To think ‘are you sure this was abuse’ is not acceptable advice.

[Thatssomebadhatharry]

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/aug/05/i-have-an-abusive-ex-how-can-i-get-him-out-of-my-friendship-circle

Not sure if this was posted but I saw this online from Mariella Frostrup. Her victim blaming in the response from someone asking for advice about an abusive ex.

yes, I found she missed the mark on that one.

I don't think there is such a thing as "unacceptable advice" from a columnist whose job is to give her opinion. She isn't really "victim-blaming" either. She seems to be questioning why the OP's family should do the cutting out, not her.

YANBU she’s awful! Regularly gives ‘advice’ similar to this. Annalisa Barbieri (spelling?) also writes for the Guardian and is so much better, she always consults experts whereas MF seems to just spout off based on her own daft ideas.

YABU

Wow, she really did miss the mark there.

“But the word abuse is a loaded one today and where it once bore shades of grey, today it immediately blackens the name of the accused. So I have to ask you to be honest with yourself and decide whether we are talking about real abuse here, or a short-lived aberration a very long time ago. We must be very careful about the language we use to describe what are now crimes, for the sake of those still suffering. Employing wisdom and responsibility when it comes to sexual politics and matters of the heart is the only way to ensure that real victims are believed and their abusers dealt with.”

Pengggwn

‘When it comes to romance there are two sides to every single story’

Not sure how you could say this is not victim blaiming

Thatssomebadhatharry

I think that is a simple fact. She says it is abuse; perhaps he doesn't agree.

I agree she doesn't sound particularly like she accepts the writer's claim of abuse to be factual, but I don't agree that she is obligated to.

That's disgusting but I don't think it's the first time she's done something like this. I can't remember what the other column was about though.

That's the guardian for you though, foul paper.

Not sure how you could say this is not victim blaiming

Because its a fact that there are always at least 2 sides to every story?

You know just because someone claims someone else is abusive, doesn't mean they actually are/were?

Also
‘So I have to ask you to be honest with yourself and decide whether we are talking about real abuse here, or a short-lived aberration a very long time ago’

The victim says he was physically abusive so she is implying there are levels to phisical abuse and a quick slap perhaps should be forgotten. It’s disgusting!!

But she was writing to an advice column and not in court. Surely advice should be based on her actually being believed?!

Thatssomebadhatharry

No, I don't think advice does have to be based on uncritical acceptance of what she says. Frostrup makes the reasonable point that the writer is upset because her ex doesn't want to normalise relations with her, and as a result of that, is upset that her own relatives won't cut the ex out of their lives. That's a rather strange thought process and I would question it too.

Honestly, 'abusive' relationships often involve mutually abusive behaviour. It is impossible to say in many cases (not all) having only heard one side of the story whether it was truly abusive in the sense that one person has power over the other who has little/no power in the relationship and abuses it. Do also baey in mind that these columns only pay a small section of the letter so the wider context of the letter may give rise to good reason to question just how abusive the ex was. I'm not sure that you can call questioning the validity if a statement of abuse as victim blaming (which is admiring that there was abuse and then holding the victim accountable for it). I wouldn't presume to make an assumption here one way or another but its really not as simple as one person calls the other abusive do they are the abuser and questioning that us victim blaming.

Also regarding physical violence it can be acrsult if months of emotional abuse. There if s a reason why we have a battered women defence to acts if criminal violence.

‘which is admiring that there was abuse and then holding the victim accountable for it’

Not necessarily. It can also be suggesting the victim is only upset because their definition of abuse is not right.

I also wholeheartedly disagree that advice in this context should look at both sides and suggest that the victims version of events be questioned. This maybe applied to personal advice perhaps. However this is a public forum and no doubt has been read by numerous abuse victims who day in day out have to deal with people who don’t believe them, particularly from family of the abuser. This is a major issue if you look into it especially when looking at the role of the family courts. Probably the main reason why abusers get away with it. Frostrup has a duty of care to her readers. If she saw more of the letter that justified her answer then she could have quoted directly from it. I doubt believe this was the case it doesn’t to me seem logical and a bit clutching at straws to justify her response.

Anyway I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the input it is good to have other perspectives on things.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/dec/16/left-abusive-boyfriend-mariella-frostrup

Mariella Frostrup has form for this. She received a lot of criticism for the above a few years back.

(Short version: the letter writer says her ex abused her in various ways including sexually; MF sneers about her making him sound like the "devil incarnate" , calls her petulant and says she can't take sides.)