“She controlled how much food I was able to get and when I was able to eat”
When lockdown began, Professor Nicola Graham-Kevan and Deborah Powney decided to research Coercive control of male victims. They were hoping to get 50 participants. 2086 Participants came forward. This is their report.
“I became very skinny, doctors were worried as she controlled how much food I was able to get and when I was able to eat” See page 19.
The report says…
Men are victims of coercive control by women as frequently as women are victims of coercion by men. Men experience a particular form of coercive control through threats to deprive them of contact with their children by women making application to the family court. This can be described as legal and administrative abuse.
Economic coercion is also common as a result of women taking control of finances. Cultural factors seem to lead to men often failing to recognise that they are subject to coercive control and Deborah discusses how this pattern of behaviour is best described, defined and recognised. Deborah describes the research and its results and discusses its significance and how it should influence understanding, education, training and policy about domestic abuse.
I read the research, and it has great information in the data.
It also can’t be referred to, as statistics for all men.
As the researched group, is identified as victims.
We don’t get data, for what ‘normal’ looks like.
It did show less harm, from less bad behaviour.
Similar to accusations, we would make of women’s refuge data.
Very good to see some rare data, on sexual behaviour.
It reinforces the concept, that DV is genderless.
Odds are different for one version or thing, but overall it’s equal.
While how that plays out, is gendered badly for men.
I can imagine different questions, to female victims.
Of what is done with revenge, or threats for example.
How vastly different, family court cases are.
It’s hard to ignore, the harm done to these men.
The statistics for mental health, are not good.
In the research, it’s 8/10 with problems.
And it played a big part, in my own experiences.
I could with similar statistics, test myself.
It leads to the question, of men with underlying conditions.
Showing up in the sample, disproportionately affecting results.
Do men without issues, pick better partners.
Do the slightly dysfunctional men, pair up with bad women.
I have definitely read, of that elsewhere.
What of the normal male, can there mental health fail.
Certainly suicides show, mental health history can be absent.
Why biologically, is the offending and result happening.
Are females forced to have sex, more or less than men.
Is rape by just the worst men, but relatively normal done to men.
There can be many questions, to a piece of data.
“research found that men subject to intimate terrorism are significantly more likely to report trauma symptomology (58%) compared to men who experienced IPV without high levels of coercion (8%) and men who were subject to neither (2%) (Hines & Douglas, 2011).”
So if that’s true, males mental health can be predictable.
A male experiencing mental trauma, is being domestically abused.
As highly violent vs no violence, is a ratio of 29:1.
You can automatically suspect, he is being abused in some way.
Do you treat the mental health, or address the abuse.
If the abuse is ignored, you get more mental health problems.
So in the data, 22% experience being made to have sex.
So if coercive control, is at equal rates.
Then men have high rates, of being sexually abused.
You only need to read actual cases, to know it’s abuse.
Would the male story, get the balance of probabilities test.
As none are prosecuted, presently it’s never get tested.
Certainly things are not equal, in any part or process.
“a product of patriarchal traditions of men’s right to control ‘their’ women, is a form of terroristic control of wives by their husbands that involves the systematic use of not only violence, but economic subordination, threats, isolation, and other control tactics”
Yet the same comment, can be said of matriarchal traditions.
Of ‘their’ men, as a form of terroristic control of husbands.
So in some countries, women are oppressed by tradition.
While even those men, have traditions they must obey.
So in the west feminism, has changed tradition for women.
Women no longer obligated, to be the homemaker.
Are we actually paying attention, if men are changing.
Are those traditional roles, being abandoned by men.
More and more men, choosing childless lives.
Going MGTOW, and not being the provider.
Certainly men burnt by bad relationships, can abandon tradition.
And what exactly, does feminism demand of men.
What new culture does it want, or tradition it’s keeping.
How is tradition changing for women, changing things for men.
Certainly it keeps the tradition, of women getting the kids.
Certainly it keeps the tradition, of men being providers.
Certainly it keeps the tradition, of men being loyal.
So you can expect the opposite, to be a response.
Don’t get the kids anyway, so don’t have kids.
Don’t get into a relationship, so don’t need to provide.
Can live a tinder lifestyle, so no need of loyalty.
In real life, men do respond to there environment and go MGTOW.
If coercive control harms men, what tradition harms them.
Isn’t it all the traditions, that feminism demands of men.
This is a story about a man, and infidelity.
But let’s test it, for coercive control.
It’s also a good girls, bad girls story.
The first part is an explanation, about having kids.
Because he didn’t consent, to the second child.
From his perspective, is he part of the 29%.
Where the male thinks, they intentionally stopped contraception.
“Rachel told her husband she didn’t want to go back to work.”
Which is different, to a period of time off work.
Or time off, before part time work.
He didn’t sign up, to the one income home at a 54% chance.
I blame it, on the matriarchy.
The weight of expectation, to take it like a man.
Geez, she takes the kids on a spy mission.
“she had mostly been the one in the relationship who oversaw the finances.”
That was 71%, of coercive control victims.
Examination of his media, and finances as well.
“in our case we grew in different directions and he took a cowardly path.”
Calling unpleasant names, is 82%.
Actually there’s not much evidence, in her story.
So for media it’s unusual, in how normal the relationship is.
And not that offenders admit it, but violence is missing.
We don’t of course, get his story.
What would we get, if he did the questions in the study.
The flaw is the opposite, in him having so much freedom.
So much time, he had a second life.
Maybe coercive control of freedom, is not all bad.
In that her being slightly stricter, may have stopped it.
Personally I never question, my partners time.
While my partner, keeps a close eye on things.
Previous behaviour, has created a short leash.