An American's perspective on "feminist relational contract theory."

From Russell Sandberg's comment on the book "Prenuptial Agreements and the Presumption of Free Choice: Issues of Power in Theory and Practice"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309847645_Prenuptial_Agreements_and_the_Presumption_of_Free_Choice_Issues_of_Power_in_Theory_and_Practice

  "... And to cap it all, the book creates, develops and advocates a new approach: ‘Feminist Relational Contract Theory’. ..."

 Let me give an American's perspective on "feminist relational contract theory." Although "feminist relational contract theory" may sound new, it is really just government tyranny to take away the liberty of negotiating meaningful contracts.

 "Feminist relational contract theory" is basically gibberish for using government tyranny to ensure that nobody can know what a contract means at the time it is signed. If a prenup is signed as a "feminist relational contract," does it mean anything except that the government, ex post facto, is going to determine what it means? If it does mean something, why shouldn't the prenup specify what it does mean?

 Americans typically take a dim view of ex post facto laws, viewing them as unfair, unjust, and tyrannical. Maybe Americans are less tolerant of government tyranny after having experienced so much of it under English rule that a revolution was necessary to free America from English tyranny.