Guest blog: Nigella, Saatchi and the media - it's time to call violence against women by its name

[KateMumsnet]

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.

[TheDoctrineOfAllan]

The age difference is 17 years. Not that it's relevant to his behaviour.

[turbochildren]

Just wanted to put my support behind this blog. I've tried to make the same points on chat boards on the guardians, people spout such utter rubbish sometimes.
He is minimising it for dear life, and should not be cut any slack. "I've apologised, now we have to put this behind us", convenient, innit! Except he hasn't even apologised, he's just called it playfull tiff, and that he was emphasizing his point. It's sadly recognisable of a man who feels so entitled he is just annoyed it got out to the press. I'm sure he is completely failing to understand the outrage. Surely his wife should understand she's caused this mess by not agreeing properly in the first place, for making him have to emphasize his point in such a way etc.
Also sad about how people have described her, as weak and an enabler (on cif). Maybe these descriptions have their place, but I'm ready to scream at anyone who calls me an enabler of my xp's violence, so will extend that outrage to support anyone having been at the hands of such an attack.
And breathe.

[BIWI]

Oh yes, I also forgot to say - FAB BLOG

[Xenia]

(17 year age gap is old enough to be her father).

[Bonsoir]

My grandparents had a 16 year age gap and were very happily married with 5 children.

[onedomesticgoddess]

Yes Xenia we know that a man 17 years older is old enough to be her father.

Maybe run along and begin a thread in Relationships about The Best Age Gap for Perfect Relationship. it's clearly something that bothers you but your comments here are totally beside the point.

[onedomesticgoddess]

BTW- the D Mail has new pics today which show that they were back at Scotts a week after the 'playful tiff'- eating outside etc .

I am a bit surprised because we had been led to believe that the time line was throttling/playful tiff, pics in press, and Nigella leaves.

I for one didn't appreciate that in the week since the attack, they had been seen in public again as if nothing had occurred- until it hit the media.

[newpencilcase]

Which more than likely means this is not a one-off but a characteristic of their marriage.

Doesn't make it right though does it.

If everyone moved out the minute their partner assaulted them there would be no problem would there

[chartreuse]

In the intervening week between the chocking and the publication of the photos, her children were doing exams, she tweeted about the celebration meal she made them. For many mothers that would impact on the decision of whether to leave or whether to go on, putting up with it for the sake of her children. Not wanting to disrupt then in the middle of their exams. Having to go home after being attacked by your husband in a public place and pretend that everything is fine. How desperately sad to be put in a position like that.

[Northernlurker]

Onedomestic - no it was always very clear that the pictures published on Sunday had been taken a week earlier. We don't know(nor do we need to know) if Nigella has left her marriage. Saatchi says she's 'lying low' but he would say that wouldn't he, in the words of Mae West.
What is beyond doubt though is that this incident happened and she continued living in the family home - like the majority of women who suffer abuse do. Leaving is incredibly hard and it's known to take many attempts for women to actually leave - even when they're well off and successful women like Nigella.
And that's why I have talked to my (older) daughters about abuse in relationships and urged them that if once something happens that threatens or frightens them I want them to get out then because it will only get harder to leave. I have told them to call me at any time of day or night and that there is no part of the world I wouldn't go to in order to get them out of this kind of situation. I started having these conversations after reading trial accounts of a man who strangled his 17yr old girlfriend. Evidence was given of his controlling and threatening behaviour beforehand. They had no children together, no home, no finances tied up - you would think it would have been easy for her to get away but she didn't and I think that's partly because she didn't realise how dangerous the situation was.

[onedomesticgoddess]

no, no- you've misread me Northern!

I know the pics were a week old- that's always been clear. What I was adding today was the fact that the DM have NEW pics which were taken AFTER the others- a week after- with them dining again ' as if nothing had happened'.

The subtext being- had these pics not been shown, she was carrying on living with him- it's only because everyone has seen the pics that she has left, not the fact she was abused that's made her leave.

[Chubfuddler]

What exactly are you trying to say onedomestic? You're sounding a little Christine Odone about this, which is slightly alarming. You appear to be suggesting NL was perfectly happy and has been driven away from her husband by the media storm. If that is what you are saying I'm not at all convinced by that version of events. It certainly doesn't chime with my experience of DV.

[onedomesticgoddess]

No I am not saying that though IME Odone has talked a lot of sense in the past and her piece on this is not all that bad- there is certainly some truth in what she says ( though I wouldn't use the word 'jokingly')

All I was pointing out is that we were led to believe the timeline was 'the incident', then the media scrum over it, then Nigella leaving. What no one mentioned was that in between the incident and its appearance in the press, life for the couple appears ( and note that word, please) to have continued as before including dining out at the same restaurant.

I am not drawing any conclusions- merely pointing out what I'd seen today.

[Chubfuddler]

Well I would say you, like Odone, clearly know cock all about DV.

[Tee2072]

You are drawing conclusions, onedomestic. You're concluding that if there hadn't been a media storm, she wouldn't have left.

And Odone is stupid. And I never use that word. But that article? Stupid.

[Chubfuddler]

I suggest you google "cycle of abuse" one domestic

[Tee2072]

I still have writer's block and I'm angry about something else and am letting it spill over, but that's what I came up with.

[mrsdinklage]

Tee - but that says enough - it says everything.

[Tee2072]

Thanks mrsd. I wanted to say more, but it just wouldn't come.

[Northernlurker]

I've NEVER seen Odone talk sense about anything. She's deeply dim imo.

I repeat we don't know why she left on Sunday or even if she has left the marriage. What we do know is that her going home with Saatchi on the Sunday, not leaving on the Monday morning after this incident or at any point before the publishing of the pictures means nothing. It doesn't mean everything was fine. It doesn't mean he's right in calling it a tiff. It doesn't mean Odone was right to say it was just a row in their marriage etc etc.

I agree you need to look up the cycle of abuse. If you check out the womens aid site I linked below I'm sure it's on there.

It's really important for people to understand that in an abusive relationship it isn't necessarily awful all of the time. Abusers are clever and cunning and they want to keep control over their victims. Violence and other abuse is one method but so is manipulation.

[Xenia]

Saatchi spoke exclusively to last night's Standard and said he had sent NL and the children away for a bit. (a) he has sent them away ( don't like that language (b) not very supportive not to be with her unless their marriage is in trouble (c) bit strange to do that if her children are still doing public school exams (If it's true - they may still be in the house but pretending not to be to escape the press).

[BIWI]

Tee - brilliant. How do I follow your blog?

[somebloke123]

To have someone hold your neck like that is disconcerting even if it's clearly in play, which this clearly wasn't.

To be grabbed by the neck by someone known to throw violent temper fits is something else entirely. I can't see how she isn't in a more or less permanent state of insecurity and fear of serious injury or worse.

(Northernlurker Sorry to be pedantic but "He would, wouldn't he?" was Mandy Rice Davies, not Mae West.)

[Tee2072]

Thanks BIWI. Sorry, my 'Give me your email to subscribe' button had gone POOF! Now it's there, right hand side.

[WigglyBraddins]

Hear hear. This is an excellent post. I've also found this one interesting too www.julietemckenna.com/?p=1069