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.
Pizzey is an asshole who shouldn’t be let anywhere near DV victims, and I don’t understand how anyone outside the MRM echo-chamber thinks she has anything if value to say in the subject.
And I see Justin is following the grand troll tradition of expecting feminists to research his argument for him.
Hugs to everyone who has abusive and /or crappy fathers, if wanted.
Brain bleach:
Well, let me try to post that link one more time.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gMTjF4z23L4
[CN: emotional abuse, sexual abuse, murder, trauma]
Oh, and about the “in fear of your life” thing: for someone who claims to have been supporting victims of abuse, Pizzey sure doesn’t know anything about how the fear for one’s life manifests itself within abusive situations. Emotional abuse is often a key factor in said dynamic. Even though my father has mostly been emotionally abusive to me, I frequently have panic attacks caused by fears of him raping and murdering me.
Wow, it’s almost as if Pizzey doesn’t know shit about domestic abuse. It’s almost as if she literally doesn’t give a shit about people who suffer from trauma.
Ally S ..i think your literally right
Re: The princess bride thing:
in the book, Westley actually smacks Buttercup (who is portrayed as very unintelligent). I love the book and the movie, but the central relationship is definitely problematic.
Given the author’s style, I’m tempted to say that it’s an attempt at magnifying the standard fairy-tale romance situation into absurdity as a way of pointing out how unrealistic the whole thing is. It’s probably wishful thinking.
maistrechat ,
Yep, the book is definitely darker. William Goldman also wrote The Stepford Wives, so he’s pretty good at “dark” fiction.
I think he knew what he was writing was not the perfect romance. He keeps making remarks about his fat kid and cold wife too and I think his goal there was to mock himself. At least, that’s how I read it.
So I’m assuming that being afraid of what may happen if you don’t do/act/perform exactly as the abuser wants isn’t actually abuse? I mean if I’m only afraid at what might happen not what is happening of course it’s ok per Pizzey? Right? I mean how is someone who is told repeatedly that someone is going to hurt them to expect that they might actually be hurt?
Yeah, in the been there got the worthless t-shirt what starts as convincing someone that they are worthless mostly ends with the abuser trying to prove that point. When society stops asking “why didn’t you leave sooner”, “what did you do to cause this” and “why do you think he did this?” and instead switches to “how can I help” I’ll put down my flag, but not a moment sooner. *seething rage*
To all that have been hurt, be it past, present or future I’m going to drop off a big barrel of hugs & fuzzy things over here for anyone interested.
[CN: emotional abuse]
I love how Pizzey also brings up the argument that feminists are wrong about emotional abuse because otherwise that would imply that a lot of people’s behavior would count as emotional abuse.
She would rather silence victims of emotional abuse than face the possibility that she and others may, in fact, be abusive. It’s no big deal when someone emotionally abuses another person by telling them they are worthless, unlovable, and inherently evil. But it’s a huge fucking deal when that abuser is called for being abusive. Probably because Pizzey doesn’t want her precious (undeserved) reputation as a human rights activist to be ruined. Oh no, that would be horrible.
I have come across several AVfM defenders who seem to think men are in great danger of domestic violence… I must wonder why they have not started shelters for them? Wouldn’t this Pizzey woman be more than willing to contribute her speaking fees to such a worthwhile cause? Perhaps Elam could contribute the ‘security’ fee he collected…
I’d like to understand what kind of proof would work in prosecuting emotional abuse.
It is a real issue but just how does one prove it? Is the victim supposed to use, say, a sound recorder to record the repeated beratings, the belittling, the scalding?
It may happen, in fact, that both members of a couple accuse each other of emotional abuse, and what then?
I don’t think anyone from AVFM would find it funny if Erin threw a glass of wine at a man that got her worked up. I think she would become public enemy number 1.
Ramendik — it might be easier to prove than you’d think, if you went for a restraining order and then proved it was violated — that’s certainly less “he said she said” than whether someone does a lot of screaming and belittling. Of course, ime, emotional abusers always slip out and do it in front of witnesses, so that would solve that too.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with Ally.
I’ve heard rumours about Pizzey’s bullying ways, especially from occasional posters who used to work with her. When she gets trotted out in the media, she’s usually portrayed as this enduring tough-old-goat; though I think ’embittered, angry and narcissistic’ would be nearer the mark.
The whole article reeks of a defense. She’s just spent about 800 words invalidating peoples pain and experience and trying to deny them the help they need. Her little confessions, trying to paint control, cajoling and verbal assaults as ‘normal dynamics’ just seems like she’s dismissing her own abhorrent behaviours. And again, she throws things at people…
I’d really like to see her staunch MRA defenders argue for this. .
Argenti: but what would be the basis for a restraining order and how would the order be formulated?
Let’s say, for example, that a woman tells her husband every single day that he is a sorry excuse for a man, who can’t even earn a decent living for his family and whose hobbies and interests stink. This is a clear example of emotional abuse. Let us suppose that he recognizes it as emotional abuse is not ready to separate or start a divorce proceeding, but is ready to contact authorities.
What kind of restraining order could he apply for and on what basis would the restraining order be granted?
@creepycupcake
She has already expressed a desire to do that to people, and yet AVFM still supports her. That tells you everything you need to know.
I ended up skimming chunks of The Princess Bride, iirc. I was getting a bit too much of “Yes, you’re very clever, Mr Goldman, can you get on with it, please?”
I don’t even know where to start with this woman.
TW: Abuse. Obvs.
My father beat me as a child. I feared for my life many times. He’d threaten to kill me constantly. And he knew just how to hit me that he wouldn’t even leave a mark.
My mother was more of a psychological warrior. She used neglect, gaslighting, and occasional violence to control me, and while I did fear for my life once or twice, the police and CPS would do nothing.
My ex-boyfriend (the last before my now-husband of two years) picked me up as a confused, autistic 18-year-old. This 31-year-old man used verbal abuse and manipulation with terrifying skill; the fact that he had raped me by shaming and coercion and had me sleeping on the floor of his spare room when I wasn’t “in use” weren’t anywhere near as bad as the way he twisted my mind. After two years, I broke up with him, and he continued to send me violent, angry letters and videos for the next year.
From all of this, I have anxiety and PTSD with dissociative episodes. What do my flashbacks consist of? Not physical violence, for the most part. No, what really gets me are the manipulations, the way my mind was worked over by these people. My dreams consist of Kafkaesque situations I can’t escape, just like those ones.
I can take being hit. My body can withstand the damage. But I can’t take having my mind fucked with.
—
I’m sorry for the word-vomit; I commented here once before about a year ago with the intention of becoming a regular commenter, but my social anxiety wouldn’t allow for it. And this woman, this monumental idiot, has me in a rage. Fear for my life? Certainly that’s abuse. But fear for my sanity because of what someone else is doing to my head? That’s a whole other bowl of potato chips. And for me, a much more digestively-upsetting one. People who don’t get that baffle me.
I’m sorry you’ve had such terrible experiences Gunter, and I’m sorry that Erin Pizzey reminded you of them. Hugs if you would like.
Seconded, Gunter, that’s terrible.
Did you get a Welcome Package last time you were here? Even if you did, here’s the shiny updated version, kitties, penguins, revolving seals and all!
Thanks guys, you’re awesome. Interwebs hugs gratefully accepted, and Erin Pizzey can go roll around in a pile of broken Legos.
I did get a Welcome Package, actually, and from you I think! The shiny new one is quite good. I could watch the revolving seal for an hour or two. ^_^
wordsp1nner – that video is some primo brain bleach. I’d post my favored stuff, but there’s so much – it’s mugumogu! Any one of her videos are better than a Xanax; Maru is just too damned cute. The resident Furrinati can get a little jealous, though. I’d best watch myself. >_>
Maru is adorbs! Have you seen the Engineer’s Guide to Cats, or ShoKo’s videos, or the Cole the Black Cat ones?
Are your Furrinati kitties? You’re right, you need to be careful of Cat Anger Consequences.
… and I just realised, is that a PENGUIN WHORE in your gravatar?
It is an evil whore penguin! It’s Gunter from Adventure Time. I chose him/her specifically because his/her gender is always kind of ambiguous, and being neutrois, I figured it was a good choice. 😀
I LOVE the Engineer’s Guide to Cats! I have risked hefty fines in the form of frustrated furniture scratching to try cat-yodeling; it works best on my little Maru clone, McNugget. I’ve got two others, a huge (probable) Maine Coon named Garagely (abandoned by a moving family), and a sweet semi-longhair named Dr. Tinycat (shelter rescue). They all get along pretty well; Garagely often sleeps on my husband’s back when he lets her. She’s super insecure and needy.
AUGH SO MUCH CAT TALK
I’ll have to check out all those other vids. So many cute kitties, so little time!
There is never too much cat talk!
… Unless it’s cats talking, which can be too much (yes I’m looking at you Fribs AAAUUUWOWAAAAUUUUH)
I love your kitties’ names! And Maine Coons, damn they are beautiful cats. Not many of them here in Oz, I’ve only seen them in pictures and videos.
We’ve got two cats on this side of the veil, Maddie and Freya (Fribbie). All the others have crossed over, so there are ten kitties and nine dogs on ‘tother side – the dogs are all Mr K’s, mostly from his earthly days with two later blow-ins.
Katiekins used to sleep in my bed, though not on my back, thank goodness! She’s the opposite of insecure – brimful of Catitude, that one. I eventually had to stop her sleeping in my bed ‘cos my back was paying the price for it, which was a damn shame, because I loved having her sleep there. Mr K draws the line at having the Furrinati share the bed with us over the other side … understandable, really. Plus it’s not like they don’t have the rest of the place to claim as their own!