Julie Bindel: ‘Criminalising coercive control will not help victims of domestic abuse.’

Our thanks to Nigel for pointing us to this piece by Julie Bindel in the Guardian. In common with all radical feminists she inhabits a parallel universe to our own, in which all victims of interpersonal violence (IPV) are women, all perpetrators men. When I debated with her at Durham University earlier this year, I mentioned some of the official statistics on IPV, which consistently show around 40% of victims are men. Her response was to assert I was claiming an equivalence between women reporting being the victims of extreme violence, such that they were in fear of their lives, with men reporting their partners ‘nagging’. She returns to this familiar theme at the end of her Guardian article:

Many women experiencing this type of abuse will not know what coercive control actually means in law. Not because they are stupid, but for the simple reason that most behaviours defined as such are so commonplace in unequal heterosexual relationships that women have been told to put up with it, and that they are usually to blame.

This law would be used by those men who would categorise what they describe as “nagging” as coercive control.

In reality, it would be almost impossible to prove coercive control in a court of law, which means that only the most extreme cases will be acted upon. Most women who report it therefore will be left with the already widely held belief that those who report domestic violence are exaggerating or unhinged. Rather than tying us up with even more unworkable legislation, let us push even harder for the current laws to be used to arrest, charge and convict those men [our emphasis] who are currently getting away with violating those they claim to love.

Ms Bindel erroneously branded me a liar during the Durham debate, and phoned me to apologise for having done so. I asked her to apologise publicly, given that the lie had been stated publicly in front of an audience of 250+ students, but she declined to do so. I then published this account of the matter.

Not one of the feminists to whom we’ve awarded ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ awards – Ms Bindel isn’t one of them, at this stage – has ever retracted her lie(s), let along apologised. We’ll shortly be presenting Caroline Criado-Perez with her second ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award, for an utterly absurd claim – one commonly stated by feminists, despite being debunked many times – she made in the online edition of the New Statesman. Her first award certificate is here.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • and would likely be misused by vindictive men claiming that being “nagged” or prevented from seeing their children constituted the crime.

    Ms Bindell makes clear contempt for men and specifically identifies as vindictive men who arecdenied legitimate Access to their children. In Britain women are in contempt of court by frustrating court mandated contact by dads. Yet sanctions are not enforced. Clearly this is both abuse of men and of children.
    For Ms. Bindell and her ilk the risk of an abuse law is that it splits the debate from violence. So farther feminists have done well hooking into the ancient animus against men hitting women. To the extent of extending “violence to all sorts of non violent behaviours.