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

Thanks so much for that link, ArabellaScott. I knew about Erin Pizzey's work and her subsequent break with Refuge but those photographs and account of the actual practicalities of setting up her first refuge are incredibly powerful.

There are so many excellent responses but I especially loved HoardingSamphireSaurus's of her own work and PackingSoapAndWater's analysis.

Some posters have asked if Erin Pizzey has been airbrushed out of history. My memory is that it was a bit of a mutual process - Erin Pizzey disassociated herself from Refuge. I was trying to find something a bit more reliable than my memory but it's late and all I found was this on a conservative website I have never heard of which gives a more detailed account of Erin Pizzey's own life:

mallarduk.com/erin-pizey-frederick/

My own 2p worth is that there is something called founders syndrome. People who set up organisations sometimes come into conflict with how their organisation develops as it becomes larger and employs more people. Sue Ryder Care is an example of this. The board decided Sue Ryder's services were no longer needed but they kept on using her name because that was what the public knew!

In terms of women's response to domestic abuse, cases like Baby P or Arthur Labinjo-Hughes demonstrate that women can be abusive to their children. However, these are the exception, not as Erin Pizzey implied, a substantial number. It's the obverse of NAMALT. Nobody is denying it exists. It's just that most women experiencing domestic abuse need practical steps like suitable accommodation. The women in her refuges, as the BBC article shows, had little legal protection or access to support in establishing new lives. In this situation, it would be unsurprising if more of them returned to abusive situations.

Analysis of domestic violence is always going to be sticky. But if you judge her by her actions, she changed the world.

At least this side.

Many informative and insightful comments on this thread. I remember Erin Pizzey well, and still admire her. Many passionate activists are difficult people, as I’m sure we’ve all noticed!

I’m impressed that we can have a genuine discussion about something as uncomfortable as female violence, in a spirit of goodwill.

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.

What you dismiss as a "little bit" by dint of word count, is a 40 year legacy of male rights activism that has overshadowed the work Pizzey did in Ealing. That bit at the end carries a huge amount of weight for many readers, because Pizzey's trajectory away from helping women to actively working against them is confusing, astonishing, thought-provoking and leaves you with more questions than the article answers. And I am pretty sure Pizzey is very proud of her work since 1980, so you dismissing it as a mere footnote in comparison to her early years of activism can be viewed as pretty insulting to Pizzey.

As to the rest of your complaint, you asked a question and I answered it. Perhaps if you want to talk about rudeness, we can talk about coming into a middle of a discussion and chastising people for talking about the content of the article in the OP.

In the late 70s/early 80s I used to live very close to the Chiswick refuge and met Erin Pizzey a few times. My now ex and I donated some items of furniture - the conditions inside were grim and left me in no doubt that those women must be escaping something very bad to prefer the refuge.

Pizzey married a very young American student half her age who was a volunteer; I'm not sure if my memory is correct but I think this was a turning point in her outlook. Hard to believe she's now a men's rights activist.

Mallard thanks for link! Will read whole piece but near the start-

'To this very day, Pizzey remains outspokenly at odds with the established false wisdom regarding the nature and causes of domestic violence and the fraudulent war that feminists continue to wage against males and against civil society, well into her late 70s and beyond 80.'

So I'm assuming this is starting from a certain viewpoint!

So will bear that in mind when reading.

Hard to believe she's now a men's rights activist

I don't find it hard at all.

Just look at what's happening right now with many women who declare their feminist credentials by supporting an ideology that centres men and calling it intersectional feminism (completely ignoring or being oblivious to the context/work of Kimberlé Crenshaw who coined the term to describe the experiences of black women).

It's a hard truth but not all women, in fact many, don't have a sense of connection/loyalty to their own sex.

Many young intersectional feminists (IF's) don't have the legacy of Pizzey in the sense of founding something so revolutionary, but they have traction and a platform in social media that's incredibly influential.

I see a connection here (not evidenced so maybe a hunch) in so far just as Pizzey's later stance was rooted in the experience of her mothers violence (and thus women are equally at fault as their perpetrator in an abusive relationship), younger IF's prioritisation of men in their "feminism" is rooted in their life upbringing that women are always equal to men (and by default that women who can't "hold their own" are at fault).

Interview in guardian with EP about her views why she changed direction.

www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/26/gender.uk1

Vv interesting.

My take from the piece is-

She never saw herself as a feminist in any way.

Her views that DV is not a sexed issue is one she has always held.

(She is considered/ often described as a feminist then presumably because the refuge was for women. And thus a feminist action.)

Her views about men women and violence are explained in her words. Very informative.

The other link was also interesting! The fact it's an outlet with a certain stance is erm pretty clear.

They don't have any/ many direct quotes (sorry can't remember). So whether it's totally accurate through to totally inaccurate is anyone's guess!

The parts about her experience and feelings about feminism then though I found interesting to read.

Whether it's factual I have no idea.

It's the same as is said now though essentially.

Feminists are extremists.
Feminists are (in modern lingo) middle class, don't know about real life, talk/ write etc in ways that exclude loads of women, see women as victims never doing anything bad, and men as innately horrible.

Posting because reading the interview she alludes to some of that.

Which means the go to arguments around why feminism is awful haven't changed at all since at least the very early 70s

Very moving to see the photos of the women and children - I wonder what became of them. I hope their lives improved and the children weren't too damaged - they'd be in their 40s & 50s now.

@ArabellaScott

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?

My experience is that we now live in a world where the headline policy statement is so important to people that they consciously avoid discussion of quite obvious adverse consequences of said policy.

In some ways, this is understandable. Politicians and execs want to be able to announce positive and good things, particularly in an antagonistic political arena. They want to be able to solve problems. But what seems to have happened is that this desire is now overriding an exploration of what negative consequences a policy may have.

There are some cases though where I feel negative implications are known about and purposely hidden in order to get legislation or policies passed, even if when people must know that a particular policy has the potential to destroy a civic institution or service itself.

And this is where "forensic examination" comes into play. Now it has always been a factor, but I think now it's become an acute necessity.

Erin Pizzey in her own words.
She is a most remarkable woman and a very interesting dinner guest.

@KimikosNightmare

My understanding is Erin Pizzey was shocked at how violent some of the women themselves were.

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about how violence begets violence in the context of intergenerational violence and the effect on children growing up in a home where violence is commonplace. My understanding is that that is a conversation Pizzey wanted to have but it wasn't encouraged.

I think some posters on here have a very rosy- tinted view of mothers and motherhood. It's been a very long time since I've seen a mother (and it always was a mother) slapping or hitting a child in public for "bad behaviour". Unfortunately the same isn't true for seeing a mother berating, shouting or belittling a child for "bad behaviour"

At its absolute worst you get cases like poor Baby P. It was clear his mother was violent and his grandmother was violent towards Peter's mother. Intergenerational violence affecting the whole family.

My understanding is Erin Pizzey eventually got fed up with the idea that violent men are born that way but violent women are the victims of their circumstances and aren't to be blamed for their behaviour. That's a simplistic summary but I think that is where she was coming from.

Jessica Taylor has a post on this subject on Facebook today. Essentially, she doesn't accept the intergenerational violence argument. Presumably then violent men are simply born that way. Where this leaves arguments about women who kill after abuse or coercive control I don't know.

My experience is that we now live in a world where the headline policy statement is so important to people that they consciously avoid discussion of quite obvious adverse consequences of said policy.

Packing, thanks, that makes sense. I think especially in cases where political situations become polarised and tribalism comes into play, when politicians are concerned with being the 'winners' above doing the right thing, this can be very true.

Abhanmor, interested to read Jessica's take on that. Will go and find it. One thing that might well be a factor in sex difference is testosterone, of course. Another book I have on my list ...

www.goodreads.com/book/show/53138024-t

nettie434 I hadn't heard of 'founders syndrome', that's really interesting. I think quite often certain personality types have different effects and therefore different functions - maybe necessarily.

People are able to have striking insight on seeing something in a completely new light, but perhaps others are better at analysis and others yet at fine-tuning and practicalities.

Some people are good at affecting change, and something in Pizzey's personality led her to see what we now think of as staggeringly obvious (that men shouldn't beat women and that women needed help to escape violent/abusive relationships). And she had the strength to set something up where nothing existed before.

Since then, so much has changed it's possibly impossible to imagine how different things were at the time. Social attitudes, as well as the law.

Her views that DV is not a sexed issue is one she has always held.

I wanted to come nback to this. This is what Pizzey always believed. She started Refuge because women had nowhere to go, were seen as 'possessions' and returned to their male abusers. Men had other means of escape - usually because they were waged, women then rarely were.

She wasn't aiding women flee domestic violence as much as providing shelter for those who had no other means of escape. Semantics maybe, but it does fit with her consistent non femnist stance. It also makes her current stance more logicial. There are womens refuges (OK, I know). We are standingup for MH in men, this is part of that. Making sure that male victims also have refuge.

That she turned her back on Refuge was because they were resolutely feminist. She wasn't.

I am not happy to condemn her for that. I think she has a valid view. One I think needs to be discussed openly. Becoming entrenched, being partisan, won't solve any issue.

My experience is that we now live in a world where the headline policy statement is so important to people that they consciously avoid discussion of quite obvious adverse consequences of said policy.

Ooof! That hit home. The small group of charities I work/volunteer from have been guilty of that recently. It is why we now have an umbrella admin/policy team. We all look at each other's projects and try to keep mission creep and entrenchment from setting in. But we only recently recognised the latter.

men shouldn't beat women and that women needed help to escape violent/abusive relationships

I'd like to look again at that. I think she believed that domestic partners shouldn't beat domestic partners/family members and that, at that time, women needed help to escape. Now she feels that male victims have been left behind.

Thanks. I think that helped me reframe what I was trying to say much more logically.

Really nicely put thoughts, @HoardingSamphireSaurus.

It is absolutely horrifying what some of the women Ms Pizzey saw went through. I cannot imagine their despair at being returned to the hands of their abusers and being told to "kiss and make up", knowing that they had no options, no support and nowhere to go.

@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 agree with you. My mother was utterly abusive but leaned heavily on victim status because she was hit once by her husband. What she doesn't mention is that he had come home early to find their three year old autistic son locked in a cupboard having received yet another beating from her, so his reaction was along the lines of 'if I ever catch you doing that again, I'll fucking kill you'.

@Thelnebriati

It is a simplistic summary; the situation at that time was that women had no recourse to the law, no right to leave an abuser, there was no benefits safety net, and that working class women had no education past the age of 14. The situation women grew up, their lack of freedom, of resources and choices created their mind set.

Erin was comparing two things that were not alike and saying they were the same. A lot had to change for women, before you could ask women to change.

Yes, I agree with this. She was very famous at the time, always in magazines etc. I was 14 in 1978 and I remember her being a very well known figure then.

I CBA to read the whole thread to see if somebody else has posted this, but if you've got nearly an hour of why she started her refuge, and why she subsequently became an enemy of the feminist movement.