Erin Pizzey and the founding of dv shelters in the UK

Erin Pizzey in her own words.
She is a most remarkable woman and a very interesting dinner guest.

In some ways, this is understandable. Politicians and execs want to be able to announce positive and good things, particularly in an antagonistic political arena. They want to be able to solve problems. But what seems to have happened is that this desire is now overriding an exploration of what negative consequences a policy may have.

There are some cases though where I feel negative implications are known about and purposely hidden in order to get legislation or policies passed, even if when people must know that a particular policy has the potential to destroy a civic institution or service itself.

And this is where "forensic examination" comes into play. Now it has always been a factor, but I think now it's become an acute necessity.

Very moving to see the photos of the women and children - I wonder what became of them. I hope their lives improved and the children weren't too damaged - they'd be in their 40s & 50s now.

The other link was also interesting! The fact it's an outlet with a certain stance is erm pretty clear.

They don't have any/ many direct quotes (sorry can't remember). So whether it's totally accurate through to totally inaccurate is anyone's guess!

The parts about her experience and feelings about feminism then though I found interesting to read.

Whether it's factual I have no idea.

It's the same as is said now though essentially.

Feminists are extremists.
Feminists are (in modern lingo) middle class, don't know about real life, talk/ write etc in ways that exclude loads of women, see women as victims never doing anything bad, and men as innately horrible.

Posting because reading the interview she alludes to some of that.

Which means the go to arguments around why feminism is awful haven't changed at all since at least the very early 70s

Interview in guardian with EP about her views why she changed direction.

www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/26/gender.uk1

Vv interesting.

My take from the piece is-

She never saw herself as a feminist in any way.

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

(She is considered/ often described as a feminist then presumably because the refuge was for women. And thus a feminist action.)

Her views about men women and violence are explained in her words. Very informative.

Hard to believe she's now a men's rights activist

I don't find it hard at all.

Just look at what's happening right now with many women who declare their feminist credentials by supporting an ideology that centres men and calling it intersectional feminism (completely ignoring or being oblivious to the context/work of Kimberlé Crenshaw who coined the term to describe the experiences of black women).

It's a hard truth but not all women, in fact many, don't have a sense of connection/loyalty to their own sex.

Many young intersectional feminists (IF's) don't have the legacy of Pizzey in the sense of founding something so revolutionary, but they have traction and a platform in social media that's incredibly influential.

I see a connection here (not evidenced so maybe a hunch) in so far just as Pizzey's later stance was rooted in the experience of her mothers violence (and thus women are equally at fault as their perpetrator in an abusive relationship), younger IF's prioritisation of men in their "feminism" is rooted in their life upbringing that women are always equal to men (and by default that women who can't "hold their own" are at fault).

Mallard thanks for link! Will read whole piece but near the start-

'To this very day, Pizzey remains outspokenly at odds with the established false wisdom regarding the nature and causes of domestic violence and the fraudulent war that feminists continue to wage against males and against civil society, well into her late 70s and beyond 80.'

So I'm assuming this is starting from a certain viewpoint!

So will bear that in mind when reading.

In the late 70s/early 80s I used to live very close to the Chiswick refuge and met Erin Pizzey a few times. My now ex and I donated some items of furniture - the conditions inside were grim and left me in no doubt that those women must be escaping something very bad to prefer the refuge.

Pizzey married a very young American student half her age who was a volunteer; I'm not sure if my memory is correct but I think this was a turning point in her outlook. Hard to believe she's now a men's rights activist.

And we seem to have different ideas of what constitutes a big chunk of an article because it's really not. It's a little bit near end.

What you dismiss as a "little bit" by dint of word count, is a 40 year legacy of male rights activism that has overshadowed the work Pizzey did in Ealing. That bit at the end carries a huge amount of weight for many readers, because Pizzey's trajectory away from helping women to actively working against them is confusing, astonishing, thought-provoking and leaves you with more questions than the article answers. And I am pretty sure Pizzey is very proud of her work since 1980, so you dismissing it as a mere footnote in comparison to her early years of activism can be viewed as pretty insulting to Pizzey.

As to the rest of your complaint, you asked a question and I answered it. Perhaps if you want to talk about rudeness, we can talk about coming into a middle of a discussion and chastising people for talking about the content of the article in the OP.

Many informative and insightful comments on this thread. I remember Erin Pizzey well, and still admire her. Many passionate activists are difficult people, as I’m sure we’ve all noticed!

I’m impressed that we can have a genuine discussion about something as uncomfortable as female violence, in a spirit of goodwill.

At least this side.

Analysis of domestic violence is always going to be sticky. But if you judge her by her actions, she changed the world.

Thanks so much for that link, ArabellaScott. I knew about Erin Pizzey's work and her subsequent break with Refuge but those photographs and account of the actual practicalities of setting up her first refuge are incredibly powerful.

There are so many excellent responses but I especially loved HoardingSamphireSaurus's of her own work and PackingSoapAndWater's analysis.

Some posters have asked if Erin Pizzey has been airbrushed out of history. My memory is that it was a bit of a mutual process - Erin Pizzey disassociated herself from Refuge. I was trying to find something a bit more reliable than my memory but it's late and all I found was this on a conservative website I have never heard of which gives a more detailed account of Erin Pizzey's own life:

mallarduk.com/erin-pizey-frederick/

My own 2p worth is that there is something called founders syndrome. People who set up organisations sometimes come into conflict with how their organisation develops as it becomes larger and employs more people. Sue Ryder Care is an example of this. The board decided Sue Ryder's services were no longer needed but they kept on using her name because that was what the public knew!

In terms of women's response to domestic abuse, cases like Baby P or Arthur Labinjo-Hughes demonstrate that women can be abusive to their children. However, these are the exception, not as Erin Pizzey implied, a substantial number. It's the obverse of NAMALT. Nobody is denying it exists. It's just that most women experiencing domestic abuse need practical steps like suitable accommodation. The women in her refuges, as the BBC article shows, had little legal protection or access to support in establishing new lives. In this situation, it would be unsurprising if more of them returned to abusive situations.

I read the article when I saw it on BBC news home page and thought thought oooh and clicked. A couple weeks ago or so.

I understand now though that while I read it, and came on this thread early because of that.

I didn't digest it!

Well there you go. It's not that I don't know what I'm talking about because I haven't read. It's because I didn't read it properly/ understand it...

And we seem to have different ideas of what constitutes a big chunk of an article because it's really not. It's a little bit near end.

Agreeing to disagree is obviously the thing to do.

The approach to a comment you don't agree with of-

1. You don't know what you're talking about because you haven't read it
2. You may have read it but you don't know what you're talking about because you didn't read it properly/ understand it

Is dismissive, rude (not a word I ever really use!) and based in assumptions which are in this case wrong.

This happens a lot on MN and when people say they don't post because scary/ 'wrong' opinions not countenanced etc. Even to some extent the assertion it's an echo chamber, this is the sort of thing that leads to that.

The topic is not changing. A discussion has evolved, and I'm afraid you can't police what people choose to focus on in a discussion. Nobody has changed the subject. The topic is Pizzey and Pizzey's own attitude towards women in DV situations. Pizzey blames women. Pizzey says the women are addicted to violence. Nobody has said she didn't do a fantastic thing all those years ago starting a shelter. Apart from saying, wasn't it a good thing she did, and wasn't it terrifying what those women went through, what else do you want people to say? You are asking people to uncritically praise her and remember her for just one part of her life's work, when the reason she's been erased from the legacy of that work is Pizzey's own attitude that she has held since 1980 - that women are complicit, women are equally violent, women are addicted to conflict and (if her Wiki page is accurate) that equal numbers of women to men are paedophiles. Are we all just supposed to ignore that?

topic changing to women choosing to go back being addicted to violence etc is discordant.

It's not a change of topic. This is from the article:

In her book Prone to Violence she argues that a significant proportion of domestic violence happens because both partners are "addicted" to the adrenalin high connected with fear and being feared.

"Some women were unable to stay away from violence, however much they claimed they wanted to. They seemed doomed either to return to their violent partner, or, having given him up, to move rapidly on to another violent man."

And so my point was that the article massively focused on her deciding to help women experiencing DV. By making a place of refuge for them and their children.

The photos are horrific.

The part about women who went back and were killed is upsetting.

So given the vast majority of the article was about her experience of terrible abuse with parents, the reasons she decided to help, the huge determination and effort to get it going, the pics in the first place with the kids together prob making friends playing etc, the crowded situation.

The women who went back and were killed.

That's so much in there. Inspiring, sobering.

With all that I just feel like. I'm not surprised but topic changing to women choosing to go back being addicted to violence etc is discordant. What she did then is to be celebrated. Women got out. And that was down to her. Some went back yes. Still do. Given the meat of the article under discussion though it's a predictable change. I personally read it and thought just once it would be nice to celebrate. Ah well.

What on earth are you talking about, CheeseMmmm? I asked you whether you had read the article, because you questioned why we are talking about female complicity, which implied those of is discussing it had plucked the topic out of thin air. As opposed to the fact that we are discussing it because the article discusses it, and it is the crux of why Pizzey's name is no longer associated with the good work that she set out to do initially. If you had read and digested the article - a great chunk of which is about her belief that women are equally to blame for domestic violence, and may be addicted to it - why ask the question?

Yes I read the article. If I hadn't I wouldn't have posted about the pictures!

The did you read the article response translates as you don't know what you're talking about in reality doesn't it.

I know it's used a lot but it's not really a proper answer it's a knee jerk someone disagrees, they are talking rubbish.

In the end she is one individual. She did an incredible thing. Yes loads of feminists feel betrayed by her change of direction. She had her reasons, her background, her experiences in life.

Like a PP said it's topic of Difficult Women. Women are not saints or sinners. We are complicated individuals same as men.

You said it more eloquently than I did, @TedImgoingmad.

x post

Did you read all of the article? We are having this discussion because Pizzey is now a men's rights activists who thinks women are as culpable as men in domestic violence situations. That's why she has been erased from her own legacy.

Because the article discusses how Ms Pizzey changed her mind about domestic violence.