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.
It’s funny, I’ve been paid to write Labyrinth fanfiction, seen the movie a couple times and just… don’t quite get it. Don’t get me wrong, Henson always delivers, the visuals are striking, but I still don’t get what the deal is. I saw it as an adult, which might be why, as it seems to really strike a chord with people in a certain age range.
Also, I am not engaging with Justin or the post because it’ll just make me too angry.
THESE are the people supposed to care about guys like me? FUCK.
That’s the trouble I have with “The Princess Bride.” I didn’t see it until I was in my 20’s. I don’t think it’s the movie’s fault, it was the decade worth of hype I’d ingested. I don’t think anything could have lived up to those kind of expectations.
I’ve never watched Labyrinth – not really interested, I’m not that into Henson’s work.
Princess Bride I really liked the first time, and I was in my 30s when I watched it. I knew little to nothing about it, though. What irks me on repeated viewings is the way Wesley treats Buttercup, going on as if she dumped him and waltzed off with Humperdink.
I like it better than the book, though, simply because I saw it first – and Inigo Montoya, oh my. 🙂
RE: Kittehs
What irks me on repeated viewings is the way Wesley treats Buttercup,
I know, right? He’s such a dick! He refuses to tell her what’s going on, acts all self-righteous and douchey, even makes as though to hit her when she protests his behavior towards her… all because she decided to remarry after she thought he’d been dead for years. HOW DARE SHE.
Inigo and Fezzik were the characters I rooted for the whole time. They are a friendship for the ages.
[CN: emotional abuse, physical abuse]
I found this article extremely upsetting and triggering when I read it a few days ago. Pizzey speaks of throwing wine glasses at people as if it’s something to be proud of, but I have experienced something very similar before and it was one of the most traumatic experiences at the age of 16.
My dad one time got so furious at me that he picked up a scorching hot ceramic bowl I was using and hurled it at the wall behind him. He started screaming at me and told me that I had to clean up the entire mess. I had to get down on my knees and clean up what was going to be my lunch, only having paper towels to use. I nearly burnt my hands. I was crying the whole time and that just made him yell at me more. I felt like he was going to kill me with the way his body language and his facial expression appeared.
The aftermath was also abusive. He forced me to go buy spices from the store while I was still crying my eyes out. It was probably some attempt to humiliate me because he knew I was still crying and would be seen by all the passerby. When I got back, my dad gave me a nonpology, and no one talked about it again. It was nothing but silence. The same kind of silence that has taught me to believe that I deserve to be abused, the same kind of silence that Pizzey advocates. I genuinely see her as an evil person. She actively contributes to the silencing of survivors like me. People like her are why so many people traumatized by emotional abuse feel that they don’t deserve to label their experiences as traumatizing and abusive. Words cannot ever fully convey how much I hate her and everything she stands for.
LBT, and even worse, I don’t think she had any choice about the marriage! She was pretty much chosen to be queen, end of story.
So, and im not looking for sympathy, in fact i dont even want to discuss the matter because there’s nothing anyone can do about it but my dad beat the shit out of me into my twenties. Now I manage the relationship on my own terms. He’s still pretty emotionally abusive but I’ve got a bullet-proof vest and I keep emotional distance from him so he can’t hurt me.
One thing that alarmed me in the months prior to him dumping me was this dude’s self-pity. He demonstrated absolutely no gratitude for all the love and support in his life. He began complaining regularly about his mom, a woman who invested twenty years in him exclusively save a few during which she had a loser husband, not living up to his expectations of her. She gave him everything she could and loved the fuck out of him. She still does. Hearing him complain because she’s chosen to live differently than he sees fit and his absolute lack of gratitude broke my heart. It was an indicator of how he would eventually treat me. I have never encountered someone as fortunate as he who feels as sorry for themself as he does. My best friends from elementary and high school lost their dads and neither engaged in the pity parties this guy does. They were gracious for all the good in their lives.
One of the final straws was him telling me I should be grateful for the abuse I suffered at the hands of my father because at least I had one which is obviously better than not having one as is his experience. I would take a loving, involved grandfather and mother any goddamn day over a resentful mom and abusive dad.
To quote somebody from this very blog (can’t remember who, or in which thread, sorry):
Good dad > no dad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abusive dad
Yeah, I lost my dad (one of the good ones) when I was a kid, and I know my mom felt some pressure to re-marry but I am glad for her sake and mine that she didn’t replace him with an abuser. We’re all better off without abuse.
Hugs for anyone who wants one.
No dad > indifferent dad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abusive dad, too. Mine was of the indifferent variety, as I took pleasure in reminding him when he came whining thirty years later that he wanted to get to know me.
[CN: physical abuse]
I would rather have a deadbeat dad than a dad who threatens to beat me into submission on a regular basis.
That’s what I just said, Ally – the indifferent/deadbeat father is less than the good father or no father, but way better than the abusive one. Who’d say otherwise, except MRAs?
Oh, that may have sounded like I was being critical. I’m just venting because trauma has been getting to me more and more lately. I’m sorry for not being clear.
I got that you’re venting, Ally – I read what you wrote about that awful time, over in the personal thread – but it read oddly in the context of having just added that there’s another rank as well as good/no/abusive father. I guess it was more like “If only I’d had a deadbeat father instead!”, yeah?
[CN: abuse]
I just don’t know why are there are fathers who would do these things to their children. All I did prior to that abusive incident was refuse to sit on the floor. Back then I had trouble eating while sitting on the floor because I couldn’t bend forward easily. (That’s been the cause of a lot of messes.) I wasn’t disrespectful at all and even said “Please” over and over again. But no, he had to traumatize me anyway. This is one of those times I wish I was never born. He has taken so much from my life.
(Sorry if that sounded really suicidal – I’m not having a suicidal episode, just to be clear.)
Why do any people abuse others? Power trips, control, sadism … it’s about them, not about the victims.
Don’t wish you were never born, Ally. You are loved, and that PoS’s opinion is about as worthwhile as a bucket of whale guts, which, btw, is what his food should taste and smell like forever.
It didn’t sound suicidal to me, Ally, just hella depressed.
Hormones! Hormones this week! Think of that!
🙁 *offers barrel of hugs*
I think you’re a brilliant, wonderful person, Ally, and I can tell many of the commenters here care about you very much.
So there’s a new law being trialled in the UK that Will allow people to check their partner’s history for DV. I wonder if Pizzey will consider this foul misandry?
Doubtless, Toolbox, doubtless!
What is Ms. Pizzey’s problem? I’m unfamiliar with her history–was she always like this?
Hugs and fuzzy kittens and rompy puppies for everyone on this thread who’s ever been abused.
I can only imagine what it would be like to flee an abusive relationship, only to end up being taken in by Pissing Pizzey. Finding that, I have to wonder if she turned abused women away, due to them not looking ‘roughed up’ enough. It’s a difficult pill to swallow that she’s still considered, somewhat, as a valued voice in DV discussion. And the mounting evidence of how little she cares about prevention is disturbing.
It’s really annoying that we only really have her narrative on the events during her, erm, prime.