It is not surprising that a fanatic (Stark) declares that people should “take on faith” that “the pattern of intimidation, isolation, and control . . . is unique to men’s abuse of women.” Nor is it surprising that a Review Team looking for “coercive control” would find it “99% of the time.” Stark wants faith to replace information. An investigative body confirms his dogma by finding the evidence it wanted everywhere it looked. No surprises there. What is surprising is that educated adults would give any credibility to these idiotic ideas and methods. People like Stark and his allies know that the media will echo their claims so long as the claims favor progressive causes. Dissent from their true religion and you will be branded as a right-wing extremist. Stark and his ilk divide the world into just and sensible people like themselves (progressives, leftists, the righteous and their media megaphones) and hateful bigots (everybody else). There’s intimidation for you, and coercive control, 99% of the time.
If such a s thing as 'coercive control' actually exists, it is guaranteed to be a power tool wielded mostly by woman towards men, not the reverse as claimed. Where do you suppose ex[pressions like 'hen-pecked' or the more modern 'pussy-whipped' come from? Women, as fully formed humans, enact just as much hostility as men, they just do it differently when they express it. Women are past masters of manipulation and meanness, just ask any 15 year old girl.
Yes absolutely. Anyone with any passing life experience, dealing with men and women in various family situations knows full well that women's hostility is the same level as that of men, just expressed more in emotional and psychological terms.
I hope you do a response to this article that first appeared in the Epoch Times. When they cited someone from Australia, my suspicions really went up. I am curious if men killing children went up after courts routinely denied access. This is in no way justifying the murder of children. I am just wondering about the mental aspect or if pharmaceuticals play a part. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/investigations-accuse-family-court-judges-sending-children-danger
I completely agree with you. In LA the county has been sued multiple times because they refused to take children away from abusive mothers whose boyfriends tortured and killed their children. Or you have mothers who stay with men who sexually abuse their daughters. This needs to be brought to the forefront. It is not to weaken women - it is to elevate their status as capable humans. In this case, the capability to participate in evil. But I believe if you deny my ability to do evil, you deny my ability to be a true human being. We have certainly seen this with the lockdowns with female politicians seeming more vicious and gleeful than their male counterparts.
Erin Pizzey, identified these women as family Terrorists, and examining the proposed laws, it is basically legalising the female practise of relational aggression. Adding another tool the arsenal.
Ongoing horror story; my son is appearing in court on Monday 20th, former partner and her daughter alleged rape; false allegations ad infinitum, perjury; no consequences for them; guilty; in his words "I haven't done anything". Appealing, but he's in the depths of depression and unable to get medical help; this mother not coping too good either! Family support.
Women get away with perjury often , and the message gets around that they can falsely accuse a man of the most terrible crimes like rape and even when the truth comes out, often after a court case, they will suffer no consequences.
If there were stronger perjury laws and these women were jailed I bet it would stop.
It is laughable that all those currently championing “coercive control laws” to prop-up the continuance and increase of the domestic violence industrial complexes funding stream, invariably refer to the UK CCntl laws without understanding that these laws are deliberately flawed.
To support the feminist committee reporting to the UK on proposed CCntl legislation, the UK home office commissioned peer-reviewed research.
This research was rejected by the committee for 2 reasons.
1. The findings surprised them and
2. The findings did not support the recommendations they had decided to make to the government.
The research found that there is gender symmetry in the perpetration on domestic violence and coercive control and that there is gender symmetry in the victimisation from domestic violence and coercive control.
My ex-wife’s coercive control started the day we were married and 21 years later she is still coercively controlling me, financially and as a gatekeeper (alienator) of our children. Somehow, she has now convinced the court in Germany and the case ICL there that I am coercively control her and our children, even though she now only allows the children to Skype me once a month or less frequently (family court orders state twice a week, though we all know that toilet paper has more value that family court orders). She is claiming unspecified ‘coercive control and domestic violence’ in an application to the German court for the AU family orders to be annulled, though the reality is that she does not want to fly the children to AU per orders ($16K) each year and wants German court orders requiring me to pay child support based on German calculations.
>> My ex-wife’s coercive control started the day we were married
Ditto! Mine played the perfect part to get me to the altar, and then, from day one (!), showed that she was now the boss. I appeased for ten years, until she left me anyway.
>> Somehow, she has now convinced the court in Germany and the case ICL there that I am coercively control her
I have also seen women with full-custody of their children and the assets which come with this, claiming that they are being "coercively controlled" by the father who has lost everything.
It's nice to see an ad similar to the massively funded anti-male ads from the government - but done on a fraction of the budget; presenting an important truth its the scenes (rather than a known lie); and, as a bonus, being polished and entertaining!
"Stop it at the Start", etc... are just so plodding and tiresome - apart from the dishonest messaging. One suspects they are actually intended to provoke both sexes to violence, from irritation if nothing else.
I've been promoting this on facebook and twitter, and was going to ask for some supporting material in case I'm challenged. I'm glad to see you've already done that.
After reading through, however, I still have one vulnerability where I could be challenged in promoting this. Is the implication that trivial, normal relational conflict can be weaponised by women as "coercive control" (as in the video) proven by evidence? I have no doubt (none whatsoever!!), that it can be, that it will be, and that it will be the vast majority of cases - as has already happened with "domestic violence" - however I would hope to have some "evidence" if challenged. Apologies if I missed it in the article.
In this video Jewell Drury describes how she posed as a woman seeking advice on separation from a government service. She didn't go in claiming to be a dv victim. However, early in the conversation the government counsellor advised her to look for an incident in the past which could be portrayed as dv sufficiently to get a restraining order, and she coached Jewell in how this could be done. The intention was to simply remove the man from the house with a violence order and maximise government assistance for her, including adversarial assistance. By the time the "violence' charge came to court (six months, approx) she would have that advantage of status-quo.
According to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, coercive control is so nebulous that “victim-survivors” may not think they have a problem: "[S]ome victim-survivors find it difficult to recognise that what they are experiencing is coercive control, or that it is family and domestic violence. Some people may not recognise their own experience in the way coercive control is often described."
"many women do not realize they are in an abusive relationship" until a legal aid lawyer tells them they need weapons of family destruction to remove a father from the children’s lives and the family home as well as to maximise child support and Centrelink payments.
A DV order can ban a person [usually men} from entering or even passing by their own house even if this person is the sole owner.
A case in WA is worth a mention, a man in suburban Perth divided his big house into two dwellings and rented one to a woman . She got way behind in her rent and was avoiding facing her landlord , who had tried knocking on the door with no success.
On one occasion the man looked through the window of her side to ascertain if she was there .
The woman then used this fact to obtain a restraining order against the owner , the local magistrate saying that the act of looking through the window was "emotional abuse" which was at the time newly legislated grounds for AVO's or VRO's .{ since then coersive control has been included}
This man was then forced by police to leave his home immediately, his son went with him, they lived in a caravan until the court case, in the mean time the woman and accomplices ransacked and vandalized the building including the owner's half and stole a quadbike.
The owner was left with a repair bill of thousands of dollars. The woman vanished and many people myself included thought that the magistrate should be forced to pay for the damage and losses of this man, but no, magistrates have "immunity".
We need a bill of rights or something to guarantee the unalienable right to possession of property.
I've heard too many similar stories of the abuse of the legal system by (nearly always) women and those on the bench.
IMO that each state, territory and the Cth governments each have their own constitutions and laws that aren't being complied with /enforced by the police, public prosecutors, the judiciary and politicians, I don't see how having a "bill of rights" will make any precieviable difference, other than providing another avenue for lawyers to enrich themselves, to entrench more power with our governments to control /manipulate us and to erode what rights we have left
A defeatist attitude like that is partly the reason nothing changes, you are right it probably won't make any difference but that doesn't mean it should not be done, we are in a war here and all avenues should be considered.
The important thing is that the people in power who would rather we all just gave up , come to see that there are a good number who are willing to continue the fight, like Bettina and all her supporters.
Winston Churchill at the darkest hour said " if you are going through hell, keep going"
What's defeatists about not wanting to expend time and energy on something that (given the paradigms operating in politics, media, policing, domestic violence and family law industrial complexes) will have very little measurable impact, especially as our constitutional and legal rights are being eroded by legislation, practice or just ignored? The energy would be best used to produce measurable impact and change.
If a “bill of rights” was part of Australia becoming a republic, then I might consider it.
Love the piture, it reminds me of the Palmolive liquid detergent ad "You know you're soaking in it"... our society is being soaked in toxic feminist theory which is deliberately destroying the fabric of our civilisation in pursuit of duluthian maxist ideology
So ironic Bettina: the ultimate Family Court "bad guy" - looks perfect on the outside, but allegation is that behind closed doors becomes a monster. So be yourself, perfectly acceptable civil human being, and you actually play into out Act 1 of the slander story. Absolutely Kafkaesque. Cheers, Peter
You are wonderful, Kay. just wait a few weeks and MOS will get a design for a t-shirt up on the website. It's best they design something that is simple and easy to read. The current flyers are too complex. By the way, they were considering getting the coercive control bottles manufactured so they could sell those. It proved too hard but if anyone is interested in looking into that, contact MOS.
It is not surprising that a fanatic (Stark) declares that people should “take on faith” that “the pattern of intimidation, isolation, and control . . . is unique to men’s abuse of women.” Nor is it surprising that a Review Team looking for “coercive control” would find it “99% of the time.” Stark wants faith to replace information. An investigative body confirms his dogma by finding the evidence it wanted everywhere it looked. No surprises there. What is surprising is that educated adults would give any credibility to these idiotic ideas and methods. People like Stark and his allies know that the media will echo their claims so long as the claims favor progressive causes. Dissent from their true religion and you will be branded as a right-wing extremist. Stark and his ilk divide the world into just and sensible people like themselves (progressives, leftists, the righteous and their media megaphones) and hateful bigots (everybody else). There’s intimidation for you, and coercive control, 99% of the time.
If they're actually serious about this there should be more women arrested than men...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2669408/Rise-female-relationship-terrorists-Study-finds-women-controlling-aggressive-partners-men.html
...and pigs have wings.
Erin Pizzey identified this in her article dealing with violent women.
If such a s thing as 'coercive control' actually exists, it is guaranteed to be a power tool wielded mostly by woman towards men, not the reverse as claimed. Where do you suppose ex[pressions like 'hen-pecked' or the more modern 'pussy-whipped' come from? Women, as fully formed humans, enact just as much hostility as men, they just do it differently when they express it. Women are past masters of manipulation and meanness, just ask any 15 year old girl.
This I believe comes under the umbrella of "Relational Aggression".
If they're actually serious about this there should be more women arrested than men...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2669408/Rise-female-relationship-terrorists-Study-finds-women-controlling-aggressive-partners-men.html
...and pigs have wings.
Yes absolutely. Anyone with any passing life experience, dealing with men and women in various family situations knows full well that women's hostility is the same level as that of men, just expressed more in emotional and psychological terms.
I hope you do a response to this article that first appeared in the Epoch Times. When they cited someone from Australia, my suspicions really went up. I am curious if men killing children went up after courts routinely denied access. This is in no way justifying the murder of children. I am just wondering about the mental aspect or if pharmaceuticals play a part. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/investigations-accuse-family-court-judges-sending-children-danger
I completely agree with you. In LA the county has been sued multiple times because they refused to take children away from abusive mothers whose boyfriends tortured and killed their children. Or you have mothers who stay with men who sexually abuse their daughters. This needs to be brought to the forefront. It is not to weaken women - it is to elevate their status as capable humans. In this case, the capability to participate in evil. But I believe if you deny my ability to do evil, you deny my ability to be a true human being. We have certainly seen this with the lockdowns with female politicians seeming more vicious and gleeful than their male counterparts.
Statistically, the most at-risk children are children with their biological mother and a non-biologically related male.
Erin Pizzey, identified these women as family Terrorists, and examining the proposed laws, it is basically legalising the female practise of relational aggression. Adding another tool the arsenal.
Ongoing horror story; my son is appearing in court on Monday 20th, former partner and her daughter alleged rape; false allegations ad infinitum, perjury; no consequences for them; guilty; in his words "I haven't done anything". Appealing, but he's in the depths of depression and unable to get medical help; this mother not coping too good either! Family support.
Women get away with perjury often , and the message gets around that they can falsely accuse a man of the most terrible crimes like rape and even when the truth comes out, often after a court case, they will suffer no consequences.
If there were stronger perjury laws and these women were jailed I bet it would stop.
Women get away with murder frequently.
If anyone has a DSLR take photos and submit them to Shutterstock as editorial images. You don't need a model release form for editorial.
Jewell does a great job exposing what is going on
has One Nation posted comments about it? could you please post a link here?
It is laughable that all those currently championing “coercive control laws” to prop-up the continuance and increase of the domestic violence industrial complexes funding stream, invariably refer to the UK CCntl laws without understanding that these laws are deliberately flawed.
To support the feminist committee reporting to the UK on proposed CCntl legislation, the UK home office commissioned peer-reviewed research.
This research was rejected by the committee for 2 reasons.
1. The findings surprised them and
2. The findings did not support the recommendations they had decided to make to the government.
The research found that there is gender symmetry in the perpetration on domestic violence and coercive control and that there is gender symmetry in the victimisation from domestic violence and coercive control.
Oh I'd love to be there taking photos and submitting them to the stock photo websites.
My ex-wife’s coercive control started the day we were married and 21 years later she is still coercively controlling me, financially and as a gatekeeper (alienator) of our children. Somehow, she has now convinced the court in Germany and the case ICL there that I am coercively control her and our children, even though she now only allows the children to Skype me once a month or less frequently (family court orders state twice a week, though we all know that toilet paper has more value that family court orders). She is claiming unspecified ‘coercive control and domestic violence’ in an application to the German court for the AU family orders to be annulled, though the reality is that she does not want to fly the children to AU per orders ($16K) each year and wants German court orders requiring me to pay child support based on German calculations.
>> My ex-wife’s coercive control started the day we were married
Ditto! Mine played the perfect part to get me to the altar, and then, from day one (!), showed that she was now the boss. I appeased for ten years, until she left me anyway.
>> Somehow, she has now convinced the court in Germany and the case ICL there that I am coercively control her
I have also seen women with full-custody of their children and the assets which come with this, claiming that they are being "coercively controlled" by the father who has lost everything.
A superb message and execution! Bravo.
It's nice to see an ad similar to the massively funded anti-male ads from the government - but done on a fraction of the budget; presenting an important truth its the scenes (rather than a known lie); and, as a bonus, being polished and entertaining!
"Stop it at the Start", etc... are just so plodding and tiresome - apart from the dishonest messaging. One suspects they are actually intended to provoke both sexes to violence, from irritation if nothing else.
I've been promoting this on facebook and twitter, and was going to ask for some supporting material in case I'm challenged. I'm glad to see you've already done that.
After reading through, however, I still have one vulnerability where I could be challenged in promoting this. Is the implication that trivial, normal relational conflict can be weaponised by women as "coercive control" (as in the video) proven by evidence? I have no doubt (none whatsoever!!), that it can be, that it will be, and that it will be the vast majority of cases - as has already happened with "domestic violence" - however I would hope to have some "evidence" if challenged. Apologies if I missed it in the article.
Thanks, Tony and David,
In this video Jewell Drury describes how she posed as a woman seeking advice on separation from a government service. She didn't go in claiming to be a dv victim. However, early in the conversation the government counsellor advised her to look for an incident in the past which could be portrayed as dv sufficiently to get a restraining order, and she coached Jewell in how this could be done. The intention was to simply remove the man from the house with a violence order and maximise government assistance for her, including adversarial assistance. By the time the "violence' charge came to court (six months, approx) she would have that advantage of status-quo.
https://www.facebook.com/JewellDruryAdvocateForJustice/videos/352794450100023
Maybe this will help...
According to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, coercive control is so nebulous that “victim-survivors” may not think they have a problem: "[S]ome victim-survivors find it difficult to recognise that what they are experiencing is coercive control, or that it is family and domestic violence. Some people may not recognise their own experience in the way coercive control is often described."
https://consultations.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/coercive-control/user_uploads/coercive-control-consultation-draft-14-september-2022.pdf
One feminist group put it even more clearly in their submission: "many women do not realize they are in an abusive relationship"
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/70604/Submission - 124.pdf
And here in NSW, you can be found guilty even if there is no harm done - not even psychological harm.
See the AG's second reading speech: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=4024
"many women do not realize they are in an abusive relationship" until a legal aid lawyer tells them they need weapons of family destruction to remove a father from the children’s lives and the family home as well as to maximise child support and Centrelink payments.
A DV order can ban a person [usually men} from entering or even passing by their own house even if this person is the sole owner.
A case in WA is worth a mention, a man in suburban Perth divided his big house into two dwellings and rented one to a woman . She got way behind in her rent and was avoiding facing her landlord , who had tried knocking on the door with no success.
On one occasion the man looked through the window of her side to ascertain if she was there .
The woman then used this fact to obtain a restraining order against the owner , the local magistrate saying that the act of looking through the window was "emotional abuse" which was at the time newly legislated grounds for AVO's or VRO's .{ since then coersive control has been included}
This man was then forced by police to leave his home immediately, his son went with him, they lived in a caravan until the court case, in the mean time the woman and accomplices ransacked and vandalized the building including the owner's half and stole a quadbike.
The owner was left with a repair bill of thousands of dollars. The woman vanished and many people myself included thought that the magistrate should be forced to pay for the damage and losses of this man, but no, magistrates have "immunity".
We need a bill of rights or something to guarantee the unalienable right to possession of property.
I've heard too many similar stories of the abuse of the legal system by (nearly always) women and those on the bench.
IMO that each state, territory and the Cth governments each have their own constitutions and laws that aren't being complied with /enforced by the police, public prosecutors, the judiciary and politicians, I don't see how having a "bill of rights" will make any precieviable difference, other than providing another avenue for lawyers to enrich themselves, to entrench more power with our governments to control /manipulate us and to erode what rights we have left
A defeatist attitude like that is partly the reason nothing changes, you are right it probably won't make any difference but that doesn't mean it should not be done, we are in a war here and all avenues should be considered.
The important thing is that the people in power who would rather we all just gave up , come to see that there are a good number who are willing to continue the fight, like Bettina and all her supporters.
Winston Churchill at the darkest hour said " if you are going through hell, keep going"
What's defeatists about not wanting to expend time and energy on something that (given the paradigms operating in politics, media, policing, domestic violence and family law industrial complexes) will have very little measurable impact, especially as our constitutional and legal rights are being eroded by legislation, practice or just ignored? The energy would be best used to produce measurable impact and change.
If a “bill of rights” was part of Australia becoming a republic, then I might consider it.
Love the piture, it reminds me of the Palmolive liquid detergent ad "You know you're soaking in it"... our society is being soaked in toxic feminist theory which is deliberately destroying the fabric of our civilisation in pursuit of duluthian maxist ideology
So ironic Bettina: the ultimate Family Court "bad guy" - looks perfect on the outside, but allegation is that behind closed doors becomes a monster. So be yourself, perfectly acceptable civil human being, and you actually play into out Act 1 of the slander story. Absolutely Kafkaesque. Cheers, Peter
You are wonderful, Kay. just wait a few weeks and MOS will get a design for a t-shirt up on the website. It's best they design something that is simple and easy to read. The current flyers are too complex. By the way, they were considering getting the coercive control bottles manufactured so they could sell those. It proved too hard but if anyone is interested in looking into that, contact MOS.