At A Voice for Men’s conference yesterday, antifeminist crusader Erin Pizzey was given “a special award for her tireless work with ALL the victims of domestic violence.” Due to the amazing public relations work of AVFM’s spokeswoman for the conference, I don’t know what the award was called, so let’s just assume it was the World’s Greatest Erin Pizzey Award.
Whatever the award was called, the notion that Pizzey works, tirelessly or otherwise, on behalf of “ALL the victims of domestic violence” is demonstrably false. Indeed, she has argued vociferously against extending DV protection to all victims.
In an op-ed she wrote for The Daily Mail in 2011, Pizzey declared herself “horrified” that the British government would consider extending domestic violence protection to those subjected to “emotional bullying and ‘coercive control’” as well as actual physical abuse.
Her “argument” may be triggering for abuse survivors, so I’m putting all of her quotes below the jump.
Pizzey wrote:
In other words, if you stop your wife using the phone, you could be bracketed with a man who has knocked his wife’s teeth out in a rage.
In the future, couples who row, smashing precious belongings in a fit of anger perhaps, could seek to have their other half charged under domestic violence laws. Thus, too, wives who, for whatever reason, destroy their husband’s fine wine collection, or cut the sleeve off his suits in an act of revenge for some betrayal or slight, may find themselves charged with this most serious of crimes.
Domineering, bullying husbands who shout at their wives but never lift a finger to hurt them would find themselves in court.
Let me tell you: this is not domestic violence. It is an absurd idea to define such acts in that way, and worse, it serves to trivialise genuine cases of domestic abuse.
The new definition, which the government did indeed put in place in 2013, extended domestic violence and abuse to include
Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality.
The government spelled out clearly what they meant by “controlling” and “coercive” behavior.
Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.
Coercive behaviour is: an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”*
*This definition includes so called ‘honour’ based violence, female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage, and is clear that victims are not confined to one gender or ethnic group.
There is no question, at least not to anyone who is serious about ending domestic violence and abuse, that “controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour” is abuse.
Why shouldn’t “domineering, bullying husbands who shout at their wives” in an attempt to control and coerce them be prosecuted for abuse? Why shouldn’t wives who do the same be prosecuted?
Pizzey not only argued against prosecuting those who bully their partners into submission through emotional, psychological, sexual or financial abuse. She also argued that most victims of domestic violence aren’t really legitimate victims either:
To me, the definition of domestic violence is quite clear: if you are not in fear of your life, you are not suffering it.
That’s right, the woman AVFM just honored as an advocate for “ALL victims of domestic violence” only considers actual physical violence to be domestic violence if the victim is literally afraid that they will be killed.
She continues:
In all other cases, where the aggression takes only an emotional form, or a few coffee cups have been chucked around, women in modern Britain thankfully have the option of finding a lawyer and choosing to separate from their husbands if they wish to do so.
The obvious point is that there is almost always clear evidence in domestic violence cases — bruises, cuts, internal organ damage or scars. Unless you have seen real, shocking abuse as I have, it is difficult to imagine some of the awful violence that people can inflict on each other in the home. And that’s why I’m convinced that bringing other, lesser, wrongs under this same legal umbrella does a great disservice to the women who really suffer.
How does protecting all victims of abuse do a disservice to those suffering the worst abuse? The police arrest people who assault as well as people who murder; this is hardly a “great disservice” to victims of murder.
Pizzey warns that the expanded definition “will turn millions of us into criminals.” She then makes a startling confession:
[A]fter all, I’ve been known in my time to lob the odd glass of wine in the heat of the moment. Indeed, there is something frightfully satisfying about chucking wine at somebody.
Yep. The woman who is A Voice for Men’s guru on domestic violence likes to chuck wine glasses at people. And apparently thinks this is a perfectly fine way to handle domestic disputes.
At this rate, we’ll all end up under arrest, and that is not a situation that’s going to help the police tackle the cases of true physical violence which must be stamped out.
Needless to say, the new definition, in place since April of last year, has not led to mass arrests of everyone in the U.K. If the new definition has put some wine-glass chuckers in jail, I can’t say I think this is a great injustice.
Pizzey declares that
People behave badly in relationships because we have human frailties. This is not an area in which the State should meddle; leave it to relationship counsellors and divorce lawyers.
Why shouldn’t the state “meddle” in cases of domestic abuse? The law doesn’t end at your door.
Pizzey winds up her op-ed by accusing those working against domestic violence – presumably she excludes herself – of being in it for money and power.
Over the past ten years, domestic violence has become a huge feminist industry. …
This is girls-only empire building, and it is highly lucrative at that. Men are not allowed to be employed at these organisations. Boys over the age of 12 are not allowed into safe houses where their mothers are staying, which I think is scandalous. …
Who benefits from this industry? Refuge has an annual income of more than £10 million from both public and private donations. Cherie Booth is a patron. The heads of these organisations are on very generous salaries.
And they are on a feminist mission to demonise men — even those who never have and never will hit a woman.
It’s appalling that this woman has gotten any kind of award.
Er…as I’ve said before, I’ve worked in women’s refuges and women only hostels for years, as well as working with homeless men and I can guarantee you that, on the front line, this is not some moneymaking glamourous industry. Most hostels work on tight budgets, and workers constantly going above and beyond to provide a service. And we are constantly forced to reapply for funding and live in the shadow of being shut down with every change of government. I know of Erin from way back and her name was mud within the women’s aid movement as someone who acted in self-interest and to the detriment of the refuge movement in general.
marinerachel: yeah, I think she means the contents, not the actual glass, you beat me to it.
that doesn’t make her less of a nasty piece of work.
one of the characteristics of cults is the contradictions are never acknowledged.
The part that struck me wasn’t even the wine thing (though that was terrible) but this:
WTF? Of course thats abusive! How is preventing your partner from communicating not abusive?
Wordsp1nner: Because she is The Sainted Expert and not being able to communicate with anyone isn’t threatening, or scary, at all.
Note: Much Sarcasm, there.
So Pizzey just took all the hullaballoo the MRM has been making about how women do just as much DV as men, only it’s emotional, or isn’t quite violent enough to leave marks, and declared it to be not DV.
And they rewarded her for it.
I think the glass chucking was the thing that struck me first, because of running scenarios with the EMS folks.
That and the front page story in the local newspaper about the poor bartender who got hit in the face with a glass, for politely suggesting the dude on probation terms which included “no beer for you, because you’re a mean, violent drunk” should leave the establishment, and leave his beer behind.
Remember that twaddle that Pizzey wrote about mutually abusive relationships and some women being drawn to them? At the time it was confusing, but now reading this it occurs to me that she may have been describing herself.
@pecunium… yeah, that struck me too… so, she just said that only life-threatening abuse is a legitimate definition of domestic abuse. And the MRAs lapped it up.
The whole idea that chucking stuff about isn’t abusive is just plain wrong. It’s intimidating with the implied threat that you could be next. Violent outbursts like that in front of someone can be used to send a very clear message.
You know, I’ve managed to go my whole life without lobbing a single glass at a person out of anger. This whole “it’s no big deal, everybody is abusive” thing is pretty standard talk for abusers. I wonder how many men she’s thrown breakable glass at in fits of anger. Just enough to get an award from the Men’s Human’s Boy’s Human’s Rights Activists, I guess.
Yeah, pretty sure that the last time I threw something at someone in a fit of anger I was a toddler and it was some sort of toy. “More mature and reasonable than a 3 year old” really shouldn’t be too high a bar to aim for.
ok, well, good to know. the male family member who threatened to kill my dog and then proceeded to hold a loaded gun to my head all damn night when i was 17 was not violent. after all, there are no physical marks on me. never mind the years of therapy and then my disastrous first marriage two years later to a much older man. this creep insisted that i sign my paychecks over to him and i received a paltry daily allowance in return. said ‘allowance’ did not even cover the cost of lunch in downtown san francisco and heaven help me if my stockings got a run. then he proceeded to alienate every single friend i had, isolated me from my family, kept tabs on my phone use, and broke objects of mine that i treasured when he was angry. nope, none of that was abusive either. again, there are no physical scars from that either.
i am proud of myself for leaving my family home at 17 and leaving the first husband after 2-1/2 years. i am proud to have eventually made it on my own, put myself through school and then had the heart to work for many years at my local battered women’s shelter where we were taught during training that every single one of the things mentioned above are classic symptoms of domestic abuse that only get worse and progress to maimed and dead women (or men, as the case may be).
ms pizzey can piss up a rope.
Brava, Fauxmy!
@fauxmy, all the hugs and high fives.
I’m getting really tired of the constant rhetoric that domestic violence advocates or any kind of social welfare programs are somehow making a killing doing what they do. Even the higher ups’ salaries tend to cap out at upper middle class at best. No one is making any money or profiting from this kind of work. Just so ludicrous. The fat cats of walstreet? Sure. The fat cats of…DV??? Really? Just raking it in folks….
Seconding that, BigMomma.
I guess Pizzey doesn’t think child abuse is real if the child isn’t afraid of being killed, either.
It’s a lot like the people who think there’s tons of money in environmentalism and people who agree with that global warming exists and is anthropogenic are in it for the money. I used to work for an environmental group. I made $9.00 an hour. The big bucks!
weirwoodtreehugger:
Because anti-environmentalists and global warming denialists are never influenced by money.
@weirwoodtreehugger:
Right? Like *we’re* the side with all the cash, and not, y’know, the side with all the billion dollar mining, oil, and timber companies on it.
I am zero percent surprised that an MRA-aligned person believes that chucking wine in anger is normal behavior.
All her use of “we” and “us” is especially telling: “…we’ll all end up under arrest…”, “…will turn all of us into criminals…”
She actually believes most people behave like this when angry.
Not to mention the constant struggle to get and keep funding, grants, donations – just to keep the doors open. Hubby was a director of a sexual assault prevention/intervention nonprofit (he was one Elam’s targets a few years ago – how I discovered this blog) and let me tell you, they are in a constant state of scrounging for funding and dependent on volunteers to help with the gaps. And furthermore, any time there’s a problem with the economy, social programs and education are the FIRST to get cut. DV, sexual assault, shelters and the like exist in a precarious state. ::steps off soap box::
Nitram,
About the instability of social services funding: in the years just after the crash, my mother was in a constant state of uncertainty about her job. They kept losing funding, gaining funding, switching people between funding, etc. She did eventually get laid off, though she got a different job soon after and my dad has always been the primary income earner.
Guess what she did?
She was a counselor at a job training facility.
Yeah.
@Nitram
Of course he was. Targeting people like your husband advances the greater struggle for human rights. ::sigh::
The giant cross around her neck is what does it for me. That’s some genuine Christian “compassion” and “forgiveness”, right there…
I’ll partially take that back – she does seem pretty good at forgiving the abuser. Ugh.
What?! I’ve never thrown anything at anyone in anger! That is not normal behaviour.
And preventing someone from using a phone, for any reason, is mega controlling and yes, ABUSIVE.