AIBU to find Dennis Waterman's remarks disgusting?

[YouOldSlag]

On the front page of tomorrow's Mirror is this quote from Dennis Waterman "Yes I hit Rula, but clever women make men lash out"

Speechless. I hope nobody ever hires him again. (Not that lots of people are at the moment, but you know what I mean).

I found Mr. w's analysis of not beating her black and blue up there with the delusions that a certain Ms. Cassidy also alluded to. That Refuge statistics did not apply to her as she was not beaten black and blue everyday.
So it is only extremes of behaviour that are condemed. a bit of a slap here and there is just one of those things and anyway she drove me to it/he was drunk.....

No I don't mean that at all cory - I just mean he must have known he would be encouraged to talk about it, and as there really is no good or credible way of trying to explain that lack of self-control, or to defend the indefensible it is better not to attempt it and then look a total wanker. As this thread demonstrates!

The phrase 'it is not difficult for a woman to make a man hit her' is very contentious, I know, but it is just possible he could have been saying it with a slight sense of irony - taking a bit of a pop at himself and other egotistical, slightly dim, trigger happy men with a faulty self-control function and a warped sense of pride. Hard to tell reading it rather than seeing the interview in person.

Anyway, if I try to dissect it any more it will sound like I am trying to defend him and I am most certainly not. I just don't like to take what I read in the media at face value without analysing things, and scrutinising them for deliberately sensationalist editing, that's all. Let me make it clear that i think he sounds like an utter arse.

hilly i know what you are saying, but it catches in the craw a bit if he is taking the position as "poor me stupid man I is, don't mean hit woman, just I is fick". Wondering if he felt the same about Stephen Hawking. Clever geezer, make Dennis feel fick, must hit..

Just out of interest though, he could have been a victim of psychological abuse, and unable to effectively challenge it used other methods - not saying its right, but as we don't know the inside details, perhaps judgement should be reserved. I know plenty of people suffering psychological or financial abuse that have caused violence and rage in another.

worriedbetty WHAT? There was no mention at anytime in his interview about any other problems. I am sure he would have offered them up as excuses for his behaviour.

Stop excusing him. Why are people so quick to excuse men's appalling behaviour? Psychological abuse, my arse. He didn't like being answered back to, that's what.

There is a choice comment from someone called Richard Barron under the article if you scroll down:
The trouble is that there are so many women nowadays who make false allegations of DV for the simple reason that they can do and get away with it. As a result, Mothers get support from the likes of Women's Aid, get a new life, new house, fleece the ex partner financially and so forth - all because of how easy it is to make false allegations. She gets legal aid, he (if he works) has to pay a fortune in legal costs. In the meantime, the real victim is left penniless, no contact with his kids, no support.

Unbelievable how some people view the world...

worriedbetty, let's just say he HAD been a victim of abuse, are you really saying that this would make it all fine???

Also wonder if we can be expected to "reserve judgement" when he's GIVEN the interview?

The "excuses" for his behaviour on this thread really bother me- Lolaflores- am with you on this one.

And IjustLOVEmen -am also scratching my head at the musings of a certain Richard Barron- sounds like he's subscribed to "somebodyshoulddosomething.com" (& probably The Daily Mail?)

Worriedbetty i can't imagine rula Lenska was the easiest woman to live with, but I'm sure he was always capable of walking out of the front door if the 'psychological abuse' got too much for him. It is no defence.

He wasn't a victim of abuse. She was. His sense of entitlement and arrogance shines through. He thinks it is OK to hit a woman. He wasn't lashing out in frustration as victims of abuse do, he was perpetrating the abuse.

Hillywallaby & AbigailAdams when I read comments like yours, I wish MN wuold introduce a "like" button!

I always thought he was a tosser, now I know!

Yes, the old chestnut that loads of women lie about DV in order to fleece poor unsuspecting men of huge amounts of money.

Never mind the facts that false allegations are actually extremely rare, that most result in nothing more than a caution unless very serious, that most NRP's don't pay maintenance, that few mothers actually get to stay in the marital home longer than a year or two following divorce, and that single mothers are twice as likely to live in poverty than the rest of the population.

People lie. But unless you subscribe to the idea that women are naturally devious and more likely to lie than men then it's completely irrelevant to any argument. And if you do think like that, then you are a misogynist.

Hilly, how do you KNOW that Rula Lenska was wasn't the "easiest woman to live with?" Do you know her personally? Even if she wasn't "easy" (whatever that means,) he had the choice to leave or beat. He chose beat and he is showing not a jot of genuine remorse for his actions even now. Saying he was "too stupid," isn't accepting responsibility. It's blaming something "beyond his control." How many times have we heard abusive men saying that they weren't responsible? It was the drink/drugs/stress/fame/jealousy/inadequacy/something or other about the woman, that "made" them do it? This is just another example of that.

Absolutely indefensible, but of course there will be plenty of people who WILL defend his choice to abuse women, and others like the person who commented, quoted up thread, that insist that most victims of abuse are making it up. Those arguments suit their agenda, enable men to retain their privilege without compunction.

I didn't say 'I know' did I? I said 'I imagine'.

And I watched her on Celebrity Big Brother. which love it or loathe it, is a pretty good way to get the measure of someone, when we cannot know them personally.

Even if she wasn't "easy" (whatever that means,) he had the choice to leave or beat.

Er...yes. i think you will find that was my exact point.

Why are you trying to make it sound like I am justifying what he did?

He totally blames his punching Rula - one of the times giving her a black eye - squarely on her. He says, "But if a woman is a bit of a power freak and determined to put you down, and if you?re not bright enough to do it with words, it can happen". So if she hadn't been a 'power freak' and 'determined to put him down' then he would never have laid a finger on her.

Dennis Waterman for example is a twat. A wife beating twat to boot.

He says that he is ashamed and then justifies hitting out, again. It has just been debated on This Morning and the feedback that DW is getting on what he has said is good, in terms of all male presenters are saying that the way he has put it, he has hit out to shut her up.

Telegraph.co.uk

This is from another paper and think it sums up "why it happened"

In the ITV interview, the actor said of his attitudes to women: 'I'm actually quite Victorian in that way.
'It's been suggested that I'm chauvinistic but I don't think I am, I'm just? I think there is a place for women at home.

Telegraph.co.uk

Figarello You see I do not see that as a cut and dried case of 'totally' blaming her. I see that as him taking partial blame, by admitting that he was emotionally illiterate and inadequate, and resorted to violence to win the argument. Of course it is still not enough, to even suggest that there is even an element of responsibility on her part all the while he was free to walk out of the door and away from the argument.

It depends how you want to look at it I suppose. You can choose to see that by saying he was not calm enough or quick-witted enough to battle her verbally he is trying to create an image of himself as some kind of hapless victim, or you can see it as an admission that he knows he behaved like a bit of an emotionally illiterate knuckle dragging twat. My immediate reaction when I read it was the latter.

Of course there are plenty of men who are highly intelligent, articulate and in complete control of their emotions and yet still systematically beat and bully their wives for kicks. They are calculated sociopaths with a lifelong penchant for sadistic violence. I think DW may have been (hopelessly) trying to make the point that he is not one of them, and that it was an isolated period of very poor behaviour on his part as an ill-judged reaction to a relationship that was volatile. We have no idea of knowing whether that is true or not though. It will be interesting to see if any past lovers come out of the woodwork after this.He'd have to have some gall and some balls to say that he has never done it before or since, if he knew it were not true.

ffs some of the opinions on here have shocked me more than what he said (which actually are not shocking for an abusive man to say).

what he said is quite clear you, that sentence can not be read any other way i hit her because ... it quite the norm for men who are violent, they do not take responsibility for what they do, they often admit it was wrong (how can they not when talking to the press) but then justify it, that is not an acknowledgement you are in the wrong that is giving yourself a reason for doing wrong and that is what he has done

it is what all abusers do to try and make others see how they were pushed into abusing no doubt we shall hear more sob stories from him, maybe his father, grandfather beat him blah blah blah

while we still have people defending actions like this, while we have people trying play down the odd slap defending abusers who admit guilt but then give an excuse we shall struggle with the fight against domestic violence and we desperately need to change this. in this country 2 women a week are dying we all need to stand against it united, for ourselves for our children and especially for young women. it is not sometimes ok or sometimes understandable or sometimes people are driven to it is always always wrong and the only person who is in the wrong is the abuser.

He doen't remember giving her a black eye, but admits that he did, so how could he remember the arguement?

His other statements sum up how he feels about women, it's probably that his current wife, stays were she should, he hasn't said that he has changed, he has just changed his wife.

I was always baffled by what the hell she ever saw in him even before knowing these awful facts.

I'm concerned at the view that people can just get up and walk away from psychological abuse.