If you had any doubts that Western societies have collapsed morally under the manipulation of feminist harridans elevated beyond their pay-grade by the Sanhedrin’s mandarins, put them away.

A legal 9-11 has devastated British men, emasculating whatever little of their manhood the gynocracy hasn’t already stripped from them.

A recent bill allows husband in England to  be jailed for fourteen years for the very loosely defined crime of “coercive control” of his wife.

Apparently, this can include such things as calling her fat, criticizing her clothes, refusing to let her spend as much as she wants, or demanding to know where she is going.

There is no mention in the bill of female abuse of men. Women never bleed men financially, abuse their families of origin, cheat on them, throw tantrums, extort them, lie, hit, or murder.

It is all one way.

Moreover, for purposes of punishment, there is no statutory limit to how far back the wife can go to produce evidence in support of her claims.

Th UK bill also does not give any weight to provocative behavior by the wife.

What if you were working day and night, taking years off from your own life,  while your well-educated wife spent her time abed or on the sofa, consuming donuts steadily.

Would a few tart suggestions to knock of the sloth and greed amount to “abuse” meriting punishment twice as harsh as what is usually meted out (when it is) in the West to bank-robber, murderers, and serial rapists?

What if this harridan also objected to your spending time with your friends and family, tried to grab not only “her half” of marital assets, but yours as well?

What if she parked her relatives in your home and expected you to pay for it all, while she kept busy gossiping, isolating you, maligning your family, and spending your assets?

Would a bleat from you now and then count for abuse while her real financial and emotional terrorism against you count as “love and support”?

We can only guess.

Fortunately, the Indian Supreme Court moved away from this insanity recently when it asserted that a woman who prevents her in-laws from entering her home is guilty of cruelty and mental abuse sufficient to be grounds for divorce.