Hugo Schwyzer is not a Feminist Redux:

Last Friday, Hugo Schwyzer, the so-called feminist, had what appears to be a very public meltdown on Twitter having claimed to be leaving social media forever because of mean, nasty feminists holding him publicly accountable for the violence he has perpetrated against women. I did not write about Schwyzer because I am still not sure that he genuinely had a meltdown or if the past two weeks have been nothing more than his normal manipulative, sociopathic behaviour. I didn't write about his recent behaviour because I didn't want to give him any more attention.

I was wrong. 

I was guilty of that which I railed against last year [below]: of ignoring Schwyzer's racism. And, it never even occurred to me that that was what I was doing. 

Yesterday, I witnessed a number of women of colour, including @thetrudz, calling out the white feminists who have supported Schwyzer over the years. And, I witnessed the silence of those very feminists. Those who did answer said what I had thought: that writing about Schwyzer just encouraged his manipulative behaviour. I made this about Schwyzer without thinking of the women who Schwyzer has hurt. They are who we should be writing and thinking about: the women who have been manipulated and abused by Schwyzer. I ignored the racism inherent in the worship of Schwyzer and I ignored my own role in perpetuating the white supremacist patriarchy by supporting the silencing of my sisters voices.

In ignoring Schwyzer, I had ignored the lives of women he has abused, many of whom are women of colour. For this I am sorry.

@thetrudz has storified her tweets here.

I wrote this last year and I stand by it. 

Normally, I'm not one for telling people whether or not they can self-define as feminists. I think it's rude and pointless. We all come to feminism from different perspectives and are all at different points of our feminist journey. It's counter-productive to insist on the right to label, or not, others. That said, there some pretty basic tenets of feminism that aren't negotiable. Perpetrators of domestic violence, rape and other forms of MVAW aren't feminists. I do think it is possible for men who express anti-feminist statements to change. I don't think violent men can change enough to ever be feminists. 

This is why I am genuinely perplexed by the fawning that Hugo Schwyzer receives. He has consistently minimised his history of violence against women. Schwyzer writes of being an "accidental rapist" and"accidentally endangering" a former partner in a murder-suicide attempt.

I have no time for men who seek to minimise their personal history of MVAW by claiming personality disorders or drug addiction. Being a feminist means taking responsibility for one's actions and the consequences therein. Claiming that an episode of MVAW was "drug-fuelled" isn't taking responsibility. It is minimising one's responsibility. There is a huge difference between the statements "I am a recovering drug addict but my addiction does not minimise my culpability for the violence I committed" and "it was accidental VAW because I was stoned".

One is forgivable because it involves genuine remorse. The other is not.

Real male feminist/ feminist allies get this. They understand that their behaviour has no excuse, that it would remain unforgivable for many women and they don't insist on trying to get women to forgive them. They take responsibility for their actions and words quietly and without requiring cookies and blowjobs for being good boys. 

Hugo Schwyzer needs to start listening to women. He needs to start acknowledging that there are valid reasons that women find him frightening and then he needs to stop trying to intimidate them into silence. When he stops trying to silence women, I might be willing to engage with his work. As long as he continues to embrace the silencing of women who disagree with him, Schwyzer will never be a feminist. 

And, let's be realistic here, if Mike Tyson, who has a similar history of domestic violence and rape, were to start referring to himself as a feminist whilst blithering on about hegemonic masculinity, no feminists would be lining up behind him to stroke his ego and insist on his admittance to feminist spaces. We'd be laughing our asses off at him. Schwyzer is allowed in because he's white. That's a huge problem that white feminists need to address because we are silencing our sisters by allowing Schwyzer to continue pontificating as if he were the Messiah of Feminism.

Read More

White Dude Has Tantrum As Woman Behaves Inappropriately

I was screencapping the abuse directed at Caroline Criado-perez when I came across the following conversation. It still making me giggle: the misogyny, the arrogance, the entitlement and the sheer gaul of this man [who I've never of before] telling off Criado-Perez for not behaving as he thought she should is just unbelievable. 

Hanrahan had a mini tantrum on twitter because Criado-Perez didn't boycott twitter on the day that Caitlin Moran decided everyone should boycott twitter because of misogynistic abuse directed at Criado-Perez. Now, I get that this is a little bit complicated but I missed the memo where  Moran got to decide what other feminists did or did not do on their Sunday. I definitely saw Moran calling for a boycott. I don't remember Moran pulling a sermon on the Mount thing and threatening all women to participate on pain of death by lightening.

But, hey, Hanrahan didn't let the little fact that Criado-Perez was clear that she did not want to participate in the boycott stop him from whining about her ungrateful behaviour. Honestly, he did everything but demand Criado-Perez sit in the naughty corner with a dunces hat. 

The tweets below aren't in proper order but the essence of his whining is quite clear:

\

Read More

#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

Facebook's Continuing War on Women: This Time Human Rights Watch is the Problem

Yesterday, Facebook blocked a page from Human Rights Watch. 

And, yes, you read that right. 

Facebook deemed a page by Human Rights Watch so hateful that it contravened their official policy on "offensive" material. You know, their policy which allows violent pornography, images of abused children and women, racism, homophobia, disablism and rape threats to remain as "free speech". 

Human Rights Watch's crime: requesting the Tunisian government grant feminist activist Amina Tyler pretrial release, as she is entitled to under the law. Amina Tyler, whose only crime was writing Femen across her bare breasts and posting the image on Facebook, has been detained since May 19th. Tyler's photo did not contravene FB's standards despite the fact that images of infants breastfeeding does. 

Human Rights Watch are a subversive group because caring that no human be tortured, imprisoned, raped or murdered for being human now contravenes Facebook standards. We have arrived at the point where "free speech" only applies to violent men. Those who campaign for the protection of vulnerable people from male violence have no legal right to free speech.

Welcome to the Patriarchy where Feminist activism is required to ensure that internationally recognised human rights organisations aren't deemed "offensive".

Read More

Jack Reacher: Obviously Misogynistic and I Should Have Known Better

Normally, I avoid Tom Cruise. His films usually put me on the wrong side of cranky. They are inevitably misogynistic with a side order of homophobia, racism and disablism thrown in. Despite knowing all of this, I chose to watch Jack Reacher. 

I didn't think Tom Cruise films could get any worse but I was wrong. Jack Reacher delved into a whole new level of misogyny.

We have:

• "the town whore"
• the "town whore" being used and abused
• "town whore" being publicly humiliated
• "town whore" being murdered for being "town whore"

This idea that women who have sex deserve to be murdered is old school victim-blaming. It's offensive, misogynist and vile. 

The film also includes this charming piece of dialogue:

Sandy: I don't mind the sight of blood.
Jack: Not when it means you're not pregnant.

You see, she's a whore so she can't possibly every want to get pregnant. And, we all know whores make bad mothers. It's in the Bible and everything. Course,  men who have numerous sexual relationships and cheat on their partners are still good fathers. After all, being in possession of a penis makes one a good father by default.

Jack Reacher is the last Tom Cruise movie I will watch. I'm boycotting his shit from now on. 

Read More

Consent, Disclosure and the Cotton Ceiling

This is another debate I have not yet commented on but a conversation today on twitter made me want to clarify my thoughts publicly.

I do not believe anyone has the right to sex. I believe that full disclosure is necessary even for casual or one-night relationships. I believe anything less invalidates consent.  Lying about your marital status should invalidate consent. Lying about your health in a manner which could compromise the health of your partner invalidates consent.

The police officers who had sexual relationships with women in order to cement their cover whilst spying on left-wing organisations committed rape. Their lies invalidated the consent of the women involved. The fact that this is not illegal simply demonstrates how utterly woman-hating our laws of consent are.

Consent, as it stands now, is a joke. It is designed so that men can fuck whoever they want whenever they want without any consequence. Women's boundaries and bodily integrity are violated in a million ways every day. The law is designed to defend these violations by men rather than protect women. 

We need to rewrite the law completely in order to defend women's bodily integrity [and, of course, the children and men whose bodies are violated]. This means we need to start with full disclosure before any, however temporary, sexual relationship. And, yes, this will mean difficult conversations. It will also mean forgoing sex because we cannot disclose for whatever reason but including safety. 

These conversations will, I have no doubt, be more difficult for transwomen who will be faced with the increased possibility of male violence. It is this very real threat which makes it all the more important for us to smash the patriarchal construction of consent. It may very well mean a decrease in sex for many but no one has the right to sex. We are morally required to ensure the safety of others and that safety includes not violating bodily integrity.

Real consent can only be given when both parties are in possession of all the facts. It is that simple.

This is why I find the term "cotton ceiling" so disturbing. I understand the need for Trans* to self-organise to share stories of full disclosure and offer mutual support over a difficult issue, however the term "cotton ceiling" does not imply respectful discussions of consent and disclosure. The idea that lesbian women are somehow providing a barrier to sex which must be smashed just like the glass ceiling in employment sounds remarkably like denying women bodily integrity. The term itself implies a level of coercion; coercion removes consent. Lack of consent equals rape. This may not be what was meant when the term was first used but the implication is clearly there and it is supported by suggestions that lesbian women are "transphobic" for refusing to have sexual relationships with transwomen. 

Being sexually undesirable by someone who you fancy sexually is a horrible position to be in but no one has the right to sex and lesbians have the right to refuse to have sex with whomever they want. Everyone has the right to refuse sex whatever the reason. We need to have conversations about consent and disclosure but they must be done from a position of honesty. If  you cannot disclose the truth [whatever that may be] to the person you desire sexually, then you should not have sex with them. This is as valid for one night stands as it is for long-term relationships.

Read More

Some personal reflections on two recent events involving Transwomen: TW

I don't normally write about Trans* issues on my blog because I find it difficult to express my political beliefs on gender theory whilst not causing unnecessary hurt to people. This weekend I came across two stories concerning Trans which trouble me greatly.

The first, and I will not link to the source of this story for their own protection, was a Lesbian woman watching a Dyke march who came across a Transwoman, on the march, with their penis on display. It was a public march and a Transwoman felt it was acceptable to display their penis without any concern for those around them. Regardless of your political beliefs, I don't think it's too much to ask that genitalia not be displayed in public. It's not generally considered particularly people-friendly.

1 in 4 women are victims of male sexual violence. At least 25% of the women born women on the Dyke march will have been a victim of male sexual violence. Other Transwomen will have experienced male sexual violence. Displaying one's penis in public isn't a form of protest. It is the belief that you are more important than anyone else around you, including children who really don't need to be exposed to the genitalia of complete strangers in the middle of the road. I would go as far as to suggest that this was a form of sexual harassment with the deliberate intention to trigger women. 

The second incident I came across on a blog. I'm not going to link to the blog or name the Transwomen who wrote these statements on twitter. Instead, I'd like the statements to stand for themselves.

If cis women were forced into sterilisation and criminalised for having sex we would hear about it. Trans women though, few care. 

As a woman I can never have kids b/c of cissexism. Where is the outrage that trans ppl are being sterilised for being poor? Nowhere.

I was going to ignore both of these statements because, frankly, the lack of basic knowledge of 20th century is just embarrassing.  Then I googled and discovered that this complete ahistorical understanding of sterilisation isn't necessarily uncommon. It is predicated on the fact that the hormones Trans* take render them infertile. Clearly this is true. But, is it "forced sterilisation"?. I take the definition of forced sterilisation to mean without consent. Trans* take hormones with consent [except in the case of Iran where Gay men and Lesbians are forcibly required to transition in order to cure them from being homosexual]. Becoming sterile is a consequence. It isn't a nice consequence but it's a consequence many women born women experience when they have treatment for cancer, degenerative conditions like arthritis and even mental illness. It may not be a nice choice to make but it is not the same as "forcible sterilisation".

Many millions of women born women [and men] have been sterilised in the past 150 years without consent. 

It's called eugenics.

Even if you know nothing about the history of North America [and particularly the state of California], most Western-educated people should have heard of Nazi Germany. The Nazis sterilised a lot of people: for being "asocial" or "subhuman". The Nazis forcibly sterilised women convicted of prostitution, those deemed mentally unwell, people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and anyone else who didn't meet their specific ideals of the Aryan nation. They sterilised prostitutes and women with "inappropriate political beliefs'. In the concentration camps, men had their testes removed in surgeries performed without pain killer. Women's uteruses were injected with toxic chemicals. And, these were some of the "experiments" which people managed to survive. The first people the Nazis murdered were the mentally and physically disabled to prevent them from reproducing their defective genes.

Eugenics is still codified in law across the world. Look at American states which require women [and usually only those of colour] to be sterilised in order to receive state benefits. These "non-permament" forms of sterilisation have a nasty habit of being permanent; not withstanding the issue of medicaid only paying for the original treatment. If the women react badly to the coil or other forms of not-quite temporary sterilisation, they have to pay to have it removed themselves. 

Until recently, Sweden required all Trans* to be forcibly sterilised before transitioning. That is "forced sterilisation". Choosing to take hormones which make you sterile is not the same as the government sterilising you without your consent or being required to be sterilised before transitioning. 

Claiming that no "ciswomen" have ever been sterilised without their consent is asinine and simply wrong. It demonstrates a rather remarkable inability to understand women's lived experiences. Transwomen who are poor aren't the only ones who lack reproductive choice. Many women cannot conceive and cannot afford the very expensive medical treatments required to test why they are infertile. Not all women-born-women are fertile. Some can conceive but can never carry a fetus to term. This is the reality of women.

Women are also frequently criminalised and labelled "asocial" for having sex. Ask any rape victim who has been told it's their fault or any child in Afghanistan who is forced to marry their rapist. Teenage girls who get pregnant are treated as pariahs and blamed for the destruction of society whilst the boys who help get them pregnant are never held responsible. Women are labelled sluts and denigrated in the press for having sex whilst men are celebrated for being sexually promiscuous. Prostituted women are criminalised for selling sex but the men that buy them suffer no real consequences, even when they rape or torture prostituted women. 

I know these examples are only of two Transwomen but, increasingly, I becoming extremely uncomfortable, particularly on twitter, with the discourse that Trans* should not be held accountable for the consequences of their actions or words because they are vulnerable. Millions of people are vulnerable. Making statements which are clearly fallacious helps no one. Allowing someone to state such ridiculous things without pointing out their historical inaccuracy is enabling behaviour and it is good for no one. 

Particularly not the millions of people forcibly sterilised who are erased from this narrative of victimhood.

Read More

A Spectacular Piece of Victim-Blaming

The Daily Express ran a truly spectacular piece of victim-blaming yesterday. Virginia Blackburn called women who don’t like being sexually harassed by men “wusses”.

Apparently, we should consider it a compliment if men repeatedly harass us into having a drink with them. Women’s boundaries are completely irrelevant when men’s feelings might get hurt. We have to acquiesce because NOTHING is more important than the menz' feelings: not our needs or our personal safety. Men come first.

Blackburn also labels women who have reported their experience of sexual harassment or assault whilst vacationing in the Mediterranean “liars”. You see, Blackburn has never experienced sexual harassment whilst on vacation so other women can’t possibly be telling the truth.

Cheers for that Virginia.

Cross posted at Everyday Victim Blaming.  

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

Proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill: ACTION REQUIRED - WRITING TO MSPS

This following message is from SCASE:

Proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill: ACTION REQUIRED - WRITING TO MSPS

Rhoda Grant MSP has lodged her proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Parliament, which would make the purchase of sex an offence.  Many feminist and women’s organisations were heavily engaged in the consultation process leading up to the publication of this Bill and responded in a supportive way to the consultation.  The responses to that consultation are now available to view at ….

In order for the proposal to proceed to the first formal stage of the Parliamentary process, there needs to be support secured amongst at least 18 MSPs from across a range of political parties in the Parliament.  

At 6 June 2013, the MSPs who have supported the proposal are:

Drew Smith, Margaret McDougall, Hanzala Malik, Ken Macintosh, Michael McMahon, Patricia Ferguson, Murdo Fraser, Anne McTaggart, Elaine Murray, Iain Gray, John Pentland, Jayne Baxter, Claudia Beamish, Siobhan McMahon, Malcolm Chisholm, Hugh Henry, Claire Baker, Paul Martin, Elaine Smith, Graeme Pearson.

The deadline for MSPs to support this proposal is Friday 28 June 2013.

This list only has MSPs from the Labour party and Conservative party.  It is necessary, therefore, to particularly seek the support of SNP, Lib Dem or Green/Independent MSPs; without the support of an MSP from at least one of these parties / party grouping, this proposal will fall and any further discussions on the proposal to criminalise the demand will end.  The WSP support the policy intent behind the bill to put the legislative focus onto those who choose to purchase sex but believe this is only one aspect of a criminalising demand approach.  This also needs to look to decriminalise those who sell sexual activity and ensure that quality long-term support and exiting services are available

We are now asking for people to contact their MSP and ask them to support the progress of the Bill to the next stage.  This does not mean the Bill will be passed but will ensure that a full discussion can take place as to the best approach to address the harm and inequality in the sex industry.

WRITING TO YOUR MSPS

Step one: to find your MSPs (you have 8: 1 constituency and 7 regional MSPs), use the Scottish Parliament’s MSP locator: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps.aspx This will enable you to find contact details and information on the party affiliation of each MSP.  Bear in mind that SNP, Lib Dem and Green/Independent support is particularly vital at this point in time.  If your MSP is included in the list above as having already supported the Bill, you may wish to instead write to them to thank them for their support. 

Step two: prepare your letters or emails to MSPs., MSPs really value the personal approach, and so if you have a particular piece of information or local evidence that you can include, please do so.

IMPORTANT: when corresponding with your MSPs, always include your name, address and post code at the end of your letter/email.  MSPs only deal with correspondence from people within their area.  

Step three:  please let us know if you have done this, and do keep us up to date if you receive any follow-up correspondence from your MSPs, whether they are agreeing to support the proposal, or if they are explaining why they are not inclined to support it. 

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