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
This reply has been deleted
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
I wonder what his definition of 'hurt physically' is? Does he mean it didn't hurt? Does he mean it didn't leave a mark? Or nothing got broken?
And by saying 'physically' is he accepting that she may have been hurt emotionally.
Or is he just referring to those 'feelings' that irrational women have.
This is making my skin crawl 
It's all horrible (the incident, the reporting of it, people's minimising / victim blaming), but not surprising 
Xenia
You are slightly off topic with this comment
Also these marriages where you marry a man old enough to be your father (and a smoker too when her own first husband died of throat cancer) are never going to work. Also the person you love will die a lot sooner than you do - 20 - 30 years earlier so it's always a recipe for disaster.
but I really hope you will think again about your sweeping generalisation. (And the smoking observation is odd too- is it not working cos he's a smoker- or because her first husband died of cancer and therefore this guy is doomed too)
I know at least 2 couples in my small social circle where there is a 20 yr ( or almost) age gap. One friend married someone 70 when she was late 40s and they are blissfully happy.
Age is just a number. Some women ( or men) are willing to trade a shorter time together even if the age difference means they are likely to be widowed first. But even having said that, no one knows how long they will live, so they?
AF
I am having writers block on this issue for some reason so my blog post is on hold. Sorry.*
*I'm sure you're all very very disappointed.
Tee, I had put the rest of my evening on hold for Xenia, and for you
I might as well have sorted my cutlery drawer
< sheesh >
If "A crime ... is an act harmful not only to some individual, but also to the community or the state..." and CS has accepted a caution does he not owe something to the community - not just his public/clients/recipients of patronage - ie accepting his guilt at a minimum.
Or is he telling us that when he told the police that, when he told the media, that the apparent strangling gesture was worse than it looked, his statement wasn't factually accurate, but in fact what he told the police was terminologically inexact.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.