Erin Pizzey and the founding of dv shelters in the UK

[ArabellaScott]

Interesting BBC article on Erin Pizzey.

It's astonishing to think how young the movement is. Pizzey founded what is now Refuge, the first dv shelter, but later denounced feminism and became an advocate for men's rights. She apparently has no ties with the organisation now.

Some upsetting descriptions in the article.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-59064064?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Hardly surprising when you consider just how few years ago marital rape was made a law! At least we can say 'it was last century' though!

@Packingsoapandwater, that was beautifully articulated. Thank you.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Yes. My aunt was returned to her registered keeper with a broken arm and missing teeth. She said nothing. At least once the policeman returning her had her toddler, complete with burn marks on his back, in his arms.

My cousin escaped when he was 16.

My aunt is still with her husband, both now in their 70s. Locked in mutual aggression, both incapable of changing.

My aunts abuser was her police officer husband. Guess how much support she had from her local station..

There was a film called Cathy Come Home around the same time. Erin Pizzey wrote a book called, I think, "Scream Quietly" . I was doing my safeguarding training around the same time and those two things are memorable. Also, the Maria Colwell report which was on our compulsory reading list.
Looking back it was absolutely horrific. I don't think things are much better today tbh.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Who, or what, do you believe is the cause of these changes in funding parameters? Ooh! That would be lobbying frome Stonewall and all the Stonewall Champions. The Lottery included

Someone or something must be introducing this gender ideology into funding conditions. Lots and lots of well meaning 'woke' individuals and organisations.

It takes hours to check for changes in funding parameters. It has taken months to learn a new funding lexicon. Identifying a need and how we can meet it is no longer good enough. We now have to meet needs in the right manner! It is infuriating.

Thank you for this. I understand where you are coming from, in so far as I deal with funding parameters but in a very different arena.

What you have said is sparking some thoughts in me, but they are nebulous at the moment. I'm having, for example, some vague thoughtforms about how forensic one needs to be when faced with real life material examples of the incursion of this ideology.

And, indeed, one could argue that this requirement to be forensic when examining the possible outcomes and consequences of a lot of modern policy is a feature of this moment in time in terms of governance as a whole, across many areas of endeavour, and I'm uncomfortable about what that means in terms of transparency, democracy, and society as a whole.

If you (general you) are going to put mothers and motherhood up on a pedestal, which a current thread is doing, the counter to that is abuse by a mother is worse.

Take it up in the relevant thread, then.

Cross posted with lots of people.

And, indeed, one could argue that this requirement to be forensic when examining the possible outcomes and consequences of a lot of modern policy is a feature of this moment in time in terms of governance as a whole, across many areas of endeavour, and I'm uncomfortable about what that means in terms of transparency, democracy, and society as a whole.

So far I have tried to avoid that by crying "It's a service for women!" but that has stopped working in some areas. It does feel forensic...

@KimikosNightmare

Erin Pizzey is someone who was battered by her mother. I can understand her feelings to an extent. My own mother was sometimes violent, always emotionally abusive and a frightening woman. However, my mum was a product of her own lack of autonomy. She had no say in anything that happened in her life, and coped in her own way with the shit life threw at her

But your mother, as an adult, had every say in how she personally treated you as a child. It's bullying isn't it? It might, just, be understandable that she would pick on someone smaller, but it's not excusable.

I am pretty sure (in my gut, I have no research) that the frustrations of women with no control over the lives and no legal recourse are a major factor in female violence

And again, everyone has a choice not to be violent.

I didn't say it was excusable. She died without my forgiveness. I'm saying I understand the source of her frustration and how that boiled over into external anger. That is all. Of course she had, and everyone has, a choice how to behave, what path to choose once you are at the point of acting out your frustrations . It's what gets you to the point of anger, that is the point I'm making. I'm guessing that, in most women, it is not an inherent evil or bent to do violence or the naked wielding of power. Pizzey may think otherwise.

And again, everyone has a choice not to be violent.

I think you misunderstand the complex behaviours that some women in DV situations exhibit.

For example, it's quite common for children growing up in an environment of DV to blame their mother for provoking the abuser - in some cases by means of violence themselves.

It's far too simple to put this solely in a box of addiction to the highs and lows of a violent relationship as Pizzey determined.

For a start it's not really the answer to to why women behave in this way.

It's actually the pathway to the question as to what fuels this co-dependency?

In that sense I don't think she was wrong, in identifying that behaviour, but rather she stopped short of examining the reason why women exhibiting that behaviour did so (perhaps in viewing this through the filter of her own experience with her mother).

In fact it's very common for women to provoke their abuser, sometimes using violence and whilst for some, co-dependence is a factor for many the reason is actually about exercising the only level of control they have over the abuse - which is when it happens.

Victims are usually highly aware of their abusers moods and can stop the warning signs that they are getting ready to "blow" in advance.

They then face a choice. Wait hours or often days, treading on eggshells in hellish anticipation of what is to come or get it over with and release the tension.

Or the reasons can be more pragmatic.

It's Friday and if he hits me tonight I've got the weekend to recover before I have to do the school run or got to work. Or if he hits me when he comes home from work it's going to be easier on me than if I wait until he comes back pissed from the pub with his mates.

Or he's going to the football on Saturday and if they lose in the mood he's in I'm going to get truly battered, better he gets it out the way tonight and cross fingers that England win tomorrow.

When these women "choose" violence it's in the vast majority of cases not because they get a kick out of it. It's because they are holding on by their fingernails to the only level of influence they have over their abuser.

To not choose violence means leaving the relationship and the barriers/complexities of that for many victims (and why it often takes multiple attempts to do so) is a whole new and long post.

Anyway, I think Pizzey did good work and shouldn't be airbrushed from history. That imho she now holds views I don't agree with (or rather I think holds far too generalised and unsophisticated views on the behaviour of DV victims) doesn't change that.

And again, everyone has a choice not to be violent.

Everyone has a choice not to take drugs. Everyone has a choice not to break the law. People have the choice not to have children with unsuitable partners. People have the choice to leave jobs they hate.

Everyone has a choice not to do a lot of things; it doesn't mean that people always make the best choices.

One could argue that this requirement to be forensic when examining the possible outcomes and consequences of a lot of modern policy is a feature of this moment in time in terms of governance as a whole, across many areas of endeavour, and I'm uncomfortable about what that means in terms of transparency, democracy, and society as a whole.

It could be that as we make progress in a new area that often has big social effects that are inevitably unforeseeable. I'm thinking of the law in a US state that was created to try to protect women from being attacked while pregnant, but has been used to criminalise women who miscarried, for example, through accident/injury, or similar.

Or do you mean you think this is done deliberately?

That particular example there were warnings by feminist groups etc that the actual intent of the law was always to target women.

Not disagreeing with post but that example it was flagged.

I remember her too. I was 12or 13, and thought it was a) shocking that men hurt their wives at all (sheltered with a dad who was courteous and kind and wouldn't hurt anyone), but my mum was v disapproving - Catholicism probably. Mum felt vindicated when Pizzey repudiated her earlier stance.

How has this thread about that really fascinating piece about pizzey starting the DV shelter turned into a thread about women being complicit etc?

Looking at the pics in the article is sobering.

Women who went back in the article and were killed.

Whatever their reasons they paid for it.

Because the article discusses how Ms Pizzey changed her mind about domestic violence.

Did you read all of the article? We are having this discussion because Pizzey is now a men's rights activists who thinks women are as culpable as men in domestic violence situations. That's why she has been erased from her own legacy.

x post

You said it more eloquently than I did, @TedImgoingmad.

Yes I read the article. If I hadn't I wouldn't have posted about the pictures!

The did you read the article response translates as you don't know what you're talking about in reality doesn't it.

I know it's used a lot but it's not really a proper answer it's a knee jerk someone disagrees, they are talking rubbish.

In the end she is one individual. She did an incredible thing. Yes loads of feminists feel betrayed by her change of direction. She had her reasons, her background, her experiences in life.

Like a PP said it's topic of Difficult Women. Women are not saints or sinners. We are complicated individuals same as men.

What on earth are you talking about, CheeseMmmm? I asked you whether you had read the article, because you questioned why we are talking about female complicity, which implied those of is discussing it had plucked the topic out of thin air. As opposed to the fact that we are discussing it because the article discusses it, and it is the crux of why Pizzey's name is no longer associated with the good work that she set out to do initially. If you had read and digested the article - a great chunk of which is about her belief that women are equally to blame for domestic violence, and may be addicted to it - why ask the question?

And so my point was that the article massively focused on her deciding to help women experiencing DV. By making a place of refuge for them and their children.

The photos are horrific.

The part about women who went back and were killed is upsetting.

So given the vast majority of the article was about her experience of terrible abuse with parents, the reasons she decided to help, the huge determination and effort to get it going, the pics in the first place with the kids together prob making friends playing etc, the crowded situation.

The women who went back and were killed.

That's so much in there. Inspiring, sobering.

With all that I just feel like. I'm not surprised but topic changing to women choosing to go back being addicted to violence etc is discordant. What she did then is to be celebrated. Women got out. And that was down to her. Some went back yes. Still do. Given the meat of the article under discussion though it's a predictable change. I personally read it and thought just once it would be nice to celebrate. Ah well.

topic changing to women choosing to go back being addicted to violence etc is discordant.

It's not a change of topic. This is from the article:

In her book Prone to Violence she argues that a significant proportion of domestic violence happens because both partners are "addicted" to the adrenalin high connected with fear and being feared.

"Some women were unable to stay away from violence, however much they claimed they wanted to. They seemed doomed either to return to their violent partner, or, having given him up, to move rapidly on to another violent man."

The topic is not changing. A discussion has evolved, and I'm afraid you can't police what people choose to focus on in a discussion. Nobody has changed the subject. The topic is Pizzey and Pizzey's own attitude towards women in DV situations. Pizzey blames women. Pizzey says the women are addicted to violence. Nobody has said she didn't do a fantastic thing all those years ago starting a shelter. Apart from saying, wasn't it a good thing she did, and wasn't it terrifying what those women went through, what else do you want people to say? You are asking people to uncritically praise her and remember her for just one part of her life's work, when the reason she's been erased from the legacy of that work is Pizzey's own attitude that she has held since 1980 - that women are complicit, women are equally violent, women are addicted to conflict and (if her Wiki page is accurate) that equal numbers of women to men are paedophiles. Are we all just supposed to ignore that?

@TedImgoingmad

What on earth are you talking about, CheeseMmmm? I asked you whether you had read the article, because you questioned why we are talking about female complicity, which implied those of is discussing it had plucked the topic out of thin air. As opposed to the fact that we are discussing it because the article discusses it, and it is the crux of why Pizzey's name is no longer associated with the good work that she set out to do initially. If you had read and digested the article - a great chunk of which is about her belief that women are equally to blame for domestic violence, and may be addicted to it - why ask the question?

Xpost!

I read the article when I saw it on BBC news home page and thought thought oooh and clicked. A couple weeks ago or so.

I understand now though that while I read it, and came on this thread early because of that.

I didn't digest it!

Well there you go. It's not that I don't know what I'm talking about because I haven't read. It's because I didn't read it properly/ understand it...

And we seem to have different ideas of what constitutes a big chunk of an article because it's really not. It's a little bit near end.

Agreeing to disagree is obviously the thing to do.

The approach to a comment you don't agree with of-

1. You don't know what you're talking about because you haven't read it
2. You may have read it but you don't know what you're talking about because you didn't read it properly/ understand it

Is dismissive, rude (not a word I ever really use!) and based in assumptions which are in this case wrong.

This happens a lot on MN and when people say they don't post because scary/ 'wrong' opinions not countenanced etc. Even to some extent the assertion it's an echo chamber, this is the sort of thing that leads to that.