Blame the perpetrator, not the victim:

The following was originally published as a twitlonger by Everyday Victim Blaming. I'm posting because it is an important piece of writing that should not get lost in the Twitter-verse: 

I am another EVB volunteer, taking over from this morning's debate regarding this tweet from @mwilliamsthomas :

"The story about the 12yr girl being raped in London in early hours of Sunday morning is horrific. But what was she doing out at that time?"

The subsequent debate and defence of this tweet has troubled me greatly so I have asked to share may thoughts.

Regarding Mark's tweet, speaking as a child survivor, I need to emphasize that if I were that 12yr old girl reading that tweet – I would assume that either myself or those who were responsible for my care were being blamed instead of the people raping me. The focus from the perpetrators is shifted immediately. This is NOT ok.

The person responsible for rape is the rapist. Some of us had wonderful parenting – it didn’t stop us being raped. Many survivors are raped in their home. I share concerns regarding a 12 year old being out late at night. But surely the focus on this particular story – and where our energies should focus - is the fact that a child was raped.

Victim blaming can be subtle – as can be shifting the focus onto others. The only person responsible for raping this young girl is the rapist. Questions regarding caring responsibilities/safeguarding should be asked – but they shouldn’t be your biggest concern. It shouldn’t be your first question if you truly are victim-centered. This is BASIC.

Furthermore, people who support/work with victims can victim-blame. As can victims themselves. Working for victims rights does NOT make you immune from victim-blaming.

Please LISTEN to the voices of victims and survivors when we ASK you to reflect on your language and behaviour. Don't let defence be your first response - try to reflect why/how you may be victim-blaming. Thank you.

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

Don't Be That Girl: Rape Culture in Action

There isn't much I can say that hasn't been said already on twitter. This is, obviously, rape culture in action. 

I want to say, yep that's the University of Alberta for you: bunch of misogynistic, racist, homophobic and disablist rednecks. We all know the jokes and stereotypes about rednecks. And, hey, I'm Canadian. I know all the jokes about Albertans: the Texas of Canada.

That would be the lazy way out though.

Claiming that this kind of poster is representative of a cultural stereotype of stupidity allows us to ignore our own responsibility for perpetuating rape culture [and allows the dickheads of twitter more space to pretend they are Nigels]. 

Blaming rape victims for being raped is the basis of rape culture. It isn't just some Albertan thing.

Making rape apologists The Other makes it easier for rapists to rape. 

We need to start examining the obvious: that these are stories of MALE violence instead of hiding behind cultural stereotypes.

These posters were created by men for the sole purpose of labelling rape victims liars. 

We need to name the problem: Male Violence.

Read More

Mumsnet: Just Another Story of Victim-Blaming

[First Published at Everyday Victim Blaming]

A friend brought this thread from Mumsnet to my attention.

The basic premise is a mother of a new baby who is being bullied by her in-laws over her refusal to get into a car with them after they have "had a few gin and tonics". Hardly a controversial stance since drunk-driving is illegal for a reason. Yet, the thread is full of women trying to blame a new mother for not doing what she is told.

This might not seem a classic case of victim-blaming but it demonstrates all the normative behaviour with which we engage in when blaming victims. A new mother is being insulted for putting the safety of her new baby over the desires of others to meet the baby. It is her fault for not getting into the car with her drunk father-in-law [or coming with one of a thousand complicated ways of travelling with a 4 month old on public transport during one of the biggest holiday seasons in the US]. The fact is that her baby is being treated as a toy by others for their personal viewing pleasure. They aren't willing to travel to see the baby so she is selfish for not putting her child in danger to visit them.

Have we really arrived at a place where a new mother can't prioritise the safety of a new baby without being treated like a nincompoop for doing so? Do we really have to make excuses for the behaviour of others?  There are women on the Mumsnet thread blaming a new mother for not travelling across state lines with a new baby and a drunk driver. They are blaming her for being selfish; just like we blame victims for being victims.

Read More

#DickheadDetox: Christian Jessen for Spreading Rape Myths.

My personal loathing of reality TV star Dr. Christian Jessen is well-documented. I have no tolerance for men who think it is acceptable to define women's fuckability nor any medical professional who actually knows nothing about breast feeding who thinks it's "icky". Honestly, the man is nothing more than your average dickhead, except he also has a television show in which he gets to deliberately humiliate and denigrate people. Yay Capitalism. 

This is what dear ole' Christian tweeted out today (read from bottom up as blogger is being silly about formatting)

1. Dr Christian Jessen ‏@DoctorChristian36m

   2) female rape is abhorrent but much male rape goes on in prisons and is shrugged off as 'that's just what happens' -equally abhorrent!

   Expand
2. Dr Christian Jessen ‏@DoctorChristian37m

   1) False accusations of rape are thankfully rare but very damaging to all. It's interesting how much bias there is in talking about rape...

   Expand
3. Dr Christian Jessen ‏@DoctorChristian40m

   interesting stat to follow my last tweets: men are statistically more likely to be victims of rape than to be falsely accused of rape.

   Expand
4. Dr Christian Jessen ‏@DoctorChristian1h

   2) Why do women do this?! 2 many rape cases ignored, which is terrible, so why try this sort of damaging nonsense on to make it worse? Loons

   Expand
5. Dr Christian Jessen ‏@DoctorChristian1h

   1)Terrible story of cabby accused of rape by female passenger only 2b saved by his recording of journey where nothing of the sort happened.

   Expand

Well, isn't that some lovely "women are all liars" twaddle for a Friday morning.

When are men who insist on pontificating about rape actually going to bother reading some research into false rape accusations. Or, you know, actually engage their brain and think. 

Dr. Christian is a misogynist. He won't bother listening to those pointing out that he is wrong. That is too much like making him take responsibility for his actions. 

He is on the #dickheaddetox

UPDATE:

This was Dr. Christian's response to criticism:

Dr Christian Jessen ‏@DoctorChristian7m

become clear that many of most aggressive feminists here have become so blinded by rage they no longer see any other points that their own.

Expand

•  Reply 
•  Retweeted 
•  Favorite 

I may need to start a #SuperDickheadDetox just for Christian.

I wrote this piece for Everyday Victim Blaming.

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

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

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