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.
Yep brooked, Elam’s MO. He became his target because of a public service commercial encouraging us to raise our sons to be nonviolent posted on the center’s website. Because, you know, it’s kind of an issue. Well, you can guess how that went down with the MRA crowd.
God damn, Erin Pizzey really is a fucking vile piece of shit. And this one of the (supposedly) reasonable voices in the manosphere!
Seconding BreakfastMan’s first sentence on Pizzey, as the pithiest summation so far. Dog, she makes me furious. Combine everything everyone’s already said with her gender-based traditionalism, you’d think even MRAs wouldn’t touch her with a 10-foot pole, but … They always sink lower than my expectations, I’ll give them that!
And dog forbid that anyone should do anything about abuse before it results in bruises, cuts, internal organ damage or scars! This reminds me of that horrendous defense of torture, in which it was allowed unless organ failure was one likely result.
Now I really need a drink.
Heaven forbid that we call emotional abuse domestic abuse. It’s not as if it leaves physical scars on people — just emotional, and fee-fees are too feeeeeeemale, so who cares, right????
God fucking damn it, I don’t even.
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….
What, the Feminist Conspiracy doesn’t send you a fat paycheck every month to keep you on the team? You need to update your address.
You’d think such a sophisticated organization would have direct deposit. Can’t I just tell the hive mind my bank account number?
Too bloody right. It is exactly these services that are suffering hugely under the “austerity cuts” of the current UK government. Shelters are closing and women are at risk. Because there is not enough money!
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/refuges-turn-away-more-than-150-women-a-day-because-of-budget-cuts-8978713.html
But hey, the 150 women & children a night turned away weren’t “real” abuse victims, am I right? /sobs
I am so due back pay.
And I need to be reallocated to my next high paying job due to my imminent redundancy. Where do I submit my transfer request?
My husband worked as a volunteer at a Women’s Center which provided assistance to women escaping domestic violence. Once in a while, a client would choose to wait for assistance from someone else, because she wasn’t ready to trust, but eventually, they were fine with talking to him, and, in fact, the center loved having him there and wished they had a paid position to offer him.
There’s nothing anti-man about being anti-violence.
If there’s one recurring theme I can gather from Pizzey’s life, it’s that no one actually likes her.
It’s not hard to understand why.
I think she’s partly just covering up for her own abuse here.If she thinks tossing glass at people is acceptable, I’m not surprised she thinks stopping someone from calling, shouting abuse at them, or threatening them is just regular domestics.
We’re looking at the woman who stormed out of Women’s Aid, for fairly nebulous reasons, and made it her life’s mission to take down the shelters. She’s been griping for years that new DV and rape laws are “against men” and are taking it to the level of hysteria; men can’t leave the houses now without fear of being accused!
I think she has a hell of a lot of unresolved issues in her past, and she’s projecting them onto feminism and even the women who came to her shelter.
If a man pulls his gun out and starts cleaning it when having an argument, and does it every time his wife discusses leaving, should the police agree that she may be in mortal danger, or should they ignore it?
If a man starts with controlling behaviour, ramps it up to shouting, and then starts adding in wine glass chucking, is he just someone blowing off steam, or could his abusive behaviour be escalating into something life threatening?
Shelter does do work for victims of domestic violence and having met people who work in that section I’d say good and underfunded work. However it is primarily a charity for homeless people http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelter_(charity) It is an excellent charity and worth supporting.
However it would be misleading to suggest the money received by Shelter in any way reflects the money used to fund domestic violence shelters or campaigning. Similarly it would be misleading to compare the salary of the most senior person at Shelter (a charity almost as well known at Oxfam) with the salaries of the head person at a typical small anti-DV charity.
This is no criticism of Shelter which does excellent and important work. It is just not primarily a charity focused on domestic violence and to claim it is such is misleading.
How is she a DV “expert”? Chucking wine at people is not the same as a playful pillow toss, or snowballs at your unsuspecting brother (this is a bad idea, he’s better at making them than me and always gets me back!). It’s far, FAR, closer to screaming insults or belittling them. And if you mean the wine GLASS…remind me how that’s different from chucking any other glass object? Cuz I would hope all sensible people would call a man chucking a beer bottle at a GF/wife DV, so how is a woman chucking a wine glass at a BF/husband any better?
You know who typically throws something when they are angry? Young children who don’t have the verbal skills to communicate why they are frustrated. Way to set the bar high.
Add me into the count of people who have never in their life thrown something at someone else. If you wouldn’t act a certain way to your boss because they very well may fire you, you definitely should not act that way to the person you love.
So here we go. You have just evidenced the need for a men’s rights group. Lots of out cry against my post, but not one hard hitting medical or scientific piece of data presented. Surely a lot of pathos and attempts at shaming. Are you trying to make the MRA’s point for them? I’ll help you. Here is a fact for your quiver. Twenty to twenty-five percent of women report experiencing rape or attempted rape during their first two years of college. An epic problem presented with factual support.
Now here are a volume of statistics on the effects of fatherlessness as reported by the Worldpress derived from various government sources.
Fatherlessness is factorial in:
63% of youth suicides, 90% of homeless and runaway children, 85% of childhood behavior disorders, 80% of rapist with anger problems and 71% of all high-school dropout.
The comprehensive list of the consequences of fatherlessness extends to all manner of violent crimes, diminished educational outcomes, poverty, poorer health and higher mortality.
The negative impacts of fatherlessness are widely recognized. A more efficacious debate might center on to what degree are we incentivizing or legislating fatherlessness.
The prevailing view from the feminist perspective is that men are dead beats and leave. We now know this not true. At least among married couples women leave over twice as often as men. We also know there are a significant number of fathers around the world that want to do the right thing and participate. Unfortunately a majority of them are barred from doing this in a meaningful way regardless of prior marital status. The problem with tackling this issue from a single sex perspective is that both men and women are significant stakeholders in the outcome. One of the negative social consequences of the feminist movement (intended or not) is that many women now feel that single parenting can be a consequence free life choice to impose on their children and the main utility of fathers is to subsidize this choice. There is a need for a male perspective in approaching these issues along side the female perspective. Each side has too much at stake on certain issues to be truly objective. Unfortunately the feminist solution of resiliency culture (I victimized you as a kid but don’t grow up to have any social problems or victimize anyone else), while convenient does not seem to be working. Maybe it’s time for a critical examination of the root causes of our social ills and to stop throwing window dressing on problems because they inconvenience to our personal ideologies.
So before you respond to this post, I challenge you to do one thing. Go out on the internet (or forbid the library) and research one statistic, preferably more substantial than “blogger X is quoted as saying.” Let’s have a real debate. If this website is any less rhetorically self important than the MRAs it claims to parody that would be in order.
@Justin
You know how unbelievably creepy it is when you whine about women being allowed to divorce, right?
“Let’s have a real debate.”
We don’t really need a debate over whether or not women should surrender the right to leave marriages. It’s kind of a one-word issue.
@Justin
You know how creepy it is to whine about women having the right to divorce, right?
” Let’s have a real debate.”
The “debate” over whether women should be allowed to end relationships is actually just one word in length.
“resiliency culture”
Interesting term you have for “personal responsibility.”
I particularly love how this woman who is being awarded for her work for “ALL the victims of domestic violence” seems to refer to women and wives exclusively as the victims and their husbands the aggressors.
… I have 49 books from the library on my shelves right now, because I kind of went on a reservation binger in preperation for my vacation.
You know people do use the library these days, right? It’s not some dead-end place full of terrible things that nary a soul wanders into, lest they sorch their eyeballs by reading ink-stained pages of forlorn and forgotten lore. It’s just books, man.
—-
That aside!
So why would you claim it is? And that is not, inthusfar as I am aware, the “prevailing view from the feminist perspective”.
Hell, the “prevailing view from the feminist perspective” specifically in relation to child labour is… probably something more like: “The expectation of free female labour in relation to child-rearing is a common assumption exploited by many to further a system of minor domestic servitude. Raising children are wonderful, but the on-going idea that all women are good for nothing but raising children leverages systemetic pressure in order to force women into a social space where they are reliant on the support and good-will of others because their own time and ressources has gone into raising children, and nothing else, which furthers a dependency cycle where “woman” becomes “House-keeper and care-giver”. This is economic and social exploitation with attendent costs to the involved lives of everyone” OR SOMETHING, I DON*T KNOW I HAVEN’T ACTUALLY READ ANY BASIC FEMINIST TEXTS IN YEARS. That’s what some of those books from the, god forbid, library is.
But I do know it’s certainly not “All men are pigs who will get you pregnant and leave”.
That’s… that’s really no one’s position.
Now, what people argue with, vehemently, is not the notion that in our days and age fathers are important. Fathers are important. The joyful and meaningful impact happy relations with a father can bring to a person’s life is probably not something I can smugly sum up in words, and if its of any particular interest, I quite like my dad. In fact I love him, and I will forever be thankful for the many, many things he has taught me.
Incidentally, those things did not include the idea that:
The conviction for a false rape is much more life impacting than an actual rape.
Women create rapists by having children out of wedlock or leaving their marriages.
So, men rape women. And this bad.
But women also make men rape women by leaving their marriages.
That’s what people find vehemtly wrong.
Not that father’s aren’t important. They are! They’re very, very important.
…Or be attacked by librarians. I’LL STOP I SWEAR I’LL STOP
Good dad > No dad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abusive dad.
Is that simple enough, Justin?
I feel like I’ve addressed false rape accusations and your ridiculous court claims in other threads… Using data from state court systems. Does anyone remember what threads the last ‘but abuse is done mostly by women’ and the last ‘but false rape accusations!’ trolls were?
Really don’t want to redownload those PDFs while on my phone.
Also, Justin seems familiar…
Who was it who was all “You should debate me nicely and politely, even though this is a mockery site”?
I’m not having another round on the false accusation merry go round, but before I go look something else up, I gotta ask Justin a question about those stats he posted. Did their methodology separate by cause of fatherlessness? How about controlling for the other factors that lead to things like poverty and dropping out of school? (Which are highly correlated btw)
Contrapangloss — approximately 20% of trolls do that, sorry.
Not going to “have a real debate” with you Justin, because again, that would involve pretending you have made a valid point instead of just spouting misogynistic nonsense.