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.
This is somewhat incorrect. The link you included is specifically for Nova Scotia (a province). Though Canada as a country does not have specific family law rulings (those are legislated provincially), it does have several sections of the Criminal Code that can and have been applied to family violence, and the judge has the option of using an order or a peace bond to keep the defendant from contacting the other party before trial.
A better national link: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/fv-vf/laws-lois.html
@Argenti
Yeah, that one. Thanks 🙂
Damn, all this reading about emotional abuse has me wanting to watch the Season 4 finale from Game of Thrones again. I find it strangely… satisfying.
After it aired, I called my mum and asked if she’d get me a crossbow for my birthday. She said no. It’s probably for the best.
Joking aside, it is a scary world where George R.R. Sadistic Bastard Martin can write the damage done by emotional abuse with such poignance, eloquence, and a sense of justice, while a so-called “expert” on DV simply dismisses emotional and psychological abuse out of hand.
Also, I must admit to having once chucked an empty plastic pop bottle at an ex’s head in anger. It happened 17 years ago, before I’d been diagnosed or treated for Type II Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, and over half the anxiety disorders in the DSM IV. I still look back with disgust and shame at how I behaved then, even though I am also quite aware that I was very sick at the time. I won’t use my mental illness as an excuse for inexcusable behaviour. I will say that I had recently left an abusive home, and was determined never to be a victim again. A lot of my thinking back then was taken up by strategizing to avoid further abuse from anyone, at any cost. Realising that is quite sad. But I’ve moved on, and become a different, stronger, kinder person. Or at least I’m trying.
Well, almost every study suggests these types of behaviours are likely before violence in a relationship, not that all situations would go that way but it is part of the pattern. Saying that, she talks about women cutting up his clothes and destroying his things as if it’s okay. This kind of behaviour is a sign of a doomed relationship, or one that shouldn’t be happening anyway. Why exactly is this a bad thing?
Hey, type II bipolar, PTSD and half the anxiety disorders chapter? Are you my long lost mental twin or something?! If so, might want to get your Vit D levels tested, mine were rickets level abysmal.
And a signal boost from ramendik’s link — “The Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women (DAHMW) is run by a woman named Jan Brown. They can be reached at 1-888-7HELPLINE. “
Because she might getting treated the same as a man would for trying to kill her!! And she’s just a daft wee lass (I love the nym, I had to, hope you don’t mind!)
…but…that’s…BLAMNG MEN!! MISANDRY!!!1!1!!1
No clue.
I don’t understand why ramendik is discussing “belittling, constant criticism” when the emotional abuse in the legal descriptions in the OP refer to “controlling behavior” and “coercive behavior”. Being mean and making people feel bad is wrong, but you don’t complain to the authorities about it or try to get a victim of it out of the home ASAP.
Because he’s a disingenuous little weenie?
I’m with the disingenuous little weasel (in part because I looked at both his Lj, and his WordPress blog), but as to his, “interesting” link, it ends up with some less than stellar bedfellows:Claudia Cornell, Ph.D
As a principal lobbyist for S.A.V.E., Dr. Cornell makes regular trips to Washington D.C. to meet with congressional staff on Capitol Hill, advocating for abuse victims on all sides of this problem. Dr. Cornell is an author, educator, consultant and public speaker. She is currently writing the ground-breaking new book, The Secret Lives of Abused Men and the Women Who Abuse Them, scheduled for release in 2011.
antimisandry.com – Articles
antimisandry.com, 14 May 2010 [cached]
Claudia Cornell, SAVE Director asks, “How can we hope to bring an end to partner abuse when most abuse education programs are serving to mislead lawmakers, judges, and the general public?”
*skims his WP, gags* well this non-binary trans person doesn’t need allies like that! Dude, theory is what let me sort my experiences, theory is how I deal with people telling me I don’t exist, goddamnit with your claims that trans theory misses real people’s experiences!
Pecunium — you still got that vodka I was downing during Hugo. Fucking. Schwyzer’s latest meltdown? I could use a double, straight (as in up, not as in neat, like I really need to tell you how I like my vodka…)
@Argenti: it’s off topic here but the theory I am criticizing is not “trans theory” but the nonsense concocted by Raymond/Jeffreys/etc, who are usually described as opponents of trans theory (as, in their theory, trans does not exist). I also have a lot of ire for Paul McHugh; somehow I doubt you have much time for the man either. I don’t have a single post on trans theory itself.
@pecunium re reference to my LJ – if you actually read Russian and want to discuss the Russian stuff there, feel free to reply there in English, I promise I don’t bite (and don’t ban, except spammers a couple of neo-Nazis), The stuff there is originally written for a Russian audience but I’ll give you all the context.
@brooked: because I am going by the most widespread definition available online?
First result on google.ie for “emotional abuse” http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/02/20/signs-of-emotional-abuse/ (only taking the headlines to avoid quote-spamming)
“1. Humiliation, degradation, discounting, negating. judging, criticizing
2. Domination, control, and shame
3. Accusing and blaming, trivial and unreasonable demands or expectations, denies own shortcomings
4. Emotional distancing and the “silent treatment,” isolation, emotional abandonment or neglect
5. Codependence and enmeshment”
So my description went from point 1 here. Again I *do* recognize it as a real and big issue – my question is, exactly, how to prove the actions themselves, and thus how to enforce any legal order to discontinue the actions. My only idea is use of recording equipment but I never saw that, or any other way, explained anywhere. I would support a law that works (and is gender neutral); right now I just don’t see *how* it would work.
As the question is strictly practical, accusations of motive are neither here nor there. I could fire that style back but I won’t.
Translation – the fact that my motives are sketchy is obvious to everyone, but let’s pretend that’s not true, OK?
Re-read the OP, found that it;s actually gender neutral itself (so no debate here), and reframing my question using a quote from the OP:
“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?”
So, my question: how to prove that a husband or wife continues to domineer, bully, and shout, once legally ordered to discontinue doing so. The aim here is indeed control, so the legal definition applies.
Shouting, of course, might sometimes be easy to prove because neighbours hear it. Yet controlling emotional behaviour might not involve shouting. Or people might live in a detached house. What then?
Ramendik,
Why are you harping on about this? Are you imagining that women will just go around falsely accusing their husbands of emotional abuse willy nilly? Recording equipment might be one thing, a diary noting abuse instances might be another, witnesses are yet another. What exactly is the problem here?
I am not saying many random women will go deliberately falsely accusing their husbands of emotional abuse.
I do, however, know that in cases where emotional abuse is present accusations are often mutual. There has to be an objective approach to working these cases out, rather than using gender bias (or, in same sex couples, blaming the side presenting as more active/”manly”).
There may also be people (of any gender) who resort to accusation over situations that may be abusive in their subjective view but do not actually meet the legal definition; in fact an abuser (man or woman) could use an accusation as a part of their own abusive pattern. And finally, I also believe that introduction of objective standards has, in itself, a potential to defuse situations,
If you introduce law into a situation, it has to include a clear objective standard of action and evidence. And of the things listed, a diary has the problem of being impossible to corroborate objectively.
What’s funny is that you don’t realize how deep and wide a vein of bias you’ve managed to demonstrate here in just one little sentence.
*Are* accusations of emotional abuse generally mutual? I would like some citations for that please.
@cassandrakitty: I won’t even debate my phrase as, actually, it’s not all that important if any individual blogger, or even individual expert, is biased (and there are certainly bloggers and experts biased both ways). What’s important is that the legal system not leave a space for an individual’s bias. All I want is an objective standard that applies equally to all.
@wewereemergencies: I heard about mutual accusations in general, but unfortunately – and that’s the reason for the entire debate – I could not find any case studies of *legal* accusations of emotional abuse at all, it’s a fairly recent thing. Here are a couple of good posts about mutual accusations in a non-legal context:
http://unobject.tumblr.com/post/25077747813/five-false-types-of-mutual-abuse-trigger-warning-for
http://rippingback.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/domestic-violence-mutual-battering-and-being-accused-of-bullying/
You realize that it’s too late to pretend that you don’t have a bias, right? You can keep up the act if you like, but it’s not fooling anyone.
@cassandrakitty I am not continuing a debate about my own person here; if you want to have one feel free to comment on my WP, I created an open thread for the purpose.
What matters here is not myself (one voter in Ireland) but how to have an objective legal standard of evaluation actions, a standard that can be proven and enforced, when we’re talking about emotional abuse. I am not positing that it is impossible.
Nope, we’re not moving the conversation to your WP just because you say so. Also nope on the idea that your (really pretty obvious, let’s be honest here) disingenuousness doesn’t matter.
The fact that you think you can order us around is pretty funny, though.
I am not ordering anyone around. I am just refusing to respond to anything regarding my person on this thread.
If you see anything wrong with my position on this specific issue I would appreciate if you spelled it out.
One thing regarding my convictions that is indeed relevant to this discussion: I do not believe in class-based distinctions in law. That is, I believe that legal restraints must in general apply to individual actions or patterns of actions, with their individual consequences, but without regard to class differences. This applies to the kind of law where actual punishment is meted, not to social policy.
Did you actually fucking read those “sources”? (hint: personal blogs don’t count as sources unless done in a standard academic style, and generally are republished from more legitimate publishers)
Both state that the concept of mutual abuse is in all but a tiny tiny tiny number of cases a form of gaslighting by the actual abuser – in the last source, even when the victim hit first, it was because the abuser had emotional manipulated them into believing that was their only outlet and that they were equally responsible. THIS WAS A LIE.
Congrats, you are not only undermining our cause (which is STOP ALL FORMS OF ABUSE) but yours as well.
Yes – THIS WAS A LIE. My point exactly! There are mutual accusations but one of them is objectively true and the other is not. They are not really equal. Still, they are both voiced.
I am *not* saying actual abuse is often mutual, I am saying accusations are sometimes (or even often) mutual, with the real situation being much more one-sided. And, therefore, for any legal involvement one needs an objective standard. It’s actually easy enough to create a legal order to stop any specific action (Irish law provides for that kind of order without making anyone leave the home); the question is how to define the action and to prove it happens or does not happen. And that really IS the only question.
Prematurely hit Send – it should be “how to define the action clearly enough for a legal order, and to prove it happens or does not happen after the order is made”.