#DickheadDetox : Tim Lott's Ode to Domestic Violence in the Guardian

As the lovely Glosswitch stated on twitter earlier this week, the Guardian have managed to find the only literate MRA and have given him a job. Like Glosswitch, I've only recently come across Lott The Arsewipe but he's like every other misogynistic fucknugget whinging about his penis and why women refuse to kowtow to it. 

Lott belongs on the #DickheadDetox for a number of reasons starting with insulting his wife in the national press, whining about having to share "his income" with his wife, and reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes which are based on male control of women. What concerns me the most is the sheer number of red flags for domestic violence within his columns. Lott's construction of his relationship is one in which he has control; that is not normal and it is not healthy. It is disgraceful that the Guardian is giving space to a man who writes such twaddle. 

For an excellent takedown of Lott's nincompoopery, do read Glosswitch's blog. I've reblogged a section below but the entire piece is a must read: 

Using a central scene in the film as a springboard, Lott offers up a self-important analysis of what he calls the difference between “acceptance” (as displayed by him) and “resignation” (as displayed by his morally inferior wife). While acceptance is “a wholehearted, positive acceptance that no one can be everything you want them to be” (and “is hard”), resignation is “the refusal to take on board the fact that people are different from you and, anyway, you cannot cast the first stone unless you are without sin yourself”. While Lott generously allows that his wife might have “more to complain about than I do”, he argues that “one thing she doesn’t have to put up with — by and large — is me complaining about her”. Since he doesn’t add “except in the pages of a national newspaper” I’m assuming the irony of the whole character assassination has escaped him (and yes, I know I’m having a go at Tim myself, but then I’m not the one preaching bloody “acceptance” in the first place).

I’ve since learned that on all matters domestic, but especially those involving the humiliation of one’s nearest and dearest, Lott has form. Last week’s piece was called Money – the biggest taboo in a relationship, and in it, Lott discussed the apparent complexities of earning more than one’s wife when she happens to be doing more of the unpaid domestic labour. You and I might think “just share the bloody money” but apparently that’s “archaic” and Lott isn’t “quite sure what would be a better alternative”. Hence while he’s waiting for that alternative to appear, he keeps more money for himself and “if there’s a big expense, say a foreign holiday or house improvements, I tend to have the last say”. But don’t worry – it all balances out in the end:

My wife says that my having more money than her makes me feel powerful. She’s right – up to a point. It gives me an area of control, although I don’t think I use it in order to control. I just think some form of imbalance is inevitable. When it comes to the house and children, my wife enjoys virtually total authority.

The point that Lott seems to miss is that while his wife may have “authority” over the dirty socks, that’s because it’s become her job (in case you’re wondering, Lott shrunk a sweater in the wash once and is therefore incapable of helping). It’s the same type of “authority” Lott has over his writing. It’s not the same as the reward. It’s not the same as the fundamental freedoms that financial autonomy brings. I suspect deep down Lott knows this (how could he not?) but is playing dumb.

...

I imagine there are members of the men’s right’s “movement” who’d consider Lott too “Guardian” to really be one of them. They’d be wrong. He’s the perfect example of the way in which, via Essential Difference neurosexism, Fathers 4 Justice grandstanding and hype over male underachievement, the men’s rights narrative of resentment has become mainstream. It could be there at your own dinner table. Don’t listen to it. Achieving the right balance is difficult in any household but we can all do better than resignation, acceptance or whatever someone who claims to speak for you is telling you to call it.

Read More

#DickheadDetox : Asshole Lists "Flaws" He Likes in Women:

[Image from here]

Some tool, called Mark Manson, wrote a list of 7 "Flaw" he likes in women for Thought Catalogue. I am so bored of the constant articles, nearly always written by men, trying to extrapolate their personal sexual desires as the "norm". The self-indulgent, narcissistic approach to sexuality in our culture is abusive and exploitative. The idea that the orgasm of one person is more important than the safety and personal boundaries of the person they are fucking is disgusting.

I hate the privileging of male sexuality and I loathe the men who take advantage of this: like Mark Manson. Normally, I'd ignore this shite but Manson brings the "domestic violence as romance" theme to a whole new level: one where he "forgives" us our imperfections in his voyage of self-discovery [which seems to miss the whole he's an asshole bit].

The first paragraph is Manson explaining what every woman has known for a millenia as if its somehow a new and exciting theory:

I feel more and more that our culture is conditioning us to expect, no — demand a perfect romantic or sexual partner for ourselves. It’s easy to forget that finding someone you truly want to be with isn’t a matter finding someone who is perfect or flawless, but finding someone who you actually grow to love their flaws.

Clearly, Manson missed the whole medieval knights and chivalry bullshit poetry period. And, every self-help book written in the 19th and 20th century. Seriously, does he genuinely believe this is a new pet theory? I don't know if I should be laughing hysterically at this point or leaning my head on my desk and crying for our species.

Having psycho-analysed himself [and continued to miss the bit where he's an asshole], Manson dedicates the piece to "the girl of my dreams and her issues, her traumas, and her deepest flaws. And not just the faults that I can tolerate, but the faults that I can love." Well, isn't that just peachy-keen and lurvely. Just reading that makes me cream myself with excitement or vomit. One or the other. My poor ickle girlie brain just can't compute the level of romance in that statement. 

I've reproduced all "The Flaws" below as they have to be read fully to be believed. All of them are disgraceful, woman-hating twaddle with a serious side of domestic violence. They are all huge red flags. Part of me is glad Manson wrote this so that potential partners can be aware of his violent personality at the start but the other part of me is angry that anyone would publish this bullshit.

The first two flaws are the most important to read, everything after that is Manson's Ode to His Penis. The first "flaw" is Manson clearly looking for a woman to emotionally and psychologically abuse. It is an obvious indicator of a man who is controlling. The second flaw is the same indicator with Manson looking for a woman to shoulder the responsibility for everything that goes wrong in Manson's life. 

Manson belongs on the #DickheadDetox. He certainly doesn't deserve to ever have a relationship with a woman [or be a potential father to children].

The Flaws:

FLAW #1: She’s Slightly Neurotic - I’m an extremely laid-back guy. Some people may say too laid-back. But every girl I’ve developed a strong emotional connection with has told me that I have a calming effect on them. Girls who are slightly neurotic feel right to me for two reasons: for one, if there’s something I should be worrying about, but I’m not, they’ll always catch it. And secondly, when they’re worrying about something that’s unnecessary, I enjoy being able to help them relax and feel more secure about it. It’s a nice dynamic, as it makes me feel needed and they’re always appreciative.

FLAW #2: She Blames Herself Too Often - This one’s a little twisted, but I like it. It makes me feel more at ease. My biggest pet peeve in the world is people who do not take responsibility for their actions. So if a girl blames herself too often, then I never have to worry about her shirking responsibility for things going wrong. But the biggest reason is I don’t handle people blaming me or judging me well. Never have. When I feel like I’m being blamed unfairly, my tendency is to either shut down or to simply leave. Obviously, this is not a helpful tendency in a relationship. On the other hand, I’m an EXTREMELY non-judgmental person and rarely blame the person I’m with, so I’m unlikely to pile on the blame if she’s being hard on herself. On the contrary, as a recovered Nice Guy, I have a tendency to want to help my partner feel better about herself and let go of whatever is bothering her, so this gives me another opportunity to do that. Hey, I never said I didn’t have flaws either. But it seems women with this flaw complement my flaw really well and the relationship works.

FLAW #3: She’s A Work-A-Holic - I get bored easily. If I’m with a girl who doesn’t have a lot going on in her life, I get bored with her easily. I find ambition sexy. I run my own business and will often pull 14- or 16-hour workdays and I need her to understand and support that. Women who work their ass off for something just tend to be much more interesting.

FLAW #4: She’s A Risk-Taker - I need someone who thinks outside the box, who is open-minded and up for trying something crazy or stupid on a whim. My last serious girlfriend, the day we broke up, we decided to go skydiving together to commemorate it. Don’t ask me why, but it was awesome. I love taking risks and having adventures. I want a girl who if I say, “Hey, I just bought us plane tickets to Dubai tomorrow, let’s go!” she won’t hesitate to say yes. She won’t complain about work or worry about what her mother would think or whatever. She’d drop everything and go.

FLAW #5: She’s Vain - I realize this is entirely self-indulgent, but I love it when women take the time and effort to make themselves as beautiful as humanly possible. The 90 minutes in the bathroom before we go out to get dinner? I like that. I want her to look stunning. I then want to tell her that she looks stunning. I then want her to love it when I tell her that she looks stunning.

FLAW #6: She’s Pushy - Like I said earlier, I have a tendency to be too laid-back some times. And I also have a tendency to avoid commitment. As a result, some times I pull away from the person I’m seeing even if I really care about them and feel strongly about them. It’s an unconscious reaction and habit. So I need someone who won’t let me off the hook easily, because I know at some point I will try to get off the hook. Even though it annoys me at times, it’s good for the girl I’m dating to be pushy, the kind of girl who will call me three days in a row and bother me for not hanging out with her. I’ll hate it in the moment, I’ll complain that she’s needy and annoying and smothering me, blah, blah, blah — but I think in the long-run it works out better because if left to my own devices I’d let myself drift away and never come back.

FLAW #7: She Wears Her Heart On Her Sleeve - You know the stereotype of the concerned husband saying, “Honey, what’s wrong?” and she says, “Oh, nothing.” So he tries again, “No, really, what’s wrong?” and she still says “Nothing,” even though she’s obviously really pissed about something. Then eventually she blows up and acts as if he was supposed to magically know why she was pissed off the entire time and fix it. It’s a stereotype you see in movies and TV shows a lot. Yeah, I hate that. I can’t be with a girl like that. I think if that happened to me now, she’d be out the door. Anyone who reads this site knows that I’m obsessed with blunt, painful honesty. I always want to know what people are thinking and feeling and I want everyone to always know what I’m thinking and feeling. I love women who wear their hearts on their sleeve. I want them to have the opposite problem of not being able to hide their emotions even if they want to. This goes along with passion as well. Women who let their emotions just flow out of them tend to be incredibly passionate. I get weak in the knees for passionate women. It’s why I love Latin women and Eastern European women so much. Their emotions are so intense you think the world is going to crack in half some times. As a boy who came from an emotionally-stifled family in an English-speaking culture, I can’t get enough of it. 

Read More

Attention Seeking Women Just Need to Shut Up

[First Published at Everyday Victim Blaming]

The Telegraph is not a newspaper I read. It is pure misogyny and, in that, is pretty much the same as the rest of the British media and their policy of victim blaming. This particular article is no different. 

Rupert Christiansen, who is apparently an opera critic, has merely joined in with the rest of the Telegraph in their current series: “women whine too much”. The target of Christiansen’s offensive tirade is opera singer Angela Gheorghiu. The real target should have been her ex-husband Roberto Alagna.

Christiansen knows nothing about domestic violence. I’d be tempted to say he knows nothing about basic human relations. According to Christiansen, a man giving his wife “a clap on the face” is not “violence". He actually puts the word violence in quotation marks.  You see, hitting your wife across the face isn't real violence; not like, say, hitting a man across the face. That would be real violence.

Christiansen follows it up with this gem:

“So far it’s hard to imagine that anything more sinister than explosive exasperation of a standard matrimonial kind is involved – unpleasant and upsetting for all parties concerned, but scarcely a matter for the courts or the headlines.”

Yep, Christiansen actually thinks that slapping your wife across the face is “standard matrimonial” behaviour. I’m so glad he included the words “unpleasant and upsetting”. What with all the minimizing of male violence, I thought Christiansen was going to suggest that Gheorghiu should write Alagna a thank you letter for hitting her. Clearly, Hallmark is missing out on a greeting card.

Christiansen wasn’t quite satisfied with blaming Gheorghiu for being a victim of domestic violence or using that utterly disgusting term “volatile”, a term only ever used to minimize men’s responsibility for the violence they commit. No, Christiansen had to say that both have a “terrible reputation in business for being chronic exhibitionists”, because using the media efficiently as a celebrity means that Gheorghiu is just a whiny woman who needs to learn to shut up.

Christiansen doesn’t just imply that Gheorghiu needs to shut up but he actually states that we should ignore a woman’s story of domestic violence because it’s ‘attention-seeking’. 

Women who speak out publicly about their personal experiences of violence are "attention-seeking". And, the Telegraph saw fit to publish this piece of victim-blaming bullshit.

Read More

Shock: Male Journalist Spread Myths about Domestic Violence

Damian Gee has been convicted of assault because he chose to punch his partner in the face and then he threatened to kill her with a knife.

Damian Gee assaulted his partner because she ended their relationship because Gee had an affair. He turned up at her residence at 3 in the morning, uninvited and assaulted his partner because she ended their relationship.

Yet, Neil Hunter of the Northern Echo, wrote an article claiming that the “cheating boyfriend attacked his partner during showdown talks”. I’m not sure how turning up at 3 in the morning, whilst intoxicated and without invitation constitutes “showdown talks” but ignoring that piece of victim blaming, Hunter also points out that Gee was having an affair with the victim’s sister. Not only is the victim responsible for Hunter showing up without invitation, she is also responsible for Gee choosing to have sex with her sister. Hunter has clearly been watching Jeremy Kyle to understand the full dynamics of victim-blaming.

Hunter’s lack of understanding of domestic violence is quite obvious. Hunter suggests it’s “bizarre” that Gee accused his partner of cheating on him before assaulting him. This is classic emotional abuse and controlling behaviour as exhibited by abusive men. Frankly, anyone with access to google could discover that this behaviour is “bizarre”; it’s the normal behaviour of abusive men.

Hunter, demonstrating a further complete lack of awareness of domestic violence, ended the article with this tidbit:

Mr Mochrie said initial accusations of rape and false imprisonment - later dropped by the prosecution - had caused him trouble in jail.

"It is not over just because the prosecution decides to discontinue the case. It has tarnished his reputation in the community." “

Mochrie, Gee’s defence attorney, is worried about the reputation of an abusive man. And, Hunter buys this without mentioning how rare “false” accusations of rape really are or why the prosecution would choose to drop charges of rape and false imprisonment. Here’s a hint for Hunter, it’s unlikely because the charges were “false”. Statistically speaking, it’s much more likely because accusations of rape are rarely brought before the court and when they are, rapists are frequently not convicted. It’s also likely the victim chose not to pursue the charges.

Neil Hunter could really do with researching myths about rape and domestic violence so he doesn’t write such victim-blaming twaddle again.

The only person responsible in this case is Damian Gee. 

Read More

Valid Excuses for Murdering your Wife and Child

On Thursday June 29, the Independent published an article on a murder-suicide involving a British family living in Costa Del Sol. Apparently, the man murdered his wife and child because he lost his job and they were ill. 

Because, it is completely reasonable to murder your wife who is ill and your daughter who is disabled when you find yourself unemployed and in debt. 

A woman and her adult daughter were murdered by a man who was supposed to love them but who believed he owned them. Family annihilators are almost always male and financially stable. They kill their families when they learn they aren't the centre of the universe.

This is male violence. 

There is no excuse for killing your partner and child and we need to stop making excuses for these men. They are not mentally ill. They are violent and controlling men who kill their family because they can. 

No more excuses. 

No more victim blaming. 

We need to name the problem: male violence. 

Then, we need to hold individual perpetrators responsible for their own actions.

Read More

Apparently, Charles Saatchi is just a "bore": The DM's response to Saatchi's Violence

The Daily Mail is back with yet another piece of vile victim blaming. This time they are outright saying that Nigella Lawson was not a victim of intimate partner violence at the hand of her husband Charles Saatchi. According to the DM, Saatchi is not an abuser. Just a bore. Because strangling your partner is completely normal behaviour during an argument.

The entire article is a pile of misogynistic victim-blaming. Every line minimises Saatchi's history of violence and ignores the clear evidence that he assaulted his wife. The article is so full of myths about intimate partner violence that I'm not entirely sure where to start with criticisms.

First up, we have this gem of information:

Charles Saatchi is being portrayed worldwide as a wife-beating monster on the basis of scant, if any, evidence. 

Now, it's possible the "journalist" didn't actually look at any of the images of the assault but I'm fairly sure putting your arms around someone's throat, without their permission, to choke them constitutes violence.  It doesn't matter if it only happens once. It is still intimate partner violence and Saatchi is guilty of assault.

Then, we get this:

Nigella Lawson, famously her own woman and a goddess to boot, is being characterised as a pathetic victim of domestic violence — which, try as I might, I just don’t buy. 

I guess this means that if you are a successful woman, you can't be a victim of violence. I would link to every study on intimate partner violence but, frankly, we all know the DM doesn't actually like "evidence". For those of you who are interested, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in the US has this handy little factoid. 

Next up, we get this:

Saatchi is indeed a volatile and physical man. Always has been. Back in the days when he began to make his millions in advertising, there were tales of him hurling items of furniture around the office like so many missiles, the better to ease any fleeting frustration. 

So, we have a man with a well-publicised history of violence but his physical assault on his wife doesn't count because she's married to him? Any man who thinks it's acceptable to toss furniture around the room when having a tantrum is a violent man. It really is that simple. Frustration is not, and has never been, a valid excuse for violence. The fact that Saatchi is white, wealthy and male should not minimise his personal responsibility for the violence he has committed.

The DM, in a moment of generosity, does suggest that Saatchi is "... pretty darned physical with his wife, too ...". I would have thought getting "physical" with one's wife without consent would be intimate partner violence but it not in Daily Mail World. It's just evidence of Saatchi being a bit cranky: 

Nevertheless, to put such unpleasantness into the catch-all basket called ‘domestic violence’ is to do grave disservice not just to this couple but also to the real victims of real horrors that happen daily behind closed doors.

I'm not entirely sure what the DM requires as evidence of "domestic violence". Clearly, attempting to strangle your wife in public isn't sufficient evidence. I'm so glad they thought to tell us that. I had no idea that attempting to strangle one's wife is normal behaviour for a man. I mean, I know that the trauma of intimate partner violence manifests itself in numerous ways and that it usually takes a minimum of 30 incidents before women report their partners to the police but I was unaware that being married to a rich, white man made the trauma less of a problem. I shall, of course, take note of that.

And, I do love the theory that Saatchi taking a police caution was a "joint decision". That, clearly, is not an example of victim-blaming at all. Saatchi chose to physically assault his wife but they both decided he should take a punishment for it. If he hadn't, would that have been Lawson's fault too? I've got myself all mixed up as what is and is not her fault, that I'm just not sure anymore.

It is also, apparently, both "patronising ... (and) insulting" to label Lawson a victim. This is the worst that could have possibly happened: labelling Lawson a victim of intimate partner violence; not being assaulted by her husband. That's just an irrelevancy that the rest of us keep whinging on about. Nope, the worst thing about Saatchi throttling his wife in public is labelling her a victim:

It is both a marvel and a sadness that what, barely a generation ago, was a vibrant movement of women jumping up and down to yell about their strengths has dissipated into a perpetual whimper about poor little us, victims all. 

Victims of harassment, victims of discrimination, victims of husbands, victims of men.
Everybody is in on it: the police, the courts, the law-makers and, as we’ve seen here, even the politicians rush to join in.

Should a woman have any manner of altercation with a man, she is instantly labelled ‘victim’ until and unless his innocence is proved — the opposite of the way our trusty system has traditionally and properly worked.

This is rather a clever "feminism is ruining the world" sub-plot. What is the world coming to when we name the perpetrator of male violence as a perpetrator? After all, the DM thinks we should feel "slightly" sorry for Saatchi for painting his character in a bad light. Poor diddums will have sad face at all the nasty feminists holding him personally accountable for his own actions. I mean, we all know that men can't ever be responsible for their own actions. That would be sacrilege. Or, something.

So, there we have it: men aren't responsible for the violence they perpetrate. Nasty feminists are ruining the world and successful women can't be victims of domestic violence.

God bless the DM for keeping us poor ickle wimmen straight on such complicated issues: putting your hands around your wife's throat in a argument is no biggie and anyone who suggests otherwise is a nasty whiner. 

I've reproduced the entire DM article below. It includes images of the violence committed by Saatchi.

Calm down! Saatchi's no monster and Nigella's no battered wife 

By CAROL SARLER

PUBLISHED: 22:40, 25 June 2013 | UPDATED: 22:46, 25 June 2013

 
 
 

24 shares

156

View
comments

Volatile: Charles Saatchi grips Nigella's neck

The time has come for all this to stop. The nation has thoroughly, if rather disgracefully, enjoyed itself by gossiping about Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson for quite long enough. We have pored over every ugly picture — and ugly they certainly were — and we have gaped and gasped to our national heart’s content.

But what began as graphic titillation has started to smell altogether too much like a witch-hunt: a frenzy of speculation that is becoming as unseemly as it is unfair.

Charles Saatchi is being portrayed worldwide as a wife-beating monster on the basis of scant, if any, evidence.

Nigella Lawson, famously her own woman and a goddess to boot, is being characterised as a pathetic victim of domestic violence — which, try as I might, I just don’t buy.

Saatchi is indeed a volatile and physical man. Always has been. Back in the days when he began to make his millions in advertising, there were tales of him hurling items of furniture around the office like so many missiles, the better to ease any fleeting frustration.

We know, now, that he is pretty darned physical with his wife, too — far more so than you or I might find acceptable if we had married him. Heaven knows, I wouldn’t want my throat grasped Saatchi-style, or my nose ‘tweaked’.

Nevertheless, to put such unpleasantness into the catch-all basket called ‘domestic violence’ is to do grave disservice not just to this couple but also to the real victims of real horrors that happen daily behind closed doors.

The nation has thoroughly, if rather disgracefully, enjoyed itself by gossiping about Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson for quite long enough

Of course I condemn physical violence by men against women and, for that matter, by women against men. But there is no reason to believe  that Charles Saatchi, though he may have a volcanic temperament, has ever hurt his wife. 

Indeed, it is telling that his previous wife, Kay — though no fan of his, this woman scorned — has gone out of her way in recent days to defend him on that score. Ill-tempered, yes. Controlling, yes. 

Violent, never.

It is telling that his previous wife, Kay (pictured) - though no fan of his, this woman scorned - has gone out of her way in recent days to defend him

Nor is there reason to believe that Nigella Lawson fits the mould of the battered wife. I do not pretend to know her well, but we worked on the same newspaper many years ago and I found her perfectly affable, quietly ambitious and wholly able to stand on her own two feet.

Her first husband, John Diamond, I knew much better, and of this I am sure: he was not a man likely to have been charmed by a dormouse.

In short, there is nothing about Nigella that puts her in the class of subjugated woman. She has no need of Saatchi’s money, being worth many millions herself. 

She is not without a place to run to should she choose to leave — her family is loaded, loving and influential — and the idea that Saatchi has somehow managed to strip her of self-esteem and independent thought is frankly laughable.

The truth about their very public quarrel is that only two people know exactly what happened, that they are never going to tell us, and that claims of an ‘assault’ lasting a full 27 minutes are, after all, only the claims of a paparazzo with pictures to sell.

All that the rest of us know, from seeing his pictures, is that at any point Nigella could have reached for her bag and left — yet chose not to do so. 

And from another picture taken on another day, we know that the pair returned to the same table at the same restaurant a week later, which hardly suggests lingering trauma.

Saatchi accepted a police caution — but that, likely as not, was a joint decision taken in the vain hope of damage limitation. She left the family home — but that, too, was probably a joint decision taken to protect their children’s privacy.

How they live is surely their choice. It is their marriage, after all. Yet still the court of public opinion will not let the matter rest.

It has even reached the stage where a marital tiff has become fodder for party political point-scoring. Nick Clegg says that if he’d been there he would not have intervened; Ed Miliband and Lord Kinnock both say they would — so nul points for the Libs and hurrah for the Labs, even if Nigella would no doubt have been first to tell the chivalrous creeps where to shove their ‘intervention’.

Nigella Lawson, famously her own woman and a goddess to boot, is being characterised as a pathetic victim of domestic violence

I do wonder, though, whether Messrs Miliband and Kinnock would be as quick to reach for the shining armour had the ‘assault’ happened the other way around. Had Nigella shoved her fingers up the Saatchi beak — do you think, then, they would have thought it any of their business?

No, me neither.

And it does happen the other way around. My guess is that if Nigella had been photographed slapping Saatchi’s face it would have been a two-day wonder in which she would have emerged as the heroine.

Indeed, mea culpa, I once entertained a packed and costly restaurant when I flung a large glass of vino over a companion’s head, and all I got as I stalked out were admiring winks from fellow diners.

A critical difference, of course, is that the cultural mindset is these days so feminised that the automatic presumption in my case was that the man must have done something to deserve it (in my case he had, but never mind) while in the Saatchi debacle the equally automatic presumption has been that Nigella is a ‘victim’.

Nick Clegg says that if he’d been there he would not have intervened, Ed Miliband says he would have

Why? Because she’s a woman. It is both a marvel and a sadness that what, barely a generation ago, was a vibrant movement of women jumping up and down to yell about their strengths has dissipated into a perpetual whimper about poor little us, victims all.

Victims of harassment, victims of discrimination, victims of husbands, victims of men.

Everybody is in on it: the police, the courts, the law-makers and, as we’ve seen here, even the politicians rush to join in. 

Should a woman have any manner of altercation with a man, she is instantly labelled ‘victim’ until and unless his innocence is proved — the opposite of the way our trusty system has traditionally and properly worked.

Some women, of course, need our help and protection, and it is to our credit that increasing awareness and resources are poured in where necessary.

There is nothing about Nigella that puts her in the class of subjugated woman, and to call her a victim is insulting

Nonetheless, to confer the title of ‘victim’ where it is not warranted — and it is hard to think of a better example than that of Nigella Lawson — is worse than patronising; it is actually insulting.

I might feel slightly sorry for Charles Saatchi, insofar as the response to his behaviour, beastly and boorish as it undoubtedly was, has painted him far blacker than is probably appropriate.

But I feel a great deal more sorry for Nigella. Not because of what he did — she’ll take or leave that and make decisions about her marriage as she sees fit — but because she has become the subject of such prurience.

From the day those pictures reached the Sunday newsstands, all the hard-won, well-deserved admiration she has enjoyed for years for being a strong, independent woman faded to nothing in a tidal wave of public pity. And that, I’ll bet, hurts a lot more than her nose.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2348439/Charles-Saatchis-monster-Nigella-Lawsons-battered-wife-Carol-Sarler.html#ixzz2XJUZbDUM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Read More

Eve Thomas, #OneVoice and How Not to Support a Survivor of DV

SakuraAmelie asked me to post the following piece, written by her, about her experience with Eve Thomas of #OneVoice. The post is very long and I apologise for the difficulties with formatting but it is worth reading the whole post. 

The truth.

Eve Thomas has spent the last two days behaving quite disgracefully. She has accused me of several things, none of which are true.

These are the Direct Messages sent between us. I have put them in coversational order (ie she asks questions, I answer) because the chronological messages are a bit confusing. However, if anybody should wish to see the messages in chronological order I will happily provide them with a link.

There is also a twitlonger, which I will get to after the DM bit. Sigh.

So, to begin with, let's get one thing out of the way - Eve sent the first DM. And the second, actually. *I* did not contact *her*.

Please note that Eve requests that I email her, I never did as her aggressive attitude made me want to step away from her 'help'.

(I haven't blanked out Eve's email address because she makes it public in her tweetlonger and also her website.)

The reference to 'he' here is to my ex, please note that my explanation of his violence is historical - I use the past tense.

Erm, no, I don't have "another man". I have a current partner though.

All true. I was too afraid to hang up the Skype call, afraid he would go to the judge and tell her I prevented him from speaking to the children.

Here Eve requests information from me in order for her to contact the police - information I never gave her. Eve has stated that *I* asked *her* to contact the police. You can see here that this is not the case.

I don't think it is too much to ask that the man who has made a concerted effort to make me as miserable as possible for the last 8...getting on for 9 years has to take some responsibility for that. I think it is actually very important that he is made to see that his behaviour is terribly damaging.

Yes, clearly it *does* matter, I just explained how I felt about it.

Erm...nobody is being forced to donate anything. If they feel thay can spare something then great, if they cannot I certainly understand how they feel and do not think any the worse of them for it.

Also, as I explained to Eve above, I cannot get legal aid. We are not entitled to it. So the non-mol, the divorce, the access dispute, are all either going to be covered by donations or not at all. Having faced my abuser in court twice, without any representation (ie totally alone) I would rather try and scrape to pay for a solicitor with donations from strangers.

Erm, rude much? I have mentioned already that *we* can't afford to pay for a solicitor.

So....I'm not proud, independant or strong. Thanks for that.

BTW, "I'm not x but.." means you are, so you are causing offence and I suspect you know that.

Oh, and evidently I cannot hold my head high, nor do I have dignity or (self?) respect. Got it.

(self explanatory, I think)

Another offer of (or really, demand to let her) help - You can see I have asked for nothing.

It clearly *does* matter what the divorce says. I am telling her repeatedly that this is a big thing for me, and she is diminishing it!

I think I made my point there?

Great that Eve can know what is good for my children. I actually happen to agree with her on this point, it's just a shame that she can't see that it is *her* causing the stress! "trying to help the legal and moral way" So nice of you to imply that the simple act of setting up a legal fund is illegal and immoral!


Sorry, I'm confused, have I moved on, or am I holding on to the chains of my past which so heavily weigh me down?

Well, I guess that answers that then.

Another request from Eve for me to contact her.

Erm....what?

And again with the asking me to contact her.

Got every *what* set up? Are you as confused by this as I am?

Oh hell no! Did you just say you spoke to the police? On my behalf? Without checking with me first?!

I don't really know what you could say to the police, that he hurt me two years ago? That you don't actually know where I live, where he lives/is, what the hell is even going on?!

How can you 'make sure' the police now start taking me seriously? I have already discussed (and Eve evidently understood) the fact that I have been trying to get the police involved. So surely I have given them all the relevant information, and they have either decided that they don't need to be involved, or (hopefully) haven't gotten around to contacting me yet?

Yes, I *do* have to have money. The police, involved or not, are not solicitors.

I didn't say I was uncomfortable with you getting help, I questioned the validity and safety of your actions.

I didn't say he was stalking me (though I believe he is), I said my past was stalking me. You really need to be more careful to pay attention to what people are saying to you!

No, what is unfair is you misreading and twisting my words, putting words in my mouth, and trying to guilt-trip me for doing this my way and not yours!

Even if I *could* get Legal Aid for the divorce, or the non-mol order (which I can't), I don't see it being paid for protracted and difficult access disputes. So, again, IT ISN'T FREE!

Oh hell no, I have not and do not intend to, either!

Again, no, that is not what I said. I said he was violent once. One time. He 'only' ever actually physically hurt one child, once. And me, once. And you don't get to decide, Eve. You are not the Judge in the courtroom and from a relatively short DM conversation on twitter you cannot possibly have all the pertinent information.

Oh look, I corrected her there! She got it wrong and I put her straight. See how an honest person does that? Now pay attention to the next one, this is a doozy!

I'm sorry, can we see that again? I can't quite believe what I have just read!

Did she just suggest I defraud the benefits system by moving my partner out, in order to claim benefits and receive legal aid? And she has the audacity to keep implying that using a fundraising page is immoral?! I just cannot believe it.... I ....can we see that one more time please?

0.o

Moving on..

Oh, so it's okay for you to use gofund for your 'charity', but not for me to try and get justice. Oh, okay.

I really don't think I want your brand of help, thanks.

I've had enough. I do not wish to engage any further.

Either she doesn't realise that was what she was doing (which I doubt) or she just cannot believe I have called her out on it.

Yeah, that thing you just said?

So...yeah....move my boyfriend out (which means confusing and upsetting the children, would cost us a fortune we do not have and would actualy make our lives so much more difficult) and 'put the relationship on hold' in order to claim benefits and get legal aid. Right. Yeah, my setting up a donation page is *way* immoral in comparison to that!

So glad you know my boyfriend so well! And again with the knowing what is best for my children! Cos moving out the man I am having a healthy loving relationship with, in order to defraud the benefits system, would totally have no affect on them at all! It wouldn't send a confusing and damaging message, no sir!

Again with the implication that what I am doing is illegal (cos there cannot possibly be any other right way of doing things, can there Eve, not if it isn't *your* way). Yeah and putting kisses and 'honey' on the end of insults doesn't stop them being insults, it just makes you look fake as well as inaccurate.


Oh, and you may notice that I haven't actually refused anything. I have only responded and dared to question her actions.

Yeah, still not getting the point there.

I think I am pretty clear here.

IT ISN'T FREE! Just because you say a thing, doesn't mean it is so! Legal Aid is being torn apart, the rules are changing and it is MORE difficult to qualify for it. Do some research, please?! You are coming across as terribly ill-informed, and pretty pushy too, to say the least!

And give the emotional manipulation a rest too, you sound like an abuser.

I'm being polite here, by now I was starting to doubt that she had a clue what she was doing.

*head in hands, deep sigh*

I vaguely recollect mentioning this before. Did I say this already? You will let me know if I am repeating myself, won't you?

No, no it isn't.

I beg your pardon? Talk about self important, bossy.....This whole thing is about getting away from my ex in every way possible, and I am just supposed to "forget about the divorce"??!!

None of your bloody business. I have tried, so politely, to end this conversation twice already. I am not even answering this.

How is hiring legal representation *outside* of the justice system?

I don't want your help, Eve. You are belligerent and ignorant.

Way to imply I'm not in danger there. I think what you meant was "be a good little sheep and do things how I want them done cos I know best"

Yes Eve, what you are doing here, bullying a victim of domestic violence, is wrong. I just wish you could see that.

Yeah, see how words (and they way you put them together) means things?

Jeezus, how that sentence struck fear into my heart. FYI I am nobody's mission, thanks.

"You will be safe (my personal interperetation of the word) whether you like it or not!" I have seen no evidence of said safety, by the way. No police officers have visited my home, no Domestic Violence worker has called me on the phone.

Tired of repeating myself.

I have listened to you. How could I have responded to you so many times if I hadn't? Why can you not understand that you are factually inaccurate (you know, wrong), and that I don't want you interfering and possibly making things worse?

Yeah, this.
As if I am going to tell you! And again, you are speaking to agencies without my consent! Why is this such a difficult concept for you? You do not know my situation better than I do.

(The blanked name and location above came from my gofundme page. I talk about that in the twitlonger part below.)

You did just admit it again.

No, I didn't say they ignored me. I said I hadn't heard anything back from them yet. Not the same thing. And I am not your honey.



Now there is this weird bit, which started in the Twitter timeline, and spilled over into DM's.

I was asked, by a good friend, if I had considered deleting the above conversation. I replied that I wasn't going to consider it before I had screen-capped the lot, as Eve was already twisting things and lying. She then asked me (something along the lines of) "If you have nothing to hide why do you want to delete the messages" (I am paraphrasing, I blocked Eve after this so I can't actually see the original tweet anymore).

My reply..

Eve responded to this by attempting (badly) to subtweet about me.

Jeepers, I only hope you can do no more, you've already done more than enough!!

So, now I block, and think and hope that this very surreal conversation is done, that this is over with, and that I can get on with trying to secure funding for my legal whatnottery.

Nope. Eve isn't quite finished yet! She has this gem, sent out via twitlonger to several of my friends directly:

• Eve Thomas TwitLonger, 14 June 2013

In that twitlonger you will see that Eve kindly puts the word victim in inverted commas every time she refers to me, this is a clear attemp to discredit me and is damaging and hurtful. Also, it is totally unnecessary.

Eve states several times that I contacted her, went to her asking for help, which you can see above is patently untrue. Yes, I did follow Eve a few weeks ago, and yes we did briefly message. I never asked her for money though, I believe I made a joke about a lottery win. I did unfollow her because I found her habit of retweeting every interaction, and constant spamming with the one voice hashtag, to be annoying. I did not block her then though (why would I need to, unfollowing was fine).

I have never "changed my story", only honestly answered Eve's questions. She has taken them out of conversational flow and context though, to make it look as though I am fabricating my account of abuse, which is both cruel and vindictive.

With reguard to my location being on the gofund page, I was asked to input a location when I was setting the page up, I did so not realising that it would be visible on the page. As soon as it was brought to my attention, I emailed the gofund helpdesk and they kindly removed it for me.

Yes, my paypal account is in a different name. That is the name I had when I set up the account around 7 years ago. I have changed my name since then but not gotten around to changing it on the paypal account. I don't think it is too difficult to imagine why somebody who is trying to escape Domestic 

Violence might change their name, or put up a cartoon avatar instead of a photo of themselves. Eve's insinuation that my motives for doing these things are less than honest shows that she has a dangerous lack of understanding, and seems willfully vicious.

Again and again Eve states that I asked for her help, that I asked her to contact the police, and you can see from the direct messages above that this is a blatant lie. Eve likes to present herself as an expert and an advocate for DV survivors but her ill-considered attempt to 'help' by calling the police broke trust and confidentiality AND could very well have put my life in danger (not to mention the lives of my children) and is incredibly bad practise too. As for the claim that she hd access to/was being informed about any information held by police, I seriously doubt any police officer would endanger their career in such a way by violating police policy.

Here is Cath's twitlonger response, just for reference:

Eve Thomas describes herself as a survivor of domestic abuse and claims to support and assist other survivors 'stay safe.' It appears that eve has attempted to 'help' several women on twitter who have experience domestic abuse & a worrying pattern has emerged. She admits that she has contacted the police force local to certain women without their consent or permission & without any concern that she may be putting them at significant risk. Please be aware of the following information: · Eve has been offered specialist DV training three times by local domestic violence organisations & refused it. · She is promoting a bank service for women to log incidents but is not registered with data protection which is illegal. · Eve Thomas Foundation is not registered with the charity commission or anywhere else. · Information shared is not confidential. · Domestic violence organisations and Women's Services are aware and highly concerned about her approach. There are a number of well established organisations that are trained experts in supporting victims/survivors of domestic abuse. Please contact them if you need support.

Cath is an expert in her field, she knows what she is taking about.

I never panicked about anything, though Eve's questionable behaviour does cause me great concern, and nobody attacked her. My friends, quite understandably, defended me and in due course became very concerned about her conduct themselves. Conduct like revealing the full name of a DV victim which is very, very dangerous. Though I cannot speak for this person I have found her to be kind and passionate about raising awareness of DV. She really doesn't seem to want any kind of witch hunt, in my opinion.

Also, where is Eve's charitable status? If her book is already being bought, where is the proof that the charities she is claiming to donate proceeds to are actually receiving anything?

What a sorry mess.

Read More