure I could ever ask, even though they were pretty open about sexual coercion in their marriages. One submitted to a**l sex multiple times and the other was browbeaten awfully into just plain old sex shortly after childbirth. These things left marks on them. In both relationships, we were well beyond the point of just getting to know each other but hadn’t had sex. I think it’s important to point that out due to the question(s) I ‘m going to ask you. Btw, one of them I would have married on the spot if she would have had me. I knew it from the moment I saw her and then it only got worse after I spent an evening with her with her son after she decided to trust me. Believe it or not, Julie, some men are looking for something other than a few tumbles between the sheets before ghosting off to the next conquest. And we’re not the least bit turned on by using abuse or coercion on a women and seeing pain and fear in her eyes. (Still, I’m fairly sure you don’t believe me, based on what I’ve read and listened to from you over the years…just guessing!)
Here’s the question, Julie: Did you ask any of these women you’ve met over the years, whose genuinely terrible stories you’ve documented, whether or not the abuse made them more sexually attracted to these men? Did they like it a little? At least at first? Were these men more sexually exciting? At least initially? Before things changed?
If you did, what did they say? If you didn’t, why didn’t you ask them? I’m genuinely curious. I haven’t had the guts to ask anyone. Even needing to know, I’m not sure I want to see the look in her eyes.
“He would wait until I was relaxed, and then start doing things like making me take off his boots and telling me how ugly I was,”
“He would tell me that I stank and that my hair looked like rats’ tails…”
Hi, Julie. I hope you see this question I have for you below. I don’t need an answer but I hope you will consider it. I’ve read enough of your work to know that you generally have a poor opinion of men – pretty much all men – particularly in how they behave towards women. I am not trying to be a jacka** here. A bit of backstory for reference:
After getting divorced about a decade ago, I tried to get to know a few women (just a few). I heard two stories that were similar to the ones like that above. I tiptoed around the question as to why they didn’t walk away earlier, if not immediately. But, there was one question I wasn’t sure I could ever ask, even though they were pretty open about sexual coercion in their marriages. One submitted to a**l sex multiple times and the other was browbeaten awfully into just plain old sex shortly after childbirth. These things left marks on them. In both relationships, we were well beyond the point of just getting to know each other but hadn’t had sex. I think it’s important to point that out due to the question(s) I ‘m going to ask you. Btw, one of them I would have married on the spot if she would have had me. I knew it from the moment I saw her and then it only got worse after I spent an evening with her with her son after she decided to trust me. Believe it or not, Julie, some men are looking for something other than a few tumbles between the sheets before ghosting off to the next conquest. And we’re not the least bit turned on by using abuse or coercion on a women and seeing pain and fear in her eyes. (Still, I’m fairly sure you don’t believe me, based on what I’ve read and listened to from you over the years…just guessing!)
Here’s the question, Julie: Did you ask any of these women you’ve met over the years, whose genuinely terrible stories you’ve documented, whether or not the abuse made them more sexually attracted to these men? Did they like it a little? At least at first? Were these men more sexually exciting? At least initially? Before things changed?
If you did, what did they say? If you didn’t, why didn’t you ask them? I’m genuinely curious. I haven’t had the guts to ask anyone. Even needing to know, I’m not sure I want to see the look in her eyes.
“A modern folk etymology holds that the phrase is derived from the maximum width of a stick allowed for wife-beating under English common law, but no such law ever existed. This belief may have originated in a rumored statement by 18th-century judge Sir Francis Buller that a man may beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb. The rumor produced numerous jokes and satirical cartoons at Buller’s expense, but there is no record that he made such a statement.”
Come on Julie. A bit of basic fact-checking please.
“A modern folk etymology holds that the phrase is derived from the maximum width of a stick allowed for wife-beating under English common law, but no such law ever existed. This belief may have originated in a rumored statement by 18th-century judge Sir Francis Buller that a man may beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb. The rumor produced numerous jokes and satirical cartoons at Buller’s expense, but there is no record that he made such a statement.”
Come on Julie. A bit of basic fact-checking please.
—
Reporting is going up and conviction going down: so what should the figures be?
The correlation/causation question is neglected in this piece. It is very clear that some individuals, of either sex, gravitate towards conjugal unions in which some element of bullying/victimhood is almost guaranteed. Like a sort of radar, there is a wavelength which connects the two codependents. We hope to raise our children as individuals with some personal ballast. Economic independence doesn’t hurt either. In a healthy society, the State should mostly keep out of family life. Bureaucrats in loco parentis would mean we are all abused children.
I scrolled down to the discussion section with every expectation that most of the comments would be from men, saying that women are abusers too, and that this problem has to be seen in the context of abusive wives.
Ding Dong!
So not really a problem then? Despite all statistical evidence to the contrary….
Sigh
You clearly have not read the comments and only respond to what you really wanted the comments to have been. Who actually said “ this problem has to be seen in the context of abusive wives.” Or who implied “ So not really a problem then?”
Thank you Penny. Me too.
I am sickened by the ‘what about the poor men?’ response to every piece Julie Bindel writes.
To deny and make excuses for the rampant misogyny alive in this world today, as always; rape, pornography, femicide, prostitution, child marriage, etc.,suggests a fragile and entitled masculinity which must never be challenged.
I despair for our species.
Humans can be horrible. The development of chivalry, gentility and good manners occurred in order to train men to be less horrible, especially towards women. Since the French Revolution and certainly the late 1960s, the Left Wing Middle Class have done their best to undermine gentility, chivalry and good manners. When Mary Whitehouse criticised the amount of sex and violence on television she was ridiculed by women. When Sweden made pornography more easy to obtain few women criticised this change.
The people who have benefitted the most from open borders has been criminals and this has included the trafficing of women for prostitution. White middle class women appear to consider being able to easily obtain female domestic staff at low raters of pay more important than stopping the trafficing of women for prostitution. Julie was written based on her evidence that legalising prostitution will enable criminals to increase trafficing of women and I consider she is correct.
Vast numbers of middle class women in the Police, Education, NHS and Social services must have known about the grooming of mainly white working class girls by men mostly of Pakistani ethnicity and of the Muslim religion, yet we have heared little from them.Why?
If we look at music Motown produced elegant, refined, graceful and dignified singers such as D Warwick and D Ross; today we have rap we glorifies violence and sex: where is the criticism from white middle class women?
By all means criticise men who deserve it but please show me where white middle class, usually Liberal Left women are prepared to sacrifice security and comfort to help their poorer sisters. In WW2 women joined the SOE; served in occupied countries and were tortured and murdered such as Sansom GC, Khan GC and Szabo GC.
Are many Liberal Left middle class white women prepared to join the Police/Security Services and work undercover in order to bring to justice those criminals who harm women?
Humans can be horrible. The development of chivalry, gentility and good manners occurred in order to train men to be less horrible, especially towards women. Since the French Revolution and certainly the late 1960s, the Left Wing Middle Class have done their best to undermine gentility, chivalry and good manners. When Mary Whitehouse criticised the amount of sex and violence on television she was ridiculed by women. When Sweden made pornography more easy to obtain few women criticised this change.
The people who have benefitted the most from open borders has been criminals and this has included the trafficing of women for prostitution. White middle class women appear to consider being able to easily obtain female domestic staff at low raters of pay more important than stopping the trafficing of women for prostitution. Julie was written based on her evidence that legalising prostitution will enable criminals to increase trafficing of women and I consider she is correct.
Vast numbers of middle class women in the Police, Education, NHS and Social services must have known about the grooming of mainly white working class girls by men mostly of Pakistani ethnicity and of the Muslim religion, yet we have heared little from them.Why?
If we look at music Motown produced elegant, refined, graceful and dignified singers such as D Warwick and D Ross; today we have rap we glorifies violence and sex: where is the criticism from white middle class women?
By all means criticise men who deserve it but please show me where white middle class, usually Liberal Left women are prepared to sacrifice security and comfort to help their poorer sisters. In WW2 women joined the SOE; served in occupied countries and were tortured and murdered such as Sansom GC, Khan GC and Szabo GC.
Are many Liberal Left middle class white women prepared to join the Police/Security Services and work undercover in order to bring to justice those criminals who harm women?
Penny, you have received a lot of down votes but no comments and I expect as a result you will dismiss the down votes as simply votes from a lot of misogynists. I have not down voted your comment but unfortunately you don’t address the various legitimate factual criticisms of Julie Bindel’s articles raised by John Freeman, Rasmussen Fogh, Jonathan Smith, Tom Watson and others above nor that Julie Bindel makes no reference to the case of the woman who attacked her husband and controlled him over a long period reported today in the Telegraph.
None of the comments suggest there is”not really a problem” merely that Julie Bindel has presented a distorted and partial article on the problem of coercive control and spousal abuse that tends to impact women more severely because of their comparative size and strength but which is not simply a problem that affects women only.
I have to say I am disappointed that none of the intelligent and sensible female commentators here have chosen to provide a more balanced commentary on this rather poor article rather than leaving it to men to comment. Apart from your own comment and that of Jane Walsh who suggests rather pathetically that the comments are merely “what about the poor men” comments rather than factual criticisms there seems to be a sad lack of sensible female comment.
Just to thank Allison Barrows for her sensible contributions.
Given Julie’s campaigning view on her subject matter and reluctance to provide an accurate take in her articles which are scarcely unheard I do wonder why she is provided a platform so frequently here.
Just to thank Allison Barrows for her sensible contributions.
Given Julie’s campaigning view on her subject matter and reluctance to provide an accurate take in her articles which are scarcely unheard I do wonder why she is provided a platform so frequently here.
Sorry Penny, lots of insensitive commenters on this forum. Downvoting a perfectly reasonable feeling without even bothering to comment on why what you’ve said is worthy of scorn is sadly the order of the day. I hope you will continue to comment, I appreciate your input.
Sigh, indeed. Read my comments. Julie is a prolific and unabashed misandrist.
You make a great point, but it’s not the one you think you’re making.
You clearly have not read the comments and only respond to what you really wanted the comments to have been. Who actually said “ this problem has to be seen in the context of abusive wives.” Or who implied “ So not really a problem then?”
Thank you Penny. Me too.
I am sickened by the ‘what about the poor men?’ response to every piece Julie Bindel writes.
To deny and make excuses for the rampant misogyny alive in this world today, as always; rape, pornography, femicide, prostitution, child marriage, etc.,suggests a fragile and entitled masculinity which must never be challenged.
I despair for our species.
Penny, you have received a lot of down votes but no comments and I expect as a result you will dismiss the down votes as simply votes from a lot of misogynists. I have not down voted your comment but unfortunately you don’t address the various legitimate factual criticisms of Julie Bindel’s articles raised by John Freeman, Rasmussen Fogh, Jonathan Smith, Tom Watson and others above nor that Julie Bindel makes no reference to the case of the woman who attacked her husband and controlled him over a long period reported today in the Telegraph.
None of the comments suggest there is”not really a problem” merely that Julie Bindel has presented a distorted and partial article on the problem of coercive control and spousal abuse that tends to impact women more severely because of their comparative size and strength but which is not simply a problem that affects women only.
I have to say I am disappointed that none of the intelligent and sensible female commentators here have chosen to provide a more balanced commentary on this rather poor article rather than leaving it to men to comment. Apart from your own comment and that of Jane Walsh who suggests rather pathetically that the comments are merely “what about the poor men” comments rather than factual criticisms there seems to be a sad lack of sensible female comment.
Sorry Penny, lots of insensitive commenters on this forum. Downvoting a perfectly reasonable feeling without even bothering to comment on why what you’ve said is worthy of scorn is sadly the order of the day. I hope you will continue to comment, I appreciate your input.
Sigh, indeed. Read my comments. Julie is a prolific and unabashed misandrist.
You make a great point, but it’s not the one you think you’re making.
I scrolled down to the discussion section with every expectation that most of the comments would be from men, saying that women are abusers too, and that this problem has to be seen in the context of abusive wives.
Ding Dong!
So not really a problem then? Despite all statistical evidence to the contrary….
Sigh