So you skewed the post below to apply to men only?
Once again, do you have a link?
Would you agree that it's possible for equality to be enshrined in law, and for legislation to be gender neutral, but for the enforcement and interpretation of such laws to be subject to social bias which frustrates equality? Equal pay would seem an obvious example but this too is certainly not free from them. I'm just saying that we can't point to legislation being gender neutral as evidence that a problem of sexism has been solved or avoided.
It really has to be seen as part of a pattern. As an example, a wife might 'nag' her husband into going to the doctors, because she's worried about him. Or she could have a little moan now and again because he keeps on leaving the toilet seat up. On the other end of the spectrum she might constantly complain about everything he does, belittle him, call him useless, etc. Where is the line between nagging and emotional abuse?
It's a similar situation to having a laugh and a joke. When one person is always the butt of the joke, or where the joke is always about something they are particularly sensitive about, then it can escalate from joking to bullying.
Exactly. These things occur on a spectrum and almost everybody has dismissed the issue by alluding to one particular end of that spectrum. Where does banter turn to bullying, where do compliments turn to sexual harassment, where does nagging turn to emoitonal abuse?
Exactly. These things occur on a spectrum and almost everybody has dismissed the issue by alluding to one particular end of that spectrum. Where does banter turn to bullying, where do compliments turn to sexual harassment, where does nagging turn to emoitonal abuse?
That line is different for everyone, maybe that's why it's hard to legislate. I would say however that the line is crossed when the person on the receiving end decides it has.
I came to the conclusion years ago some people just don't see mess like others do. I don't see that as a reason not to marry someone I love, there are worse things in life than that.
Yes I agree Molliepops. In my marriage, my husband is the one most likely to nag, because he sees mess. I don't. I also forget things I said I'd do. I'm in no way abused because of this nagging, and he's right to do it. I shouldn't need to be nagged at, but no-one is perfect, including my husband. He has his faults too, but we love each other anyway. No reason not to be married.
Would you agree that it's possible for equality to be enshrined in law, and for legislation to be gender neutral, but for the enforcement and interpretation of such laws to be subject to social bias which frustrates equality? Equal pay would seem an obvious example but this too is certainly not free from them. I'm just saying that we can't point to legislation being gender neutral as evidence that a problem of sexism has been solved or avoided.
Of course it's possible.That wasn't my point. I've found the link I was requesting . As I thought it's not what the poster was claiming at all. It's a much needed addition to the existing law on domestic abuse..
1. Does the current law adequately provide sufficient protection to victims of
domestic abuse?
85% of respondents felt that the current law does not provide adequate protection for
victims. Most identified a gap in the law around patterns of coercive and controlling
behaviour, particularly where the behaviour occurs during an ongoing relationship,
whether with a partner or family member.
“Current legislation is not sufficient; it largely reinforces an approach based on
single physical incidents, rather than capturing the patterns of power and coercive
control within an ongoing relationship as detailed in the Home Office definition
change of March 2013. These failings mean that the police do not have all the tools
that they need and that Criminal Justice System cannot effectively intervene, nor
translate and consequently penalise the crime before the abuse has escalated. For
many this is too late…” Law Reform Campaign
I also don't believe this was the intention of the thread, judging by the obvious sexist element of the OP and lack of any real example of "henpecking" or "nagging".
I was just adding another reason missed by the poster.
My mam and dad have 'nagged' each other for more than 50 years. As my dad is dying from a brain tumour, he's nagging my mam even more - go to bed, look after yourself, etc. Their 'nagging' is lovely.
That line is different for everyone, maybe that's why it's hard to legislate. I would say however that the line is crossed when the person on the receiving end decides it has.
I am pretty sure that, as with the Public Order Act section on harrassment, the burden of proof will be set very high. No one expects or wishes to see courts clogged up with pointless cases about "she's always going on about my farting"/ "he's always horrible when I buy myself new clothes". The Crown Prosecution Service is not only comprised of human beings, but of ones under pressure to reduce the cost of criminal trials; they will be very unlikely to want to bring anything short of a long-term campaign of real fear and humiliation to court.
My husband has nagged me to buy marmite 3 times this week! Don't know how many times I have to tell him that I don't go shopping at xmas and he'll have to bloody wait for some marmite!
My husband has nagged me to buy marmite 3 times this week! Don't know how many times I have to tell him that I don't go shopping at xmas and he'll have to bloody wait for some marmite!
A house with no marmite! How could you? You will be first in the queue if the new legislation comes in.
Should 'nagging' and being 'henpecked' be more widely accepted by society as being emotional and domestic abuse?
These things are quite often wrapped up in a convenient 'humorous' tag, when in fact in reality they can be something quite sinister.
No you could not lump it all in together . Nagging / henpecking someone to clean up after themselves or help with the shopping or help with tidying because they never do or to finish a job they started six months ago is not domestic abuse in any way shape or form.
Deliberate psychological bullying to control or demean someone is very different and is a form of abuse and just as damaging as violence.
A house with no marmite! How could you? You will be first in the queue if the new legislation comes in.
I do feel a bit bad, but in the midst of trying to remember sprouts and other random Christmas food needed I clean forgot we were low on marmite. I am a bad bad wife! I hate the stuff myself but he likes to lather it on his toast and he's having to make do with Philadelphia
I am pretty sure that, as with the Public Order Act section on harrassment, the burden of proof will be set very high. No one expects or wishes to see courts clogged up with pointless cases about "she's always going on about my farting"/ "he's always horrible when I buy myself new clothes". The Crown Prosecution Service is not only comprised of human beings, but of ones under pressure to reduce the cost of criminal trials; they will be very unlikely to want to bring anything short of a long-term campaign of real fear and humiliation to court.
I get that, but I guess what I was getting at is when the person on the receiving end decides that the bullying/aggressive behavior has crossed the line, they have options that don't involve criminal proceedings. If it's a work situation, they can speak to HR or their supervisor, if it's a domestic relationship, they can seek counselling or consider leaving their partner. Perhaps more discussion about this kind of topic is a good thing, making people aware that they don't have to put up with behavior they find distressing. Not every case of emotional abuse needs to end up in court, but for those unable or too afraid to fight back, maybe they need a law if one doesn't already exist to help get them out of it.
While I agree that we shouldn't be seeking to clog up the already over-burdened courts, there has to be some kind of acknowledgement that new laws sometimes need to be enacted to cover issues that come up. Things like cyber-bullying, for example, people would have laughed it off 20 years ago, thinking how ridiculous that someone could bully you from the other side of a computer.
That line is different for everyone, maybe that's why it's hard to legislate. I would say however that the line is crossed when the person on the receiving end decides it has.
See, that's an attitude I find a bit worrying too.
I mean, by all means leave somebody if you find that you can't abide them nagging or picking their nose or criticising you or snoring loudly or failing to do the washing-up or whatever but an irritating trait should not be considered a criminal offence just because it's something that you, personally, are offended by.
The whole "it's abuse if the 'victim' feels abused" thing is nonsense.
See, that's an attitude I find a bit worrying too.
I mean, by all means leave somebody if you find that you can't abide them nagging or picking their nose or criticising you or snoring loudly or failing to do the washing-up or whatever but an irritating trait should not be considered a criminal offence just because it's something that you, personally, are offended by.
The whole "it's abuse if the 'victim' feels abused" thing is nonsense.
I elaborated my reply somewhat to wonkydonkey. ^Up there.
See, that's an attitude I find a bit worrying too.
I mean, by all means leave somebody if you find that you can't abide them nagging or picking their nose or criticising you or snoring loudly or failing to do the washing-up or whatever but an irritating trait should not be considered a criminal offence just because it's something that you, personally, are offended by.
The whole "it's abuse if the 'victim' feels abused" thing is nonsense.
I'm pretty sure none of that falls under the terms of the new law so pick, snore etc. to your heart's content.:D
Of course it's possible.That wasn't my point. I've found the link I was requesting . As I thought it's not what the poster was claiming at all. It's a much needed addition to the existing law on domestic abuse..
I also don't believe this was the intention of the thread, judging by the obvious sexist element of the OP and lack of any real example of "henpecking" or "nagging".
Whatever the true intentions of the OP, this thread does appear to demonstrate a certain amount of cultural bias in our approach to female on male abuse (of any kind really). Most people, when considering "coercive and controlling behaviour" in the context of relationships would only imagine male on female emotional abuse, while also dismissing or trivialising female on male emotional abuse, yet extreme "nagging" certainly falls within the definition of coercive and controlling.
Whatever the true intentions of the OP, this thread does appear to demonstrate a certain amount of cultural bias in our approach to female on male abuse (of any kind really). Most people, when considering "coercive and controlling behaviour" in the context of relationships would only imagine male on female emotional abuse, while also dismissing or trivialising female on male emotional abuse, yet extreme "nagging" certainly falls within the definition of coercive and controlling.
As on DS we are supposed to stick to the OP's theme, I'm not in the least surprised.
Unless henpecking and nagging are automatically assumed to be either sex traits.
I'm not sure if the OP has clarified what he meant. I've asked but haven't had a reply.
I would also never only think of domestic abuse, of any kind, to be male on female.
No you could not lump it all in together . Nagging / henpecking someone to clean up after themselves or help with the shopping or help with tidying because they never do or to finish a job they started six months ago is not domestic abuse in any way shape or form.
Deliberate psychological bullying to control or demean someone is very different and is a form of abuse and just as damaging as violence.
Why is the definition of nagging only limited to justified requests? What about nagging someone to lose weight? Nagging them to dress differently? Nagging them to buy gifts?
I do feel a bit bad, but in the midst of trying to remember sprouts and other random Christmas food needed I clean forgot we were low on marmite. I am a bad bad wife! I hate the stuff myself but he likes to lather it on his toast and he's having to make do with Philadelphia
A bad, bad wife, you say.... I think you'd better get on his toast instead, he might just forgive you then.
Comments
Would you agree that it's possible for equality to be enshrined in law, and for legislation to be gender neutral, but for the enforcement and interpretation of such laws to be subject to social bias which frustrates equality? Equal pay would seem an obvious example but this too is certainly not free from them. I'm just saying that we can't point to legislation being gender neutral as evidence that a problem of sexism has been solved or avoided.
Exactly. These things occur on a spectrum and almost everybody has dismissed the issue by alluding to one particular end of that spectrum. Where does banter turn to bullying, where do compliments turn to sexual harassment, where does nagging turn to emoitonal abuse?
Nobody is suggesting otherwise Mollie
That line is different for everyone, maybe that's why it's hard to legislate. I would say however that the line is crossed when the person on the receiving end decides it has.
Yes I agree Molliepops. In my marriage, my husband is the one most likely to nag, because he sees mess. I don't. I also forget things I said I'd do. I'm in no way abused because of this nagging, and he's right to do it. I shouldn't need to be nagged at, but no-one is perfect, including my husband. He has his faults too, but we love each other anyway. No reason not to be married.
I was just adding another reason missed by the poster.
Of course it's possible.That wasn't my point. I've found the link I was requesting . As I thought it's not what the poster was claiming at all. It's a much needed addition to the existing law on domestic abuse..
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389002/StrengtheningLawDomesticAbuseResponses.pdf
I also don't believe this was the intention of the thread, judging by the obvious sexist element of the OP and lack of any real example of "henpecking" or "nagging".
My mam and dad have 'nagged' each other for more than 50 years. As my dad is dying from a brain tumour, he's nagging my mam even more - go to bed, look after yourself, etc. Their 'nagging' is lovely.
If seriously nagged or seriously hen-pecked then yes.
It depends on the severity and I think people need to apply logic as to what is and what isn't domestically abusive.
I am pretty sure that, as with the Public Order Act section on harrassment, the burden of proof will be set very high. No one expects or wishes to see courts clogged up with pointless cases about "she's always going on about my farting"/ "he's always horrible when I buy myself new clothes". The Crown Prosecution Service is not only comprised of human beings, but of ones under pressure to reduce the cost of criminal trials; they will be very unlikely to want to bring anything short of a long-term campaign of real fear and humiliation to court.
I think some of us will have been guilty of doing that at some time, myself included.:D
A house with no marmite!
Main example of a hate/hate marriage would be that of Mr and Mrs Pugh...
"Here's your arsenic dear, and your weedkiller biscuit..."
No you could not lump it all in together . Nagging / henpecking someone to clean up after themselves or help with the shopping or help with tidying because they never do or to finish a job they started six months ago is not domestic abuse in any way shape or form.
Deliberate psychological bullying to control or demean someone is very different and is a form of abuse and just as damaging as violence.
I do feel a bit bad, but in the midst of trying to remember sprouts and other random Christmas food needed I clean forgot we were low on marmite. I am a bad bad wife! I hate the stuff myself but he likes to lather it on his toast and he's having to make do with Philadelphia
I get that, but I guess what I was getting at is when the person on the receiving end decides that the bullying/aggressive behavior has crossed the line, they have options that don't involve criminal proceedings. If it's a work situation, they can speak to HR or their supervisor, if it's a domestic relationship, they can seek counselling or consider leaving their partner. Perhaps more discussion about this kind of topic is a good thing, making people aware that they don't have to put up with behavior they find distressing. Not every case of emotional abuse needs to end up in court, but for those unable or too afraid to fight back, maybe they need a law if one doesn't already exist to help get them out of it.
While I agree that we shouldn't be seeking to clog up the already over-burdened courts, there has to be some kind of acknowledgement that new laws sometimes need to be enacted to cover issues that come up. Things like cyber-bullying, for example, people would have laughed it off 20 years ago, thinking how ridiculous that someone could bully you from the other side of a computer.
See, that's an attitude I find a bit worrying too.
I mean, by all means leave somebody if you find that you can't abide them nagging or picking their nose or criticising you or snoring loudly or failing to do the washing-up or whatever but an irritating trait should not be considered a criminal offence just because it's something that you, personally, are offended by.
The whole "it's abuse if the 'victim' feels abused" thing is nonsense.
I elaborated my reply somewhat to wonkydonkey. ^Up there.
I'm pretty sure none of that falls under the terms of the new law so pick, snore etc. to your heart's content.:D
Whatever the true intentions of the OP, this thread does appear to demonstrate a certain amount of cultural bias in our approach to female on male abuse (of any kind really). Most people, when considering "coercive and controlling behaviour" in the context of relationships would only imagine male on female emotional abuse, while also dismissing or trivialising female on male emotional abuse, yet extreme "nagging" certainly falls within the definition of coercive and controlling.
As on DS we are supposed to stick to the OP's theme, I'm not in the least surprised.
Unless henpecking and nagging are automatically assumed to be either sex traits.
I'm not sure if the OP has clarified what he meant. I've asked but haven't had a reply.
I would also never only think of domestic abuse, of any kind, to be male on female.
Why is the definition of nagging only limited to justified requests? What about nagging someone to lose weight? Nagging them to dress differently? Nagging them to buy gifts?
A bad, bad wife, you say.... I think you'd better get on his toast instead, he might just forgive you then.