Yesterday, following the publication of images which showed him grasping his wife Nigella Lawson by the throat, Charles Saatchi was cautioned by police for assault.
The initial publication of the photographs sparked a flurry of media comment, some of which appeared to sail perilously close to out-and-out victim blaming. Here, columnist and Mumsnet blogger Glosswitch says it's time to call violence by its name.
"When a man presses his hands around his partner?s throat, what should we call it? A 'row'? A 'violent dispute'? Or perhaps it's nothing more than a 'playful tiff'? After all, these things happen. Perhaps you've had similar 'playful tiffs' yourself.
Like most women, I've grown to be wary of the tiff, the domestic, the bust-up. Casual language masks a far more brutal reality. You don't have to see violence captured on film to witness fear around you. A friend of mine changed her name and moved to a new town, taking her daughter with her. Fifteen years on, she still lives on self-imposed witness protection, albeit minus the protection. An acquaintance of my mother's didn't leave; her violent partner left her, but only after discovering she had terminal cancer, pain and suffering that for once he couldn't control. A man in our local area stabbed his wife to death. The men said nothing while the women exchanged reassurances about the dead woman having been 'a nag. It's shocking, the things a 'playful tiff' can lead to. So let's not call it that; let's simply call it what it is, and that's violence against women.
I'm aware that this is a loaded phrase. Why not just say 'domestic violence'? 'Violence against women' can be considered disrespectful to male victims of violence, an active dismissal of their suffering, yet it doesn't need to be. It's an important way of recognising that this type of abuse takes place against a very specific cultural backdrop. Like the Mayfair diners too polite to intervene when a woman is terrorised before them, it seems we're too well-mannered to talk about gender. It's too radical, too divisive, 'a bit 1970s'. But how do you address an issue when you're constantly swerving to avoid what lies at the very heart?
In discussions of domestic violence there's an impulse to make things appear equal, as though we're trying to pacify fractious children rather than dealing with a clear-cut issue of right and wrong. We talk about provocation and willed victimhood (an Australian DJ demands people boycott Lawson's books 'until she makes a stand on domestic violence'). We mumble excuses about self-expression and different ways of arguing (Charles Saatchi claims to have 'held Nigella's neck repeatedly while attempting to emphasise [his] point' - as you do - while Christina Odone helpfully describes what occurred as 'a quarrel where the husband jokingly puts his hands round his wife's throat and accidentally hurts her' - oh yeah, one of those! So no harm done then, eh?). Over in the Guardian Roy Greenslade smugly sallies forth as the Voice of Reason, chiding us all for 'a rush to judgment' before quoting Saatchi's bizarre excuses without a trace of scepticism. It seems a woman can be abused in broad daylight and still people will try to suggest all's fair in love and war. But it's not. This isn't a competition, or at least not one that anyone should want to win. It's not about ignoring male victims of violence, but understanding that there's a specific type of fear that many women have to live with - one that's being heightened right this very minute by all those who seek to downplay scenes such as those captured by the Sunday People.
Nick Griffin's tweet in response to the Saatchi incident -If I had the opportunity to squeeze Nigella Lawson, her throat wouldn't be my first choice - is telling. It's about taking ownership of women and their bodies, diminishing them, putting them in their place. And yes, of course this is Nick Griffin, who is hardly all men (thank god). Even so, it's a response to a culture we all recognise. We can easily imagine which bits Griffin wouldn't mind squeezing. Does he mean it? Who knows? The point at which 'ironic' banter merges into out-and-out threat is never quite clear. Charles Saatchi still thinks he's being 'playful' when he's throttling the woman he claims to love.
So where do we go from here? The media that reports on incidents such as that which took place between Saatchi and Lawson is deeply sexist. It tells us what men say and do but only what women look like. It's interested in bare breasts, muffin tops, a female politician's shoes, the tears in a frightened woman's eyes. Of course it's ironic that this prurient interest in women as objects becomes the whole reason why we know of this particular assault (who do you think the camera was there to find - Saatchi or Lawson?). All the same, let's not waste this knowledge by merely skimming the surface.
This isn't about a posh couple having a fight. It isn't a tiff, that short, fluffy, one-syllable word that hides a multitude of sins. It's about power, manipulation and the way in which disrespect for women's bodies and voices is endemic and poisonous. We shouldn't be surprised when these things happen to the Rihannas and the Nigellas - that implies that being non-famous can be accepted as a natural risk factor for being abused. We should however be outraged that a distorted view of what is normal and what is equal might prevent us from tackling this problem with the honesty and compassion it deserves.
Join the discussion and meet other Mumsnetters on our free online chat forum.
Chat
Guest blog: Nigella, Saatchi and the media - it's time to call violence against women by its name
KateMumsnet · 18/06/2013 10:34
*sarabidog
So you are arguing that if someone buys your products - or 'brand'- you then become their 'property' and are answerable to them and 'owe' them something in return?
She owes nothing to you, me or anyone.
Why should she?
Are you saying that if someone has a media status and public recognition they should then do whatever they are asked to do? Or am I right in thinking that is just another kind of abuse- forcing someone to behave in way that might make others feel better?
This reply has been deleted
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
Onedomestic, it doesn't really matter whether it's a local, national or intergalactic radio station. The point is that if everyone just accepted the misuse of certain phrases to describe particular situations it becomes the norm and potentially trivialised. It might have only been a small thing in the grand scheme but I'm glad i pointed it out even the impact was minimal. Perhaps I should listen to Radio 4 more often but my taste in music is very immature 
I have been lurking but I must post now to say to zebra that I feel sorry for you. You obviously have no empathy whatsoever.
Just because she has money does not make it any easier to leave. Have you never committed to someone who has drawn you in only for you to find out they were not the person you thought they were? Money can't protect you from that!!
Logistically, yes, with money it's easier but that is the only benefit. It doesn't bring greater understanding, support or courage. 
We are all capable of being manipulated. You've just done it to me. The inflammatory nature of your post has compelled me to post I only intended to lurk on!
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
zebra that is a shocking post, and not in a good way. Nice bit of victim blaming there. I cant even be bothered really to argue against your post, too much tunnel vision going on there.
This reply has been deleted
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
PM have really pissed me off this evening - there was this reformed abuser on talking about how he'd been to anger management to stop abusing.
It doesn't help when the media promote myths about domestic violence like it's just about men not being able to manage their anger. Charles Saatchi is brilliant at managing his anger - he only inflicts it in on people in circumstances where he won't be held accountable for it. I bet he's never actually expressed it in that way at business meetings. 
Nigella didn't have her hands around Charles' throat, Vivienmary.
What you are doing, is minimising domestic violence.
That sort of minimising is precisely the reason it is so prevalent.
1 in 4 women are subjected to chronic DV in their lives. One of the major reasons it's so common, is because most people minimise it and pretend it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
It isn't. One party here was clearly abusing the other one. Yet still people queue up to pretend it was mutual.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.