Cyber Security Coercive Control, Its Connection To Gang Stalking with Electronic Targeted Torture and The Masculine Entrapment of Women
Around the time the first shelters opened in the early 1970s, a handful of feminist psychologists identified the condition in which their abused clients were living as hostage-like and called it “coercive control.” Gang stalking with electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture, the phenomenon taking place in the 21st century, share the same five (5) cyber security vulnerabilities as the ransomware attacks that take place during this time as well. Although there is nothing written about coercive control prior to the 1970s, every researcher since then who has asked about control tactics in personal life has found their deployment to be widespread. As such, these tactics are like despotic regimes aimed at bending the will of the individual through violence and torture.
Even during periods when wife beatings received no official attention or little popular support, there is an unbroken record of its occurrence in popular lore, legend, art, theater, legal records, and histories of marriage and families. But none of these sources mention a regime of isolation, intimidation, or regulation that approaches coercive control in intensity and scope as seen in the nature of the batterer. Perhaps this is because men had no need for coercive control as long as there were business opportunities affording them financial success, the necessary means to maintain their control. As long as social clubs afforded men membership, with like minded member, domination was sure to continue. In addition, women’s daily activities revolved around an atmosphere of obedience regulated by religious codes and custom, or sexism which was codified in law.
Methods of cyber security coercive control today are deployed and designed to stifle and co-opt people’s gains; foreclose negotiations over subject matter, extent, and substance of activities in and around the business and home. It obstructs access to support, closes the spaces in which they can act freely in their personal and business lives. And it reimposes obsolete forms of dependence and personal service by micromanaging the enactment of stereotypical gender roles through “sexism with a vengeance.” Such is the cyber operator exploiting sensitive vulnerabilities in operating systems.
But, my main point, is the how two recent historical phenomena share the exact same five (5) cyber security vulnerabilities, and, from a historic perspective, how the coercive control and abuse of women by men seems to be antecedent to this form of cyber security coercive control. As such, each household governed by coercive control, each relationship, becomes a patriarchy in miniature, complete with its own web of rules or codes, rituals of deference, modes of enforcement, sanctions, and forbidden places, all devised with a particularity that may be completely foreign to outsiders. Its very invisibility on the public stage suggest that coercive control depends on at least tacit support from law, discriminatory structures, and normative consent. To this extent, “masculine power” in personal life continues to be delegated.
It would seem, that methods of cyber security coercive control are constructed from a masculine, completely male dominance perspective and it appears to be constructed through a person-to-person series of personal constraints particularly created, deployed, produced, represented, improvised, organized, found, contested, stolen, borrowed, usurped, or manipulated in unique relational contexts and for a myriad of proximate ends and effects. This process takes place through the simultaneous application of multiple technologies, drawing on force to exact obedience in one moment and on control tactics that are more spatially or temporally diffuse in the next. Abuse can only be kept secret on any substantial scale with the collusion of a range of actors, most of whom can be encouraged to see what is already in front of them with minimal prodding. Present attempts to keep abuse well hidden are a function of the changing normative status of violence in the home as well as the extent to which egalitarian values of personhood have been extended to women and children. But even if coercive control is successfully hidden, its individualized nature has the paradoxical effect of depriving men of the consultation, role models, and social support on which their learning depends in other areas of activity, such as work or sports. Our culture is permeated with models of how to use violence to hurt or control others.
To an outsider, the state of subordination produced by coercive control resembles the subjugation experienced by women in traditional roles of gender dynamics as in traditional societies themselves. The side effects of methods of cyber security coercive control are such that when a group of people that is formally free and equal is constrained, personal feelings of rage, shame, and failure are much greater than when members of an already subordinated class are abused, an important reason why the anger suffered by victims of coercive control often seems disproportionate to the proximate harms the have suffered. We see this occurring in a small population of mass random shooting events by men who claim they are being targeted by an advanced technology that is harassing them.
The result when cyber security exploitations are carried out, its coercion and control are combined in a condition of unreciprocated authority which have been identified as domination and to which victims experience as entrapment.
The appearance of cyber security coercive control against a background of formal inequality is one of the more tragic aspects of the politics. To read a brief writing on what these five (5) cyber security vulnerabilities are click here https://medium.com/@proclivitysprinciplewisdom/the-5-vulnerabilities-of-cyber-security-that-are-shared-with-wireless-electronic-physical-assaults-fbb5e7b687a6