Erin Pizzey and the founding of dv shelters in the UK

Yes, you're right it came across as patronising. Sorry about that. It was a bit of a clumsy way of saying what I intended. I didn't state that the founding of refuges was an immense achievement, because to be honest I felt that had already been covered in the thread and also, I felt it was obvious!

I just wanted to express my gratitude to all the posters here who have called for a thoughtful and nuanced discussion about these issues.

I could not agree more.

I have been in several abusive relationships including with women.

My mother was a narcissist and was fairly sadistic towards her children, me and my brother especially. The recent news stories with allegations of cruelty of mothers towards their children have distressed me greatly and have been extremely triggering.

I don't have time to read the entire thread again but I wholeheartedly agree that it is counterproductive to always depict women as victims and that doing so prevents many women from wanting to be involved in feminism.

These issues are incredibly complex and it takes courage to discuss them in depth.

Oppression Olympics help nobody and if we engage in it ourselves we cannot be surprised if misogynist actors and organisations use engage with it to hurt us.

We have to avoid the cognitive biases inherent in the Dunning Kruger effect, explained beautifully in this simple video

My mother used to beat the daylights out of me, which is a big reason why I never had children. What if I treated my children the same way?

This is going to make me sound like a raving MRA, but I promise I’m not! It goes beyond just airbrushing her out, there was I believe a pretty robust attempt to ensure she was silenced, her books being stolen and even blacklisted from being published:

www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1cbrbs/hi_im_erin_pizzey_ask_me_anything/c9f25vy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but it is a subject I’m educating myself on as I’m a father whose son used to be regularly hit by his mother. We are separated and coparent, and back when the abuse was occurring he was getting into trouble at school for getting into fights, and my ex was convinced it was purely down to me letting him watch (age appropriate) children’s programs that depicted fighting! I didn’t dream for a second she was hitting him, so I think it’s worthwhile to at least be aware of bias and issues.

It is frustrating as once my son disclosed she had been hitting him and it all came out, she even admitted in open court she’d hit him in anger, she minimised and nobody took the issue seriously. I have begun to read around the subject of child
abuse, and uncovered that girls are far more likely to be subject to sexual abuse (obviously at the hands of men), and that boys are far more likely to be physically hit, and most likely by the mother.

I wonder what the effect this has on the little boys and if they then are more likely to hit their partners in adulthood? However I haven’t as yet discovered any research looking into any link.

I don’t in general have a lot of time for MRA’s. On the topic of domestic violence the data is pretty clear. Women are murdered at an alarming rate, and the same just simply isn’t true the other way around. Also from what I gather when we men are subject to domestic violence we are far less likely to remain in those relationships for long, and are subjected to fewer overall instances of it. I’ve seen MRA’s advanced fudged data, where abusive relationships are counted but not individual instances of it. When you look at the whole picture women are subject to far more and more severe violent attacks relative to men. I wouldn’t wish that fact to be lost in anything I’ve posted.

I am however very keen to deep dive into the causes of violence, and of course find ways to ensure my son grows up as peaceful as I am.

Maybe the problem is the Blue Pill embracers?

To be fair to you , yours wasn't the most patronising post. I can't be bothered scrolling back to find it but it was a lengthy post basically saying Erin Pizzey is in the same category as present day liberal feminists who whole heartedly embrace the whole and the worst of trans ideologies.

Erin Pizzey's embracing of Red Pill/ MRA is saddening and ultimately bad for her personally. I don't think her emotional health or her bank balance is in a healthy condition these days.

But I can understand why she got there- if on the one hand there's a group of feminists telling her she's got it all wrong, refusing to listen to her, ignoring what she saw and dealt with in her personal life and at Chiswick and on the other hand a group of men, listening to her and welcoming her with open which is she going to choose?

Er - OK. I wasn't intending that in a patronising way. It was meant as a counter to people who say her views are absolute rubbish/antifeminist and untrue.

I completely agree her actions in support of DV victims made an incredible impact and shouldn't be diminished. It's really splitting hairs to argue whether she was acting against DV or against sexism. These things are intertwined, you can't disentangle them. And it was sexism that prevented women in particular escaping DV at that time (and to a large extent still today).

@Postdatedpandemic. Well put. I am so tired of the 'women can only ever be victims' trope. Pizzey pointed out that the truth is more complex and nuanced and needs to be looked at in a wider context.

She didn't solve the problem of domestic abuse. However, her actions have made more of a dent in the problem than your words.

She then read all the research about DV and acknowledged it was a far more complex issue. She has devoted her life to the bigger issue. How to radically reduce DV for all. She's a complex mix of go with your gut and do it don't just talk, combined with evidence based research.

Not totally made up , this is the sort of insulting comment that makes women walk away from Marxist feminism. And alienates so many from the feminist boards on MN.

Her observations about the behaviour of abused women are not totally made up nor off the wall. Her conclusions IMO are wrong, really off the mark, that's the problem.

This.

Thank you.

You were more succinct that myself in expressing a similar position.

Packing and bread great posts.

I've read her book, it isn't long and the text can be found easily online. It's quite graphic iirc.

Her observations about the behaviour of abused women are not totally made up nor off the wall. Her conclusions IMO are wrong, really off the mark, that's the problem.

It's interesting that she never considered herself a feminist. I didn't realise that, but it makes a lot of sense.

I mean I can see why some things got up her nose.

She was widely labelled and still is, a feminist when she never was.

Then when she took a direction which makes way more sense (however feel about how that manifested) she is essentially rejected by feminists who feel it's a bizarre U-turn and a betrayal.

That would get up my nose tbh.

And given that.

I actually think it's not right for her to be described as a feminist. She has never wanted that label, she rejects it.

She should be described as she is and was. The woman who felt so strongly about domestic violence including child abuse in families. That she created the first refuge for womem fleeing violence and their children. Founding the refuge is considered a major event in the history of women's rights.

Or whatever!

Bottom line is her interest was and is about domestic violence. Why it happens, what the dynamics are. That it can go both ways (differential in size strength etc obviously important).

The impact on children. That mothers and fathers abuse. That there are many forms of child abuse.

That women sometimes go back when they had a choice.

Why these things happen. Replicating dynamics internalised as a child can happen. Not to mean that all abused children becomes abusers obviously. And not all abusers were abused obviously.

Her focus is due to her background.

That her first action was a woman's refuge was because that was the obvious priority at the time. With the attitude of the police and society. The laws. The fact that it's about the children too that will pretty much always be with the mum.

It was a feminist action but that was not why she did it.

It was about households with DV esp when there were children. Not about women.

I think that's fair enough.

I CBA to read the whole thread to see if somebody else has posted this, but if you've got nearly an hour of why she started her refuge, and why she subsequently became an enemy of the feminist movement.

It is absolutely horrifying what some of the women Ms Pizzey saw went through. I cannot imagine their despair at being returned to the hands of their abusers and being told to "kiss and make up", knowing that they had no options, no support and nowhere to go.

Really nicely put thoughts, @HoardingSamphireSaurus.

men shouldn't beat women and that women needed help to escape violent/abusive relationships

I'd like to look again at that. I think she believed that domestic partners shouldn't beat domestic partners/family members and that, at that time, women needed help to escape. Now she feels that male victims have been left behind.

Thanks. I think that helped me reframe what I was trying to say much more logically.

My experience is that we now live in a world where the headline policy statement is so important to people that they consciously avoid discussion of quite obvious adverse consequences of said policy.

Ooof! That hit home. The small group of charities I work/volunteer from have been guilty of that recently. It is why we now have an umbrella admin/policy team. We all look at each other's projects and try to keep mission creep and entrenchment from setting in. But we only recently recognised the latter.

Her views that DV is not a sexed issue is one she has always held.

I wanted to come nback to this. This is what Pizzey always believed. She started Refuge because women had nowhere to go, were seen as 'possessions' and returned to their male abusers. Men had other means of escape - usually because they were waged, women then rarely were.

She wasn't aiding women flee domestic violence as much as providing shelter for those who had no other means of escape. Semantics maybe, but it does fit with her consistent non femnist stance. It also makes her current stance more logicial. There are womens refuges (OK, I know). We are standingup for MH in men, this is part of that. Making sure that male victims also have refuge.

That she turned her back on Refuge was because they were resolutely feminist. She wasn't.

I am not happy to condemn her for that. I think she has a valid view. One I think needs to be discussed openly. Becoming entrenched, being partisan, won't solve any issue.