He said, she said? If she said he said the wrong thing, what he said won’t mean anything.

We’ve all heard of hate-speech laws. Well, now France will become the first country to enact rudeness-speech laws, making it a crime to commit “psychological violence” within a relationship. In other words, if Pierre and Angelique get into a shouting match and Petey happens to drop a comment about Angie’s weight, the gendarmes could come a knockin’. The Daily Mail reports, writing, “The new law, which would also apply to co-habiting couples, would see people getting criminal records for insulting their loved ones during domestic arguments.”

I’m not sure how thoroughly this will be enforced, but couldn’t such a law place about 95 percent of all couples behind bars?

It’s hard to say precisely how it will be enforced, either, but French Prime Minister Francois Fillon gives us some idea. He said, the Mail writes, “that his government would also be experimenting with electronic surveillance measures to ‘monitor the effectiveness of restraining orders against a violent spouse.’”

Wouldn’t a muzzle be cheaper?

Actually, though, I’ve long said that emotional abuse is far worse than the physical variety. But I would make this point for the purposes of illustrating why we shouldn’t allow the government to intervene in family disputes simply because one party slaps the other or because of “aggressive touching” (yes, an actual charge). The idea wasn’t to say, “Hey, the tongue cuts even more deeply, so let’s lower the threshold for government involvement — just have the Rudeness Police arrest the old oaf before his impudent mouth induces his wife to slap it off his face.”

It may sound like I’m kowtowing to the misandry of the age and putting the onus on men, but the above is actually an accurate characterization of the French law’s spirit. Explains the Mail, “The law is particularly aimed at protecting women who currently suffer the worst attacks of this kind, ranging from off-hand comments about their appearance to threats of physical violence.”

This isn’t surprising. The Western World places a premium on eliminating power imbalances in society, and the truth is that today all men are created equal — just not equal to women. If there is a domestic violence call, often only the man will be arrested even if it’s unknown who initiated the conflict. In fact, writes The Washington Times, “Denise Hines of Clark University found that when an abused man called the police, the police were more likely to arrest him than to arrest his abusive female partner.” And don’t think for a moment that men get a fair shake in family court, either. Then there is “The War Against Boys,” which is both a reality and the title of a book by female writer Christina Hoff Sommers. The fact is that men today are guilty until proven innocent, and this is reflected in the French law — which could have been fiction if Orwell had created a character named Big Sister.

Moreover, while “domestic violence” is thought synonymous with “wife beating,” statistics paint a different picture. As the above cited Times piece points out, many studies have shown that women are actually more likely to initiate violence in relationships than men are. And is this really surprising? Sure, men certainly can have hot tempers, but the fairer sex isn’t exactly known for its Mr. Spock-like suppression of emotion. Just as significantly, while tradition is under assault, the “Don’t hit girls” rule is still extant among many. But there is, of course, no corresponding prohibition among the gals. On the contrary, when it was reported that Tiger Woods’ wife attacked him with a golf club, many women applauded her iron play (if a man attacked a cheating spouse, “You go, guy!” would be followed by “straight to jail”).

Regardless of who initiates domestic violence, however, there’s no doubt that women are more likely to emerge from it with serious injuries. But claiming that men surpass women in the area of verbal violence is a different matter; that’s like saying they’re the sex that likes soap operas, flowers and chocolate, peppermint foot scrub exfoliant and The Joy Luck Club. After all, how often have we been bombarded with the idea that women are the more “verbal” sex? Why, I once read that women have about 20,000 “communication events” (ask the psycho-babblers) a day vs. only about 7,000 for men. And haven’t we all heard about those middle-school female bullies who can cleverly torment a girl to the point of emotional breakdown?

Of course, there’s no doubt that men are more likely to make “off-hand comments” about “appearance.” Yet while this could be motivated by cruelty, it’s also true that men simply don’t take such remarks all that seriously. This is why two buddies can rag on each other, conclude with a punch in the arm and then not give the matter a second thought. And while I’ve done this myself, I’m well aware that women can’t likewise roll with these verbal punches; thus, I don’t subject them to the same humor. Should I slip up, however, I don’t think Big Sister should be allowed to haul me away to an emasculation camp.

Moreover, I wonder, will female nagging — that death by a thousand verbal cuts — also bring the gendarmes to the door? Just because it’s more subtle doesn’t mean it’s less damaging.

But that’s the disadvantage men have under a government that wishes to control everything it sees but can only see the superficial. For while men tend to be overt, women are covert. Men’s characteristic sins are obvious ones, such as lust; whereas women’s are more subtle, such as vindictiveness. Likewise, if a boy is upset with a friend, he may punch him in the nose, whereas his sister might be more likely to use unending scorn and ostracism on who would inevitably become an ex-friend. But which transgressions do we notice? As the saying goes, the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

Of course, the policies in question here are at least as much the handiwork of men — small men — as that of women. It’s much as when the permissive limp-wrist-inside-a-velvet-glove crowd sees fit to prohibit spanking; it’s as if they want to make sure that all parenting is as dysfunctional as theirs. Here we have the Francois Fillons of the world, the feminism-facilitating capons, who just won’t be happy until all men are as hen-pecked as they are.

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

DDW said:

	Right on!!! Mr. Duke!!! Once again, you hit the nail(s) right on the head(s). Is there any such thing as common sense left in Western Culture? Or is it completely dead?
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 06, 2010
Votes: +6

RP said:

	... France misplaced common sense in 1789 and never did find it again. They have since given up looking. England visited France in 1914, where their common sense disappeared without a trace. The United States made the same error in 1917. (This is not to say that common sense hadn't been waylaid before those dates, but it was generally found taken up again.)
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 06, 2010
Votes: +5

Donald James Parker said:

More proof the world is going insane Pundits for years have stated that you cannot legislate morality. Governments around the world are either oblivious to the fact or choose to ignore it as they continue to enact legislation to prevent bad things from happening. This proposal is ludicrous, but I'm sure there is a government somewhere (perhaps Sweden) who will top this in the near future. The pattern is clear. Thanks for bringing our attention to this. I will be looking to buy stock in a tongue guard company. Donald James Parker Author of Homeless Like Me

report abuse vote down vote up

January 07, 2010 | url
Votes: +0

DDW said:

	Actually, Mr. Parker I don't think that's quite right. It is against the law to murder because murder is wrong. Isn't that a statement of morality? If someone steals something from someone else, isn't that against the law? Isn't stealing also morally wrong? Others have put it much better than I've just tried to do. In fact, I think Mr. Duke was one of those others in an earlier article.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 08, 2010
Votes: +2

DDW said:

	Found it It is indeed by Mr. Duke and was right here at JBS on MON24AUG09 and is titled "Obama and Legislating Morality in Health Care". I hope the link below works. There really is no other basis for law than morality. Someone here at JBS please correct me if I'm wrong. http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5255-obama-and-legislating-morality-in-health-care
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 08, 2010
Votes: +2