domestic abuse Archives - Page 2 of 3

Sex-differences and ‘domestic violence murders’ by @K_IngalaSmith

June 27, 2015

Cross-posted from: Karen Ingala Smith
Originally published: 14.03.15

What could we do if we wanted to hide the reality of men’s violence against women?

Firstly, we might have a ‘gender neutral’ definition of domestic violence. Maybe like the UK government which uses the following definition:

“any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to: psychological, physical, sexual, financial [and] emotional.”

Not only treating ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ as the same thing, this definition erases sex differences. It includes the phrase ‘regardless of gender’ when in reality men – as a biological sex-class – are overwhelmingly the perpetrators, and women – as a biological sex-class – are overwhelming the victims of ‘domestic violence’ (more on the differences between male and female victims of intimate partner violence here). It is also broad, including violence and abuse committed between any family members. Whilst this can be useful, for example allowing service provision to be made available for those experiencing violence and abuse from any family member, sometimes it is important to focus on ‘intimate-partner violence’, including that committed by former intimate partners.
Read more Sex-differences and ‘domestic violence murders’ by @K_IngalaSmith

Categories: Featured Blog

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, fatal male violence, gender, male violence

Floyd Mayweather Beats Women But There’s No Video Evidence So Let’s Ignore It by @rupandemehta.

June 9, 2015

Cross-posted from: Liberating Realisations

“How a female dresses is her advertisement. If a female shows half of her body, she’s asking to be disrespected. If she dresses classy, expect to be treated like a lady. How you’re addressed lies on your attire. Sexy is a spirit, not an outfit.”

Are these words enraging? How about these?

“Even though you can’t drive 10 cars at one time, you got people that got 10 cars. So you’re able to keep maintenance on 10 cars. So I feel that as far as it comes to females, that same thing should apply. If you’re able to take care of 20, then you should have 20.”

The owner of TMT (The Money Team), the face of boxing and the highest paid athlete in the world Floyd Mayweather has no qualms about comparing women as objects he can own and treating them like disposable pieces of property. If his quotes above don’t already prove that point, let’s take a look at his reprehensible history.
Read more Floyd Mayweather Beats Women But There’s No Video Evidence So Let’s Ignore It by @rupandemehta.

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, male violence, patriarchy

It feels like my soul has died by @God_loves_women

February 28, 2015

(cross-posted from God Loves Women)

On Sunday I awoke from a dream and everything changed. Since then I have barely been able to eat, talking wears me out, even typing these few words is a huge effort. I have done very little work, the meetings I have had to attend require me to fake being myself which, although possible, is exhausting. My usually super fast brain has slowed almost to a standstill and in the middle of sentences I will lose the thread of what I’m saying.

I am irritable and my ability to parent has become vastly depleted. I have become impatient and snap at the littlest thing. At times I become unable to move or speak and my husband has to physically move me and help me with basic tasks. By early afternoon I am exhausted and have to sleep.

It feels like my soul has died. All that’s left is a shell. All that makes me who I am has been enveloped by deadness.

The dream wasn’t even that bad. Nothing dramatically awful happened within it. It involved me being almost physically transported back ten years and spending time with my ex-husband. And now I am broken.

It turns out it probably wasn’t a dream, but rather a flashback. A flashback isn’t a nightmare or a memory, it’s like whatever you are seeing is happening in the present. And the brain and body cannot distinguish between the flashback and reality. So for all intents and purposes, on Sunday I was transported back ten years to spend an hour with my ex-husband. And it has messed up my entire life.

Over a year ago I had a similar incident when I was watching a programme and a violent assault suddenly took place on screen. My brain stopped working on anything but a superficial level for about 6 weeks. This is what I wrote back then.

I have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I can go for months, over a year without any problems and then, without warning, everything will change. A friend of mine likened it to someone suffering epilepsy, “it’s like you’re walking across a stage and you know that at some point a trap door may open up underneath you, but you don’t know when.” Which is basically what it’s like. The challenge is that PTSD is not socially acceptable. If it’s not a physical illness, it doesn’t really exist for many people.

Reporting of the recent cases of Oscar Pistorius and Ched Evans have often focussed on the perpetrators’ rights to continue with their lives. That justice has been served and regardless of our opinions, we must respect the process. Yet the problem is much greater than individual cases.

What does justice look like for me? My ex-husband has received no court based consequences for what he did to me. And even if he had, at most he would have served two and a half years in prison. The majority of what he did wasn’t even technically illegal. Still, ten years later and I am still coping with the consequences of his choices to hurt me. As are my husband and children.

In many ways punishing him won’t change things for me, the trapdoor will still open underneath me, life will still stop when something unpredictable triggers my PTSD symptoms again. But maybe it would make a difference for the next girl he hurts, maybe it would prevent him having the same access to girls and young women? Maybe it would change the perception of the impact of abuse and rape on the individual?

Regardless, I am still broken. There is this deep pain that simmers below all the symptoms and ways in which the trauma affects me; that I will always be broken. That no matter how many years pass, who I am or what I do; I will still be broken. And don’t feel you need to rush to reassure me that I’m not broken. Because to do so denies the impact of abuse and rape. It breaks people forever. It smashes and breaks people in a way that cannot be repaired.

In the least awful parts of this week I have some confidence that things will improve. That I will become myself again. In the darkest minutes and hours, I wonder if this time the damage will be permanent, if this will be the time when I lose myself forever. I am going to have a session of something called the Rewind Technique this afternoon, which will hopefully sort some of this out and repair the damage that has been done to my brain by the flashback.

I know I should write something to complete this piece, to bring it to a close, but my brain has shut down again. So I’ll leave it here for now.

UPDATE TO THIS POST HERE

God loves women: A blog sharing my love of God, the love He has for women and my frustration that the Church often doesn’t realise this (@God_loves_women)

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, Faith, feminism, PTSD

Coercive Control legislation is essential for domestic violence victims

January 18, 2015

(cross-posted from Rachel Horman)

August 2014 saw the announcement by Teresa May that the government was to launch a consultation into whether there is a need for a criminal offence of coercive control in cases of domestic abuse. This comes after a campaign spearheaded by Paladin the National Stalking Advocacy Service, Women’s Aid, and the Sara Charlton Charitable Foundation. Some critics argue that there no need for a specific offence as the law is fine as it is and somewhat contradictorily that a law would be impossible to implement due to difficulties in obtaining evidence.

Most of the people that I speak to are stunned to discover that coercive control isn’t already a specific offence, particularly when you discuss examples of the behaviour that constitutes coercive control. Whilst coercive control is contained within the government definition of domestic violence the criminal law has no offence to adequately deal with it. Coercive control is not about couples falling out – we all do that. Coercive control is a sustained campaign of psychological terrorism which is the lifeblood of domestic violence. Domestic violence is not a one-off act – it is a series of destructive acts designed to break down the victim’s confidence and will. Coercive control is the regulation of the minutiae of someone’s daily life e.g. what they wear, where they go, who they speak to, what they eat. This type of abuse inflicts long lasting psychological harm on the victim and is the behaviour my clients feel affects them the most – more than physical violence alone. It is coercive control that enables perpetrators to get away with committing physical and sexual violence against the victim and precisely why the victim feels that there is no escape as their will is already destroyed by that stage.

Coercive control isn’t something that can be committed “by accident” as some commentators have claimed. This behaviour would be obvious to everyone as being damaging to the victim. I have clients who are forced to sleep on the floor, eat their meals from a dog bowl on the floor, have their every move tracked through their mobile phones and vehicles, their money taken from them so that they are forced to steal tampons as they are reliant on their partners who refuse to give them money which is rightly theirs.

When these women do go to the police they are told to ‘come back when he hits you’. This is something that I hear every single day. In almost 20 years of working exclusively in domestic violence, stalking and forced marriage I have never known a prosecution for this type of behaviour whilst the parties are still in a relationship. Once they separate then suddenly it is treated as harassment or stalking which is a criminal offence. There have been a handful of cases which have been brought to court only to be thrown out due to the fact that the parties were in a relationship at the time of the behaviour and accordingly this could not be deemed to be harassment or stalking!

Coercive control needs to be a specific criminal offence so that it is clear to the police, the CPS, the judiciary, victims and perpetrators that it is illegal. The government has already announced that emotional abuse of children will become a criminal offence so how can they ignore coercive control of (in the main) women? Forced marriage is now a criminal offence which was needed and could not be adequately dealt with under stalking or harassment laws. The same is true of coercive control.

As for claims of it being impossible to prove – this is what some said in the 1990’s around the criminalisation of rape within marriage and has been said about historic sexual abuse. We still get convictions in these cases so why not with coercive control? There is now more and more evidence able to be brought and it is regularly used in the civil courts. Victims sometimes manage to record the abuse, tracking software can be found on phones and devices on cars, bank statements can show money immediately disappearing from the victim’s account into other accounts and there are witnesses far more often than we think. The criminalisation of coercive control will assist in protecting victims by making them realise that it is a crime, may make perpetrators think twice and make witnesses more likely to speak out. Society as a whole needs to combat this and the law needs to facilitate it too.

See Rachel discuss the issue on BBC Breakfast:

Rachel Horman on BBC Breakfast News 20th August 2014 discussing proposed domestic abuse crime proposed legislation from Rachel Horman on Vimeo

Rachel Horman: Feminist legal blog by family legal aid lawyer of the year Rachel Horman. Mainly domestic abuse /forced marriage and violence against women. Sometimes ranty but always right…..

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: coercive control, domestic abuse, domestic violence

Remember my name at Truth about Domestic Violence

December 29, 2014

(Cross-posted from Truth about Domestic Violence)

“REMEMBER MY NAME”

When you remember my walk upon this earth

Look not into my steps with pity.

When you taste the tears of my journey

Notice how they fill my foot prints

Not my spirit

For that remains with me.

My story must be told

Must remain in conscious memory

So my daughters won’t cry my tears

Or follow my tortured legacy.

Lovin’ is a tricky thing

If it doesn’t come from a healthy place,

If Lovin’ Doesn’t FIRST practice on self it will act like a stray bullet not caring what it hits

You may say:

Maybe I should’ve loved him a little less

Maybe I should’ve loved me a little more,

Maybe I should’ve not believed he’d never hit me again.

All those maybes will not bring me back– not right his wrong.

My life was not his to take.

As your eyes glance my name

Understand once I breathed

Walked

Loved

just like you.

I wish for all who glance my name

To know love turned fear – kept me there

Loved twisted to fear,

Kept me in a chokehold

Cut off my air

Blurred my vision I couldn’t see how to break free.

I shoulda told my family

I shoulda told my friends

I shoulda got that CPO

Before the police let him go

But all those shoulda’s can’t bring me back when I lied so well

To cover the shame

To hide the signs.

If my death had to show what love isn’t

If my death had to show that love shouldn’t hurt

If my death had to make sure another woman told a friend instead of holding it in

If my death reminds you how beautiful, how worthy you really are

If my death reminds you to honor all you are daily

Then remember my name

Shout it from the center of your soul

Wake me in my grave

Let ME know

My LIVING was not in vain.

By Kimberly A. Collins

Truth about Domestic Violence: my own personal experience with DV and also about general issues in relation to Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Rape, exposing the truth in just how severely victims are let down, in particular by poor policing and in the family courts.

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: Counting Dead Women, domestic abuse, domestic violence, intimate partner violence, male violence

No Isolated Incident: The Death of Hollie Gazzard by Gappy Tales

November 24, 2014

Cross-posted from: Gappy Tales
Originally published: 18.07.14

(this is an older post cross-posted from Gappy Tales)

So. Another young British woman has lost her life as a result of domestic abuse.

Hollie Gazzard – described by her family as “a beautiful, happy, and loving girl” who was “full of life” – was stabbed to death by her ex-partner at her place of work, in full view of multiple witnesses, late on Tuesday afternoon.

It was the very public nature of Hollie’s death that ensured she made the national news. People are understandably horrified when forcibly confronted with that level of terror and violence. Right there, on our streets, or depicted on grainy videos filmed from mobile phones, it becomes impossible to turn our faces away. However the vast majority of women who fall victim to fatal incidents of domestic violence are lucky to get just a few paragraphs in the local rag. Why? Because it is all too common, that’s why.

Shockingly, Hollie Gazzard is just one of around a hundred women who will die from domestic abuse this year in the UK alone. An average of two women a week are killed by their current or previous partner in this country; a figure that has remained fairly stable for decades. Domestic abuse is extremely common, with around one in three women experiencing it at some point during their life times. It also tends to be progressive, increasing in severity over time, and – as shown by recent events in Gloucester – it can be deadly. Frighteningly, a woman is most at risk when attempting to leave, and in the first few months after having left, her relationship.

Despite accounting for sixteen percent of all recorded violent crime though, domestic abuse is still vastly under reported. Reasons for this are many and varied, however a fear of not being adequately protected and/or taken seriously by the police still rates high. A common general perception tends to be that police attitudes towards victims of domestic and sexual violence have improved in recent years and, as a former Women’s Aid worker, this is a perception I have tentatively shared.

Which is why I felt such dismay upon reading this article in The Independent; in particular the quotes it contained from a Chief Inspector Neil Smith concerning Hollie Gazzard’s murder. C.I. Smith seemed only too eager to reassure everyone that this was a:

“very, very nasty incident” but added: “I would like to reassure members of this community, both residents and local businesses, that this is an isolated incident. These offences don’t happen in Gloucester regularly. This incident was very tragic, however; both victim and suspect knew each other. They were in a previous relationship. That doesn’t lessen this horrific incident but it would be good for us to reassure the local community.”

So the incident was very tragic, but. But, they knew each other. But, they had been in a previous relationship. In this context the disclaimer at the end sounds little more than a hasty add-on, made necessary only by the minimising, dismissive nature of everything that has gone before it. In fact the speech reads simply as a modern day equivalent of the old chestnut, “It’s just a domestic”. According to C.I.Smith this was no random attacker, therefore there is nothing for anyone to concern themselves with. Nothing to see here. Everybody move along and get back to business as usual.

There are no doubt many women who could assure Chief Inspector Smith that offences relating to domestic abuse do indeed happen regularly in Gloucester. They happen on every street in every town in every corner of the land. The brutal murder of Hollie Gazzard is very very far from being an isolated incident. Rather it is the highly visible tip of an enormous iceberg; a small exposed part of a much larger pattern of hate crime that is perpetrated against vast numbers of women on a daily basis. It also comes at a time when funding for domestic violence support services is being slashed to ribbons. Until we acknowledge and begin to take a good look at this bigger picture, there will only ever be many more deaths like Hollie’s.

And most of them, we will never even get to hear about.

Jeni Harvey: Writer, feminist, mother. Likes cake, hates Jeremy Clarkson. These are my principles – if you don’t like them, I have others. @GappyTales or Huff Post

Categories: Featured Blog

Tags: 16 days of activism, domestic abuse, fatal male violence, male entitlement, male violence, male violence against women and girls

Fear is a Liar by Blues in a Tea Cup

November 7, 2014

(Cross-posted from Blues in a Tea Cup)

It’s not every day you find out you’re dead. A quiet, family evening at my brother’s house. We’re sorting out an Indian takeaway. Negotiating portions of rice. Extra poppadoms. Anyone want to share a naan? Don’t suppose there’s any mango chutney, is there? I notice a missed call on my mobile. Gary doesn’t phone often. When he does, it’s usually about Charlie. I don’t think I’m going to like the voicemail he’s left. Please call Mike as soon as you get this. I was right. I don’t like it.

Mike’s the Community Police Officer. He sounds surprised to hear my voice.

You’re OK then?

I’m fine.

Only Charlie told me you were dead.

Dead?

He said you died last week. Of a heart attack.

Not that I noticed …

I hear disbelief. Then anger.

But he was sobbing his heart out. How can anyone lie like that?

It doesn’t seem a good time to tell him how rich I’d be if I had a fiver for every convincing lie Charlie’s told me. With tears. Snot. Anguish of the soul. The whole nine yards.

Maybe Reeva Steenkamp was less surprised by her demise than I was by mine. After all, she’d already told her lover she was scared of him. Only a few days before he shot her. Through the locked door of the toilet. At three in the morning. Four times. Just to make sure. She’d known he had a gun. A previous girlfriend once hid it because of his insane rages.

If Charlie’d ever had access to a firearm my death might have been more than a figment of his imagination. Over 70% of domestic violence murders happen after the victim has left the relationship. I left Charlie five times. He’s one reason why I’ve followed the media circus surrounding Reeva’s killer with such interest. There’s a photo that stands out for me from all those Oscar-winning performances in the witness box. The man’s in tears. Again. A single drip hanging from the end of his nose. Puts me in mind of Charlie whenever I see it. He could have won awards for acting too.

Reeva’s killer. Charlie. Nigella Lawson’s ex. Rosemary Gill’s murderer. They think they’re the victims somehow. If Reeva had behaved the way he wanted her to, everything would have been fine. It was all her fault. Charlie’s predecessor spelled that one out for me. Loudly. And often. The average abuser is utterly convinced of his own rightness. When the solids hit the fan it’s only reasonable for him to lie his way out of trouble. After all, he’s intelligent enough to know the truth might not garner much sympathy. I didn’t like what she did / said / the way she looked at someone. I threatened her. Smothered her. Shot her. Throttled her. Beat her to death. I couldn’t help it. Not going to go down well in a court of law. I thought she was a burglar. Much better. No matter how implausible. Tears are just the icing on the cake. It can’t be hard to squeeze out a few if you’re staring life imprisonment in the face. Poor me. Look what she did to me.

I once knew a man who’d been bullied in school. He was fifteen when it dawned on him he didn’t have to take this any more. He punched the bully. Knocked him out cold. Or so he told me. A light bulb moment. He’d never been bullied since. Instead he’d gone through life fists up. Always first to throw a metaphorical punch. Never letting anyone get close enough to hurt him. But he’d never stopped seeing himself as a victim. A frightened child. And a frightened child who’s six foot and eighteen stone is someone you don’t want to mess with.

Fear tells horrible lies. It told Reeva Steenkamp she’d be safe behind the locked door of the bathroom. It told her killer that Reeva wasn’t to be trusted. He had to subjugate her. And if she died in the process? Collateral damage. That’s what they call it in Gaza isn’t it? Once fear’s in the driving seat, empathy goes out of the window. Compassion. Humanity. We revert to blind animal instinct. Fight or flight. Not a good way to conduct intimate partnerships. Interactions with neighbours. International negotiations. Fear’s a liar. Fear’s a killer.

A couple of paragraphs back I snuck in the words I left Charlie five times. Five times. Stands to reason I’ve been interested in the hashtag trending on Twitter this week #WhyIStayed. Anyone who’s been abused will recognise the rollercoaster. The decision to stay, or to return to an abuser, is rooted in fear. It also flows from an optimism just as insane as the fear. I refused to believe there was nothing to Charlie but the monster. I knew there was more. I’d seen the good. I didn’t want to believe the evil would win the day. I don’t think he did either.

One evening in the kitchen. Roast lamb. Charlie was always a good cook. We worked well together. Pans clattered as I rooted through the cupboard. I finally found what I wanted. Stood up. Charlie wasn’t there. My stomach knotted. If you’ve ever lived with a hardcore abuser you’ll know about The Silence. I found him in the bedroom. Tears pouring down his face. Instead of the usual rebuff, he looked up. Helpless.

I can’t trust you.

Of course you can.

No. You don’t understand. It’s me. I can’t trust you.

He was right. No matter how hard I loved him. No matter how much he wanted to. He couldn’t do it. He wasn’t capable of trust. Fear’s a thief too.

I wish I could paint a fairytale ending. The moment of truth that set us free. We walked off into the sunset hand in hand … We didn’t of course. I cooked the lamb. He refused to eat it. The rest was messy. Because where domestic abuse is concerned, happy ever after is just another lie.

All the names in this piece have been changed or omitted, except those of the victims of domestic abuse. I see no reason why our abusers should steal the limelight as well as our lives.

Blues in a tea cup: Currently blogging as part of a charity fundraiser forOne25 Charity supporting street sex workers in Bristol. I’ve given up ‘not being a writer’ for 125 days as a sponsored challenge. I plan to continue writing and blogging well beyond the challenge. Themes variable. I’m a lifelong feminist, but I’ve never toed any particular line. I’m an older woman. My writing inevitably reflects this. Domestic abuse and dysfunctional relationships are recurrent themes because of my personal history.

Categories: Featured Blog

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, male violence, Reeva Steenkamp

Teenage Mothers, Domestic Violence and Shame by @God_loves_women

May 2, 2014

(Written for A Room of our Own: A Feminist/ Womanist Network by @God_loves_women)

I have a confession to make. I have been totally prejudiced against teenage mums. As a young person myself I imagined they were seeking a council flat, had no aspirations and were lazy and from families who had obviously not cared about them. The usually smoked, abandoning their children wherever possible to go out clubbing. They didn’t know how to discipline their children, were incompetent and slept with lots of different men.

All of them except me of course. I was 17 when I found out I was pregnant and had my daughter when I was 18 years old. I refused to go to any “young mum” groups, because I wasn’t like “them”. Of those least likely to get pregnant or even have sex before marriage I ranked probably highest in my school year. I’d met the father at a friend’s party; he was dangerously charming and within six months he had gained total control of me, including his convincing me not to use contraception. Having a Catholic secondary education (contraception is evil) and a Daily Mail reading mother (contraception gives you cancer) contributed to the ease with which I accepted his view that “it’s not real without a risk”.

I married him within months of giving birth. Growing up as a strongly committed Christian left me feeling marriage was the only way forward. Plus the need to not be “one of those teen mums” left me feeling I must get married. At least then I could pull the “marriage card” (or ring as it’s usually known), “See, world! I’m not like the others, I’m married.”

My ex-husband destroyed me; sexual and emotional abuse left barely able to function, constant undermining of my parenting and ongoing sexually relationships with other people. We were both 19 when his abuse of teenage girls led to him being put on the sex offenders register for five years. Yet I couldn’t leave him. Alongside the reality of trauma bonding and his devaluing of me to the point I knew I was worthless; there was a deeply held fear of becoming “one of those teenage mums”. I needed to stay with him otherwise I would be failure; because fundamentally that’s clearly what I thought all those other teenage mothers were.

At 21 I escaped when my son was born three months premature after my ex-husband assaulted me. My son’s birth and subsequent hospital treatment led to me and my daughter living in a hospital over an hour from our home town. This forced separation and my son’s ongoing treatment left me knowing I must speak out, so I reported him to the Police and legal proceedings began.

Many of the doctors and nurses who cared for my son would ask, “Are you on your own?” “Where is the father?” I couldn’t only say, “Yes, I’m on my own. I’m no longer with his father.” I always had to quantify it with, “His father is a registered sex offender.” I had a premature child who frequently almost died, I had a traumatised toddler and we lived in a hospital an hour from anyone we knew and yet I desperately didn’t want anyone thinking I was one of those teenage mums.

I’m now 29, my children are 11 and 8. They are amazing, intelligent, creative and kind people (I know I’m biased, but still…). I married my now husband (the good one) over six years ago. The journey I have walked, sometimes crawled and sometimes been dragged through has and continues to be full of wonder, the mundane, of brokenness and beauty. Through much counselling, prayer and many miracles I am still standing. I am now proud to say I was a teenage mother. I relish the opportunity to stand with all those who I once othered, to challenge anyone who tries to talk about those teenage mothers. I was wrong.

I stayed with an abuser for four years in part because of the messages I received. I was conditioned by the media, society and comments from adults I knew to think that those teenage mums were less than fully human. Media outlets, writers, politicians, schools, musicians, business leaders, each and every person, has a responsibility to consider the consequences of how our prejudices may impact others. Because there is no those, there are only us.

God loves women: A blog sharing my love of God, the love He has for women and my frustration that the Church often doesn’t realise this (@God_loves_women)

Categories: Featured Blog, Feminist Mothering, Violence Against Women

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, feminist mothering, male violence, motherhood, violence against women

Men Who Commit Domestic Violence Should Not be Allowed Custody or Access of their Children by @LK_Pennington

February 13, 2014

(Cross-posted with permission from My Elegant Gathering of White Snows)

Men who commit domestic violence against their partner, or their children, should not be allowed to have access or custodial rights over those children.

Heresy, I know but I do not believe that a man who is violent to their partner can be trusted to be a good father to their children. After all, not abusing the mother of your children isn’t exactly a high standard of parenting.

A man who abuses the mother of his [step]-children is not a good father.

It doesn’t matter if he never directly physically or sexually assaults the children; the fact that a man abuses his partner negates his ability to be a good father. Forcing a child to live with a man who abused their mother is psychological child abuse and we are all complicit in a culture which is psychologically abusing children.

Men who commit domestic violence should have no legal rights to their children. They should be legally required to pay maintenance to support their children as the failure to pay maintenance is child abuse.

Men who refuse to pay child maintenance are not good fathers.

Children are not possessions. They do not ‘belong’ to their parents. What are we teaching our children if we allow them to live with men who emotionally, physically or sexually abuse their mothers?

What are we teaching our children about women’s bodily autonomy?

What are we teaching our daughters about their value? What are we teaching our sons: that being violent is the only way to be a man?

Children are entitled to live in safety surrounded by people who love them.

Children do not deserve fathers who are “good enough” when “good enough” ignores the history of male violence.

(Cross-posted with permission from My Elegant Gathering of White Snows)

My Elegant Gathering of White Snows: a blog about male violence against women, celebrity culture and cultural femicide. [@LeStewpot] [FB: My Elegant Gathering of White Snows]

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, violence against women

Deeply Romantic: Hemingway, domestic violence and romance by @LK_Pennington

February 13, 2014

Cross-posted with permission from My Elegant Gathering of White Snows

This month I received one of the free copies of Paula McLain’s The Paris Wife via the Mumsnet Book of the Month Book Club. I’ve enjoyed most of the books I’ve received free copies of with the notable exception of Aimee Bender’s The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cakewhich bored me senseless and I gave it up after 50 pages. The Paris Wife, though, made me rage incandescently.

It started with the comment on the front from Sarah Blake who wrote The Postmistress : “As much about life and how we try to catch it as it is about love even as it vanishes …”. My first instinct was to bang my head off my desk. This is a book about Ernest Hemingway’s first marriage; the Ernest Hemingway who isn’t precisely renown for his respect for women. I’ve not read Sarah Blake’s The Postmistress so I don’t know if this book represents her understanding of love but it sure as hell doesn’t meet mine.

The back cover is worse. It bears the quote “Deeply Romantic” from the Times Literary Supplement which is a publication I generally avoid because of, well, Rupert Murdoch. The less said about that man, the better. But, back to the point: “Deeply Romantic.” This is the story of an psychologically abusive man who belittles and isolates his wife Hadley at every opportunity whilst they live in Paris and then, in a grand gesture of romance, tries to get her to live in menage-a-trois with his mistress; one of Hadley’s only “friends.”

There is nothing ‘romantic’ about this relationship. Hadley is a lonely and isolated young woman who enters into a relationship with the first man she really manages to meet whilst living in a fairly suffocating family situation with a dying mother. Hadley may be several years older than Ernest but this isn’t a relationship of equals. She gives up everything for him and he tries to destroy her.Ernest used Hadley because he could but he had an escape route and she didn’t. This isn’t romance. It’s psychological abuse and it is utterly misogynistic to pretend otherwise.

Ernest had sex with another woman in the same bed as Hadley. It doesn’t matter that this other woman becomes his second wife Pauline or that she instigated the encounter. The point is this is a self-destructive man destroying the women around him and burning through friendship after friendship with his narcissism.

This isn’t romantic behaviour. It’s soul-destroying.Whilst this is a fictional account and we can not know what happened during Hadley and Ernest’s marriage for certain, it is utterly irresponsible to peddle this kind of victim-blaming misogyny as “romance.” If this were advertised simply as a fictional/biographical account of their marriage, then it would be an incredible book because it is beautifully written and McLain has some lovely descriptions of the loneliness within marriage and the feelings of isolation from everything but it’s peddled as a “romance”.

This trope is dangerous because it reinforces a cultural trope about “artistic” men which blames their victims for not being “understanding.” Roman Polanski has benefited quite well from this trope which has allowed him to take no responsibility for his very serious crime of child rape. And, get a standing ovation for his Oscar which was, frankly, one of the most appalling scenes of mass victim-blaming ever.

If Hadley were my friend, I would be phoning Women’s Aid on her behalf. The trope of abuse as romance is destructive and violent. It starts when we tell little girls that the boy in their class who pulls their hair and calls them smelly “loves” them. We teach our daughters that men don’t know how to communicate love effectively so have to resort to crass bullying and violence.

Good men don’t need to have their egos stroked daily nor do they get upset if you have friends.

Good men don’t treat their wives as appendages to be discarded when they get “old” or have the temerity to give birth and change the shape of their body.

Don’t get me wrong. I did enjoy this book. It is beautifully written and McLean’s descriptions of their marriage are equally sad and moving but this isn’t romance. It isn’t love.

It also isn’t actually about Hadley; mostly Hadley serves as a tool for defining Ernest. Depressingly, the book is really all about him. Hadley is just there, in the background, serving no purpose except as “sweet little wife” to big, important author. It would have been more interesting if it had been about Hadley. We spend far too much time celebrating “Great Men” and not enough time simply acknowledging women. The thing which would improve this book is to have advertised it as ” The Real Woman’s Guide to Spotting an Emotionally Abusive Fuckwit,” then Hadley wouldn’t be insignificant in her own story.

As long as we keep peddling these relationships as “romantic,” we will continue to institutionalise Intimate Partner Violence as normal. The Paris Wife might be representative of Hadley and Ernest’s marriage but it most certainly should NOT be representative of marriage. It’s the same crap that Gabriel Garcia Marquez tries to pass off as romance in Love in the Time of Cholera in which a selfish narcissist has a tantrum because the woman he “loves” marries another man. His response to this offence is to sexually violate a number of women including a teenage girl for whom he was a legal guardian. That is child rape. Not romance.

I call this The Norman Mailer Rule. If you meet a man who says Mailer or Marquez are romantic, don’t date them. Life is too short and love too precious to waste on these relationships.

These are the signs of Intimate Partner Violence as outlined by Women’s Aid:

• Destructive criticism and verbal abuse: shouting/mocking/accusing/name calling/verbally threatening

• Pressure tactics: sulking, threatening to withhold money, disconnect the telephone, take the car away, commit suicide, take the children away, report you to welfare agencies unless you comply with his demands regarding bringing up the children, lying to your friends and family about you, telling you that you have no choice in any decisions.

• Disrespect: persistently putting you down in front of other people, not listening or responding when you talk, interrupting your telephone calls, taking money from your purse without asking, refusing to help with childcare or housework.

• Breaking trust: lying to you, withholding information from you, being jealous, having other relationships, breaking promises and shared agreements.

• Isolation: monitoring or blocking your telephone calls, telling you where you can and cannot go, preventing you from seeing friends and relatives.

• Harassment: following you, checking up on you, opening your mail, repeatedly checking to see who has telephoned you, embarrassing you in public.

• Threats: making angry gestures, using physical size to intimidate, shouting you down, destroying your possessions, breaking things, punching walls, wielding a knife or a gun, threatening to kill or harm you and the children.

• Sexual violence: using force, threats or intimidation to make you perform sexual acts, having sex with you when you don’t want to have sex, any degrading treatment based on your sexual orientation.

• Physical violence: punching, slapping, hitting, biting, pinching, kicking, pulling hair out, pushing, shoving, burning, strangling

• Denial: saying the abuse doesn’t happen, saying you caused the abusive behaviour, being publicly gentle and patient, crying and begging for forgiveness, saying it will never happen again.

My Elegant Gathering of White Snows: a blog about male violence against women, celebrity culture and cultural femicide. [@LeStewpot] [FB: My Elegant Gathering of White Snows]

@BrianMcFadden, and The Mistake Of Thinking Victims Are “Just As Bad” by @FrothyDragon

February 10, 2014

Cross-Posted with permission from Frothy Dragon and the Patriarchal Stone

First published in 2012

This isn’t my usual takedown of male upholders of the patriarchy. It’s one that’s filled with facepalming and irony. I mean, it was just the other day I wrote about the importance of supporting women who are in abusive relationships, trying to leave abusive relationships, or fresh out of abusive relationships. See, the “Women who make excuses and stay” may have hit me harder than usual. I suspect, from McFadden’s subsequent tweet, he tweeted out of a mixture of anger and misunderstanding. I mean, to the outsider, you wonder why women stay, why women make excuses. There’s no end of reasons. All of which are down to the abuser. So, in a simple, easy to read list, here we go. (If you think of any more, add them in the comments)

Blame: It’s common for the blame to be misappropriated onto the victim of abuse. As mentioned in my above linked post, it’s not uncommon for people to ask the abuser what they may have done to upset the abuser. It’s simple. The abuser doesn’t act out of anger, he acts out of a desire to control his victim. However, the abuser knows that it makes him appear (slightly more) favourable if he can blame the victim. After all, acting out abuse for a desire for control comes across as pretty shitty. (Understatement). But if he’s struck his victim, and laid it on “dinner being ruined”, “talking to your (male) friend”, “answering back”, he tells the victim (and anyone that asks) what she should have done differently. The victim then begins to believe if she walks on eggshells, and avoids the “triggers”, things will change. Things don’t change. The abuser just finds different excuses.
Denial: I can’t speak for every victim/survivor of abuse, but I suspect I can speak for a large number. The first time your abuser hits you, it doesn’t seem real. You don’t understand where it came from. After all, he’s been Prince Charming, right? Wants you all for himself, has told you he couldn’t live without you… You don’t realise he’s been doing all the things that make up abuse all along, so you convince yourself it was a “one off”, while he’s telling you it won’t happen again.
Lack Of Support: Last year, on average, 230 women were turned away from the refuge system due to a lack of space. Often, housing women trying to escape abuse can mean placing them in refuges miles away from any support network. But even before then, there’s the problem of trying to call Women’s Aid. I was lucky that I was never fully restricted to the house, except for when Dom hid my keys. But in the refuge system, I met women who had been denied access to a phone, unable to phone the National Domestic Violence Helpline, or even the police. Even those who had been able to phone had had to sneak out of the house to do it in private (I’d used “going to Tesco” as an excuse the day before I left Dom). But even then, you can’t always get through first time. The lack of refuge spaces saw women placed in Bed and Breakfast’s, with no real support, or sometimes unable to reach help at all.
Lack Of Finances: I had, like many other women, every penny controlled by Dom. As a barmaid, earning around £900 a month, Dom would ensure I had £200 to get through the month with; through this, I had to pay bills, buy food, buy electric… The rest, Dom would keep for himself, and spend on beer, vodka, anything he wanted. Before I knew of the refuge system, I believed I couldn’t afford to leave. After all, I was always broke, struggling to make ends meet. It never occurred to me I could survive, financially, outside of abuse. Even for those who do not face financial abuse know they’ll face being the sole payee for everything, and wonder how they’ll make ends meet.
Children: We have this preoccupation with two parent families. How many times have you heard the phrase “Stay together for the kids?” Blink 182 even have a song of the same name, right? We’re told children function best in two parent families, and we get told that children, especially boys, need a male influence in their lives. All of this builds up to a troubling sense for any mother planning to leave an abusive relationship. Society has already told her that lone parents are failing their children. Add to that, abusers often use children to target the mothers, the abuser’s victim. A common tactic is for the abuser to threaten the victim with custody; a tactic I remember from Dom, who regularly told me that, should I leave, he’d make sure I never saw our son again. Other abusers will try and turn the children against the mother, meaning that should the mother attempt to leave, the children will voice dissent at the idea of leaving with the mother. For a lot of victims, leaving the abuser means they have to face the possibility of losing their children.
Fear: Long before I left Dom, I was aware of the fact that leaving, or attempting to leave, Dom would be dangerous. He’d admitted once, that, after she’d left him, he’d put a brick through his ex wife’s window. And sadly, I was already no stranger to his death threats; within the first ten months of our relationship, he’d threatened to stab me twice; he’d tried to kill his best friend for offering me comfort after another of Dom’s assaults, and told me that if I ever tried to leave him, he’d hunt me down and kill me. Women don’t leave abuse because they’re scared of the consequences if they get caught trying to leave. They’re scared of the consequences if they do leave. Hell, four years on, I still think I’ve seen Dom in the streets, and that’s enough to scare the hell out of me. We know leaving our abuser is the most dangerous time in our relationship. That’s why we look for the right time to leave.

We don’t stay because we’re “just as bad.” We stay because a number of factors coerce us into staying with our abuser. Factors our abuser carefully puts in place.

Frothy Dragon and the Patriarchal Stone I Got 99 Problems, And The Fact You’re Still Calling Me A Bitch Is One [@FrothyDragon]

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, gender, violence against women

Domestic Violence victims still need to be perfect to be deemed real victims by @HerBeatittude

February 9, 2014

Cross-Posted with permission from HerbsandHags: Meanderings of a Hag

So the discovery that Nigella Lawson may not a perfect victim and therefore not a victim at all, has at last been made. Allison Pearson in the Telegraph today (although one wonders why it wasn’t in the Mail, what with it being very Daily Mailish an’ all) declares gravely that:

“if the Grillo sisters turn out to be telling the truth… then Charles Saatchi may turn out to be the victim of an injustice”.

What injustice can this be? Allison doesn’t say. She only implies it. I presume she means the injustice of being thought to be an abusive man, because his wife is not the perfect victim and therefore he couldn’t have been an abuser, could he? Here’s the link to the article: Victim Blaming piece by Allison Pearson

That I think, is the confused thinking behind this vicious piece of victim-blaming. You would think, wouldn’t you, that an educated woman with a column in a broadsheet, would have better critical thinking skills than this, but when it comes to male violence against women, many people’s critical thinking skills go missing completely. Suddenly they’re straight back into the Madonna/ Whore dichotomy where if a woman doesn’t fit the Madonna stereotype then she must be the Whore and as such, can be justly blamed for whichever bit of male violence has come her way.

Pearson repeats the allegations from the Grillo trial, that Saatchi considered his wife “an habitual criminal”, which is a bit of a PR gaffe from Saatchi – imagine, another one from this advertising genius – given that a substantial group in the population when they hear that term, instantly picture Norman Stanley Fletcher from Porridge and think Nigella must be rather genial and fun. At the same time, the image of Saatchi’s Mr McKay to Nigella’s Fletch has a terribly unfortunate cultural resonance for Strangler Saatchi, because we all enjoyed watching Fletch get the better of McKay week after week. No wonder twitter echoes to the cry of “we’d all be on narcotics if we were married to Saatchi!”

But Pearson may not have watched Porridge. “What if this villain of the piece was actually trying to save his destructive wife from herself?” she asks plaintively. By strangling her? Is that how you save someone from themself?

“What if Saatchi lamely excusing the fight outside Scott’s as “a playful tiff” was not trying to protect his own reputation, but Nigella’s? Physical violence is never excusable, but what if a frustrated Charles was shaking his wife and saying: “Wake up, woman! Look what you’re doing to yourself and our family”? she goes on.

This is such classic victim-blaming that I hardly need to critique it, but oh well, I’ve started now, so: the “Physical violence is never excusable, but” excuse, followed by the excuse, means that actually, you believe that physical violence is sometimes excusable. If you actually believed that physical violence is never excusable, you wouldn’t propose that shaking someone and strangling them, was an excusable desperate attempt to get someone to “wake up”.

“What if that tweak on her nose was not aggressive and patronising, as we all supposed, but a dig at her cocaine habit?” Well, I know men are supposed to be bad at multi-tasking, but I’ve never bought that stereotype, so I’d just like to point out that it’s possible to have been both.

“What if Nigella’s tears, as she fled the restaurant, were not of fear, but guilt?” What if they were? Does that excuse Strangler Saatchi’s violence? People with critical thinking skills who are not prepared to defend domestic violence for any excuse, would say no. People who think that they are not in favour of Domestic Violence but when confronted with a real taste of it are, leave the question hanging in the air with the implication that yes, indeed, it does excuse his violence. No real victim of DV is supposed to have any guilt, about anything at all – like the Immaculate Conception, she’s got to be spotless. In other words, she’s got to be either a child or someone who has never done anything wrong in her life ever.

Which leaves adult women in the position of never being allowed to be real victims of DV, because none of us is guiltless. None of us would ever be the perfect victim. All of us have done things in our lives which could be held to be either illegal, immoral or fattening and so if a man decides to attack us, the very fact that we have done those things will absolve our attacker from guilt. Which is really, really good news for men who go in for domestic violence. In order for a man to be held guilty of domestic violence, his female victim has to be guiltless of anything else. If she isn’t, then it’s OK for him to strangle her. That’s the message Allison Pearson in the Telegraph is sending us today.

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, male violence, violence against women and girls

50 Shades is Emotional Abuse by @50shadesabuse

February 8, 2014

(Cross-posted with permission from @50shadesabuse)

I’m going to begin this blog with a personal note. All too often, when people hear about the@50shadesabuse Twitter campaign, they suggest that we just don’t understand BDSM and that we’re equating “kink” with abuse. That’s not the case and never has been.

When I (Emma) first read 50 Shades of Grey – because yes, contrary to the other common accusation we receive, I have read the book – I found it massively triggering. Not because of the BDSM. Christian Grey reminded me of my own abusive ex. It wasn’t the physical aspects of the story that immediately jumped out at me, but the way that Christian emotionally abuses Ana. I recognised it because I have experienced it. Nobody can tell me that there is not emotional abuse present in this book, because to do so is to deny my experience. I know what emotional abuse feels like. I know how to recognise it. And it IS an almost constant presence within this so-called “romance” novel.

Emotional abuse is difficult to define. Something so subtle, yet so capable of utterly destroying a person is hard to put into words. However, most experts will agree that emotional abuse can involve:

• Name-calling, accusing, threatening or blaming.

• Emotional manipulation

• Adopting a deliberately patronising, judgemental “I know best” attitude, which belittles the person being abused and is designed to make them question themselves.

• Being overly critical or controlling.

• Invalidating the abused person’s experiences, by denying what really happened (e.g. the abuser may say “I never said that; you’re lying” when confronted about a hurtful comment), thus leaving the abused person feeling confused and frustrated.

• Withholding – this can refer to withholding affection, sex, praise or even verbal communication (“the silent treatment”).

• Making unrealistic or unfair demands on the abused person.

• Denying or refusing to listen to a viewpoint other than the abuser’s own.

• Minimizing the abused person’s feelings. This may take the form of telling the abused person “you’re just oversensitive,” or “you’re exaggerating.” This is, again, designed to make the person being abused question themselves.

• Trivialising the abused person’s feelings or experiences.

• Spurning or rejecting the abused person.

• Isolating the abused person from their friends or family.

• Relying on the abused person to fulfil the emotional needs of the abuser, whilst not offering them any emotional fulfilment themselves in return.

• Eroding a person’s sense of self to the point where they only see themselves as having worth because of their relationship with their abuser.

• Flying into a rage over trivial things and causing fear.

Emotional abuse is so complex, that this is really only a small list of some of the many, many traits it can encompass. So how does this fit into Fifty Shades?

Christian Grey displays signs of being an emotional abuser from very early on in the story. His behaviour when Ana interviews him is cold and patronising. He is aware from the outset that he is in a much more powerful position than the naive Ana and he uses this to make her feel uncomfortable.

By chapter 3, he is managing to engineer situations in order to isolate Ana from her friends. He suggests a date with her and when Ana hesitates, he arranges one of his entourage to take everyone home, bar Ana, leaving her little choice but to stay and agree to have coffee with him. This action might seem trivial and innocent in isolation, but it’s important to remember that emotional abuse is, like all forms of abuse, about control. In this instance, Grey is controlling the situation entirely – something that he will continue to do throughout the series, regardless of whether Ana likes it or not.

By the time they go on their date, Christian is behaving in a troubling way. He makes comments such as “you should find me intimidating” and tells her that she blushes a lot – a remark which he knows will make Ana question herself. It’s all done to keep himself in control and it’s not romantic behaviour. He explains that he doesn’t want her to use his first name. This immediately puts Ana on a lower footing than him. From their very first date, Christian is ensuring that the balance of power between them is unequal and tipped in his favour. This sets a dangerous tone for their entire relationship. Equality is an important aspect of any healthy relationship. There is no equality between Ana and Christian.

Shortly after their date, when Ana narrowly avoids being knocked over by a bike, Christian looks into her eyes and tells her that he’s “bad” for her and that she should stay away from him. This kind of warning is calculated to ensure that she does no such thing and is supposed to make her question herself, as well as to provide a convenient later excuse for his abusive behaviour and her decision to stay. It’s a classic case of “well, he told me he was trouble and I stuck around anyway, so I’m to blame…” There’s nothing sexy or passionate about these “warnings,” given by abusers. They’re nothing short of emotional manipulation.

Ana also clearly suffers from low self-esteem. Christian can see this (it’s obvious to the reader, so there’s no reason to assume it’s not obvious to Christian) and he uses it to manipulate Ana’s emotions throughout the trilogy, telling her how wonderful she is one minute and making subtle comments that make her question herself the next (such as pointing out her habit of blushing).

I’m going to add another personal note at this point. A lot of Fifty Shades fans have told me that I can’t judge Christian on how he behaves in a relationship, because he had an abusive childhood and doesn’t know how to show love, or to receive it. Excuse my language, here. BULLSHIT. My own abusive ex used the same excuse and it is NOT acceptable. You can experience the most tragic upbringing in the history of the world and still know how to treat other people with care and respect. To abuse another person is a choice. To be manipulative, unfeeling and obsessed with control is aCHOICE. Yes, it might be a choice that comes from your personal experience, born out of a need for self-preservation, but it is a choice. And if you make that choice to be abusive, controlling and manipulative, you lose the right to “blame” anything but yourself. End of rant.

In chapter 4, Ana gets drunk at a nightclub and Christian tracks her mobile phone in order to turn up unannounced and “rescue” her, taking her back to his hotel when Ana is no fit state to consent. We’ve discussed how utterly wrong this is in an earlier blog, so I want to focus on Ana’s reaction to these events. When realising that he stalked her in order to turn up and “rescue” her, she thinks to herself: “How is that possible? Is it legal? …Somehow, because it’s him, I don’t mind.”

It’s those words – “because it’s HIM” – that worry me. When you’re in a position where you can rationalise that someone’s behaviour is abusive (or at least worrying), there is nobody in the world so amazing that you should stay with them anyway. Please, if you’re reading this and you recognise that line of thought, speak out and find someone to help you.

In chapter 5, Christian reiterates his warning that Ana should “steer clear” of him. This time, he adds that he’s finding it impossible to keep away from her, subtly toying with her emotions once again and ensuring that Ana remains both flattered and intrigued enough to keep coming back for more.

Even Christian’s ridiculous “non-disclosure agreement” could be seen as potentially abusive, given Ana’s complete lack of experience. By originally insisting that she tells nobody about her sexual encounter with him, Christian is isolating Ana from friends or family members who may have been able to give her advice. We later see that this leads to Ana feeling confused and alone; hardly the most romantic of emotions. Christian also insists that a sexual, BDSM relationship is the only kind of relationship they’ll have. This is a way of pushing Ana away and given that she is a character whose heart is worn on her sleeve, meaning that Christian is well-aware that she wants more than just a sexual relationship, this is also evidence that by pursuing his own desires, Christian is totally ignoring Ana’s own emotional needs. His angry reaction to the news that Ana is a virgin is just further evidence of this. He is minimising her needs and invalidating her feelings in favour of his own and they’re not even in a relationship yet. A warning sign that worse is to come, if ever there was one.

In chapter 9, we begin to see examples of Christian’s drastic mood swings. Ana thinks to herself: “I want to call after him, but his sudden aloofness has left me paralyzed. What happened to the generous, relaxed, smiling man who was making love to me not half an hour ago?

These changes of mood are often a symptom of abusive relationships and again, there’s frequently an underlying issue of control. In this situation, Christian thinks Ana is going to call one of her male friends and he is furious because he views her as his possession and is not willing to “share.” In fact, Ana wants to call a female friend, but rather than wait to find this out, Christian storms out and gives Ana the silent treatment because he feels he’s not in control anymore. He withholds any further emotional intimacy as “punishment” for what he views as Ana’s wrongdoing. This leaves Ana confused and frustrated. It’s a cold, manipulative way to behave. I’ve tried so hard to see why women find Christian Grey sexy or lovable, but when you’ve been with a man who does this stuff to you and makes you swing violently from being overjoyed to feeling totally dejected (as Ana does so often in this series), you know that the reality isn’t in the slightest bit exciting or romantic. It’s horrendous. And so is this book. End of second rant.

Ana’s emotional needs are further pushed aside in the wording of Christian’s ludicrous, non-legal “sex contract.” A clause states that he can “dismiss” her from “service at any time and for any reason.” However, should Ana wish to leave, the contract states that whilst she may “request her release,” it’s up to Christian as to whether he grants it. No. Just no. Nobody gets to dictate whether you can leave a relationship, regardless of what terms and conditions you’ve put on it. The second Ana wants to leave, that’s her right and she can go – Christian should have no say in the matter. Again, he’s paying absolutely no heed to her emotional wellbeing and he’s even saying as much in writing.

By chapter 13, Christian and Ana are finally discussing their “contract” in detail. However, when Ana asks questions (important questions, given her inexperience), Christian refers to her as having“issues.” This is trivialising her emotional response and also minimising – by suggesting that Ana has “issues” about the whole idea of BDSM, he is again putting himself in the position of power. He knows about that world and has plenty of experience. By brushing aside Ana’s genuine concerns, he is – not for the first time – showing a total lack of concern for her emotional wellbeing and proving himself to be manipulative and abusive.

Later in that same chapter, Ana shows the reader that she is not ready for a BDSM relationship and that she is already keenly aware that being with Christian is unlikely to satisfy her emotionally.

“What if…in three months’ time, he says no, he’s had enough of trying to mould me into something I’m not? How will I feel? I’ll have emotionally invested three months, doing things that I’m not sure I want to do. And if he says no, agreement over, how could I cope with that level of rejection?”

Ana can already tell that Christian could potentially damage her emotionally, yet she doesn’t allow her own instincts to stop her from pursuing him. This is entirely down to the way that Christian has manipulated her up until this point. From engineering an unequal balance of power, to withholding affection and even communication in order to get his way, Christian hasn’t wooed Ana into wanting to be with him. He has coerced her. This isn’t romantic. It’s a startlingly accurate depiction of how abusers often get their victims to fall for them. The push-pull tactic of being lovely one minute and leaving the person wondering what the heck they did wrong the next, combined with sexual manipulation for added measure has led to Ana completely ignoring her own needs. Why? Because Christian doesn’t want her to consider them; he sure as hell doesn’t consider them, after all.

And just for added evidence of Christian being an abusive scum-bucket, Ana has the above thought whilst on the way home from a dinner date with him, after which she has asked him for some space to think. Does Christian respect this request? Of course not. When Ana reaches her apartment after a short drive home, Christian has already sent her a manipulative email, pressuring her to agree to his demands. Way to pile on the emotional abuse, Christian…

One of Christians “limits” is that he doesn’t want to be touched. Whenever Ana tries to stroke his arms, or nuzzle into his chest, he tells her to stop. We later find out that this is due to the abuse he suffered as a child. In a healthy relationship, Christian might have waited for things to develop between he and Ana, before opening up to her about this and explaining why he might sometimes flinch at physical contact. However, as we’ve established (several times over), this relationship is about as healthy as a long-dead corpse. The fact that Christian refuses to explain his dislike of being touched only serves to hurt and frustrate Ana. His insistence that she doesn’t make any attempt at contact therefore comes across as withholding physical affection without reason. When Christian finally begins to open up about his past, he does so in a manner that still keeps Ana guessing on some levels. He also begins to play upon his abusive childhood, using it as an excuse for his behaviour (“I’m fifty shades of fucked up”), knowing full-well that Ana will therefore do the same. It’s worth reiterating the whole THERE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE FOR ABUSE thing at this point, because it’s fifty shades of rubbish to suggest that there can be.

Of course, because EL James wants us to believe that this relationship is the most wonderful, passionate love that has ever existed, Ana does exactly what Christian wants. She begins to excuse his behaviour on the basis of his past and starts telling herself that she can “fix” him if she only tries hard enough. At this point in an abusive relationship, the abuser can pretty much consider himself to have carte blanche when it comes to how he behaves, because his victim will blame herself if she dislikes the way he treats her. Ana follows this pattern to the letter. Whenever she feels that Christian has let her down, or that she can’t deal with his behaviour, she becomes angry with herself for not being able to cope better. Poor Christian can’t help it, after all. Except he can and I apologise if I sound incredibly angry in this particular blog, but as I mentioned at the start, the emotional abuse and constant manipulation was the aspect that really triggered me when I read this excuse for a novel, because by this point in the story, EL James is pretty much writing the worst experience of my life as a love story. And then she went on record as saying that people who see abuse in the books are “doing a disservice” to abuse victims. Oh hi, EL. Don’t mind me, whilst I point out the hideous emotional manipulation in your love story. I just really enjoy doing a disservice to myself.

Anyway, in chapter 16 Ana tries to explain to Christian that she doesn’t really want him to hit her. Her first experience of spanking has left her confused, ashamed and deeply upset. Christian responds by completely and utterly ignoring her feelings and tells her: “I enjoy punishing you.” Again, he’s overriding her emotional needs in order to satisfy his desires. This is the man that women all over the world think is some kind of romantic ideal. Which kind of makes me want to leap from something high. Because he has come round to stay the night with her, Ana is manipulated into thinking that he cares and rather than this confrontation being the end of this imbalanced, damaging relationship, it’s sadly just a continuation of it. Once again, Christian has managed to mess with Ana’s head so that she ignores her gut instinct.

In the following chapter, however, Ana decides to email Christian to explain her confused views on BDSM. She refers to him spanking her as having been “assaulted” and says she felt ashamed by her own arousal. She is trying to have a serious discussion with him. Christian, however, responds by being patronising: “So you felt demeaned, abused and assaulted – how very Tess Durbeyfield of you.”This attitude shows no concern for what Ana is saying whatsoever. He goes on to suggest that because Ana suggested the spanking in the first place (having wanted to see what she was getting herself into), the way she feels is entirely her own fault. He tells her to “deal with” the negative emotions that she’s feeling, because “that’s what a submissive would do.” He’s making unrealistic demands of a woman clearly not prepared for his lifestyle and he’s also trivialising her feelings once again, because his sexual needs are the only thing that matter to him. SWOON.

By chapter 20, Ana is displaying further signs that Christian’s protracted emotional abuse has truly taken effect. When Kate tells Ana that she deliberately riled Christian, so that Ana could see what he’s really like, Ana internally screams: “I KNOW WHAT HE’S REALLY LIKE – YOU DON’T!” It’s a very common trait in abusive relationships for the abused person to believe that they and only they really know the abuser. Often, the abuser tells them that that is the case. Making the abused person feel this way is a manipulative tool, designed to keep the person in the relationship. It makes them feel as though they must be pretty special to have gotten closer to the abuser than anyone else in the world. It falsely encourages them to believe that the abuser must really care and makes them feel protective of the abuser, so that they actively defend the negative behaviour, rather than run as a result of it. Again, I know this from experience. I don’t take Ana’s insistence that only she can ever understand or love Christian as evidence of their beautiful relationship. I see it as a woman whose sense of self has been eroded to the point that she sees her only worth as being reflected through her relationship with the abusive man she has fallen for. And that is exactly what Christian wants.

In the same chapter, Ana decides to voice her feelings for the man she loves. When Christian asks if she wants him to fuck her, she replies “No – I want you to make love to me.” Christian, being the emotionally abusive control freak that he is, shuns her because she hasn’t wanted the same kind of sex as he likes. He throws a t-shirt at her and tells her to go to bed. He’s withholding sex/affection because she has admitted that she wants something tender from him. And Ana, having been manipulated so thoroughly by this “wonderful” man, blames herself entirely for his rejection, cursing herself for trying to rush him into intimacy he’s not yet ready for. It’s NOT Ana’s fault and she is well within her rights to want some affection from the man she has literally bent over backwards to please so far, but Christian’s systematic abuse of her means that she will never blame him for the way he makes her feel. Of course, they do end up having sex, but it is, as always, on Christian’s terms.

In chapter 22, Ana and Christian have an email conversation in which Christian subtly blames Ana for any emotional distress she has been feeling (she has had to go to see her mother, as she needs space from Christian). He tells her that she’s not communicative enough, she doesn’t speak honestly enough to him etc… At no point does he take any responsibility for his own behaviour, or acknowledge that he might have contributed to her need to get away for a while. The next day, having promised her that he’ll give her the distance she needs, Christian turns up at the bar in which Ana is enjoying drinks with her mother. He has stalked her across hundreds of miles when Ana has asked him to give her some space. This is a calculated move on Christian’s part; he’s not there because he cares. He’s there because he needs to be in control of Ana at all times. Ana reacts by wondering if he’s there because he’s angry with her. HE has tracked down her mother’s home, booked a room in the hotel above the bar at which he knows they drink and arrived unannounced in spite of being asked to give Ana some space, yet SHE is concerned that she might have done something wrong. If this isn’t a perfect example of how an abused person is manipulated into a constant state of self-blame, I don’t know what is.

As they argue over “Mrs Robinson” (the woman who committed statutory rape against Christian when he was 15), Ana points out that Christian gets insanely jealous over her friendship with Jose (whom she has never had a sexual relationship with), but becomes angry if she questions his friendship with the woman who introduced him to BDSM. Christian tells her “I do as I wish, Anastasia,” thus neatly trivialising Ana’s feelings for the ninety millionth time. Because hey, he can do as he pleases. And Ana can do as he pleases, too. That sounds like a healthy, balanced relationship to me!

After they return to Christian’s hotel room, Ana tells him “we should talk.” Christian simply says “later”and proceeds to have sex with her. Again, ignoring her emotional needs in favour of his own desires. Someone please tell me what women see in this pitiful excuse for a man, because I can’t even pretend to know what it is.

Ana then manages to finally get Christian to open up a little more about his childhood and they begin to talk about their own relationship. Ana confesses that she’s unhappy with the BDSM aspect and tells him that it’s making her feel as though she’s tied up in knots. To which Christian laughs and says“I like you tied up in knots.” I’m getting so tired of pointing out the ways in which Christian trivialises Ana’s feelings over and over again, but this is the best-selling book of all time and people seem to be so wrapped up in how wonderful and sexy the story is (it’s not) that they’re not seeing what is utterly blatant. Christian manipulates Ana. He blames her for feeling confused or depressed about their relationship, when she only feels that way because he constantly overlooks her feelings, coerces her into doing things she doesn’t want to do and withholds affection at will. He is so emotionally abusive that it’s not as though we even have to dig to look for it. It’s just there, laid bare on every page. Each time Christian does something that seems genuinely nice, there’s a total change in his personality and he undoes it all by being horrible again – usually because Ana has done something terrible, like exercise free choice. Either that, or it quickly becomes obvious that he only did a nice thing in order to manipulate Ana into staying with him, or doing something that she might otherwise refuse. Why aren’t more people seeing this as abuse? I don’t believe that I can only see it because I’ve been with a man that treated me as appallingly as Christian treats Ana. It’s glaringly obvious. I can only assume that the hype around this book and the peer pressure that comes from knowing that so many people think it’s amazing is either genuinely blinding people to what’s there in black and white, or encouraging them to pretend they can’t see it, rather than accept an uncomfortable truth.

Christian Grey is an abuser. Over the course of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we have shown evidence from the text that proves as much. He systematically erodes Ana’s sense of self from the moment he meets her. He confuses her and manipulates her. He does not respect her personal boundaries and he overrides her emotional needs in favour of his own sexual desires. He does not take “no” for an answer. He controls and stalks Ana, then blames her for any negative emotion that she might be feeling as a result. He cannot control his own temper and uses BDSM as a cover to inflict genuine pain and punishment on her, which he has not gained permission for. He bruises her. He has mood swings that actively scare her. And the best bit? The message in this unhealthy trilogy is that not only can Christian not help his behaviour due to his tragic childhood, but that the love of the right woman can “fix” an abusive man. Neither of these appalling messages are true. Both are incredibly dangerous.

As I said earlier; abuse is a choice. There is no excuse for abusive behaviour, regardless of what happened in a person’s past. And as for the right woman magically “fixing” abuse through love? That’s what keeps people in abusive relationships. That’s what leads to women dying. Because they believe that the man they love will change if they can only try harder to make it work. The fact is, you can never fix an abuser. They have to recognise their own behaviour and want to change. Instances in which that happens are, sadly, incredibly rare. You can try and try to meet the expectations of your abusive partner, but you will never get it right. They will always move the goalposts. There is no “perfect way to love” that will make everything better again. It terrifies me that this message is being given to women and girls all over the world, when the truth is so horribly different.

Christian Grey is nothing to aspire to. He is cold, manipulative, controlling and self-centred.

This is the man that we’re being sold as a romantic ideal. There’s nothing romantic about abuse. Fifty Shades is not a love story. And in real life, relationships like Ana’s and Christian’s do not have happy endings.

(Cross-posted with permission from @50shadesabuse)

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: 50 Shades of Grey, domestic abuse, domestic violence, male violence

Financial Abuse in 50 Shades by @50shadesabuse

February 8, 2014

(Cross-posted with permission from @50shadesabuse)

Financial abuse is perhaps an overlooked form of abuse for many people. It can incorporate:

• Obtaining funds or property without consent.

• Obtaining bank details without consent.

• Use of money for purposes other than those intended by the person being abused.

• Persuading or tricking a person out of money.

• Unduly pressuring someone to sell property or possessions.

• Pressuring someone to sign a legal document they do not fully understand.

• Forcing someone to change their marital status or legal name.

• Denying a person access to joint funds.

At first glance, it may seem as though this is the one form of abuse that Christian Grey does not subject Ana Steele to in the Fifty Shades trilogy. However, the truth is – if you excuse the pun – not so black and white.

Although Christian Grey is portrayed as being an extremely generous partner to Ana, constantly bombarding her with gifts, it could be argued that doing so is his way of “buying” her agreement to his demands. Ana is a student at the start of the first book and she is bowled over by Christian’s wealth. He uses this to his advantage.

Before Ana can begin a BDSM relationship with Christian, he insists that she signs a contract. Whilst he does eventually admit that this contract is not legally binding (although not until halfway through the first book), Christian applies almost constant pressure to Ana, in the hope of persuading her to sign. He tells her to “hurry up” and sign the contract, even though it’s very clear that Ana is confused by what he wants from her and isn’t certain about whether she’s ready for that kind of relationship. For several chapters, Ana does not know that the contract isn’t enforceable by law, meaning that Christian is unfairly “pressuring someone to sign a legal document they do not fully understand,” as in Ana’s eyes, the contract is, at first at least, legally binding.

However, Christian’s financial abuse of Ana really begins when he starts insisting that she sells her old VW Beetle, because he doesn’t approve of it. In spite of Ana telling him over and over that she loves her car and doesn’t want a new one, Christian constantly refuses to listen. He allows his wealth to grant him power over her and in chapter 15, he presents her with a new car and makes it horribly obvious that it’s not the sweet gesture of a boyfriend who cares, but a sign that he can and will overrule her decisions and “buy” her as when he sees fit:

“You are mine and if I want to buy you a fucking car, I’ll buy you a fucking car.”

Not only does Christian override Ana’s wishes, insisting that she sells her own possession, but he organises the sale rather than allowing her to do it herself. This is a totally unacceptable way to treat your partner and Christian only gets away with it, because he knows that he can use his wealth against Ana. He deposits the money from the sale into Ana’s account, but Ana has never given him her bank details; this is just another example of Christian’s lack of respect for boundaries and a gross invasion of Ana’s privacy and financial security.

Much later, in book 3, Christian ticks off another symptom of financial abuse from our checklist, when he applies pressure on Ana, forcing her to agree to take his name. He is furious when Ana suggests that she’d like to keep “Steele,” insisting that she instead change her surname to “Grey.” He even goes so far as to refer to her as an “asset” that “needs rebranding.” He admits that the reason he wants her to take his name is because he wants “everyone to know that you’re mine.” This isn’t about unity, it’s about possession. When Ana caves in to his pressure, he even gloats: “Mission accomplished.”

Even when they are married – and although he claims to be doing everything for her benefit – Christian often keeps Ana out of financial decisions. When he arranges for their architect to come over to discuss the plans for their new home, he does so without Ana’s knowledge, leading her to wonder “why does he make these decisions without telling me?” They have a massively unequal partnership, because Christian is completely in control of their finances and can still use his wealth to keep a hold on Ana. Ana has no free agency, because Christian is always pulling the strings where money is concerned; she wants to keep her car, but he forces her to accept a new one. She doesn’t want him involved in her financial affairs, but he accesses her bank details without consent and deposits a large sum in there anyway. This is a violation of her rights and wishes, however “nice” the gesture is portrayed to be. It’s just another example of an abusive man who wields his power over his victim in order to ensure he always gets his way.

Christian’s use of his financial power to control others does not only extend to his wife. In chapter 8 of the final book in the trilogy, we also learn that he is paying for the education of Taylor’s daughter (Taylor being one of Christian’s security guys, for those of you lucky enough never to have read this rubbish). But Christian isn’t doing this for reasons of loyalty or concern that his employee’s child should have the best start in life. He tells Ana that by paying for Taylor’s daughter’s schooling, “it means he won’t quit.” He also enrols Leila – the former sub who wanted to kill Ana – at art school and pays for her medical treatment, rather than inform the police about what she did. None of this is done for Ana’s protection, but for Christian’s own benefit and is just another example of him using his financial power to control everyone around him.

When, in the latter stages of book 3, there is a frankly ludicrous plot in which Ana has to withdraw five million dollars from the bank, we discover that Christian has five check books, but “only one is the names of C Grey and Mrs A Grey.” Ana tells the reader that she has roughly $54,000 in her account. Her husband, however has billions. The difference here is staggering; why is Christian telling Ana that everything that is his is also hers, when clearly that’s not true? If it was, they’d surely have some form of joint account and Ana would have access to his wealth, rather than having to rely on the times when he wants to buy her a gift, or deposit a small (in comparison) sum into her account; usually to make up for having abused her. Ana also reveals that she has no idea how much money is in any of Christian’s accounts and that although he has a safe in his office, the combination is kept in a locked filing cabinet, to which she doesn’t have a key. Why, when Christian insists that what’s his is hers and that he wants Ana to get used to the finer things in life, is he keeping the vast majority of his fortune from her? Because, as we’ve reiterated in this blog, his financial power is just another tool he uses to keep Ana under his control and to prevent her from truly living her own life.

Christian’s wealth is seen as something admirable in Fifty Shades of Grey. However, in actuality, the way he uses it to control others and buy their forgiveness or acceptance of his demands is not admirable in the slightest. It’s abusive.

(Cross-posted with permission from @50shadesabuse)

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: 50 Shades of Grey, domestic abuse, domestic violence, male violence, state sanctioned violence against women and girls

50 Shades – Physical Abuse by @50shadesabuse

February 8, 2014

(Cross-posted with permission from @50shadesabuse)

As Domestic Violence Awareness month continues, we at @50shadesabuse have been examining the many different forms of abuse evident in the popular “romantic” series, Fifty Shades of Grey. Today, we look at physical abuse.

This kind of abuse occurs when a person uses physical force against another, in order to cause pain, injury or emotional distress. This can include, but is not limited to, hitting with hands, striking with an object, kicking, biting, pinching, pulling hair, scalding/burning, sleep deprivation, placing the person under physical stress against their will, strangling or cutting.

For obvious reasons, there is an immediate problem when discussing physical abuse in Fifty Shades. Christian Grey’s enjoyment of a BDSM lifestyle means that we expect there to be physical acts involved. Within a safe, mutually respectful relationship, BDSM does not equate to non-consensual physical abuse and the subtext within the Fifty Shades trilogy, that BDSM is some kind of sickness that Ana needs to cure Christian of, is an insult to the many people who enjoy this lifestyle.

However, Christian’s version of BDSM is warped at best, downright dangerous at worst. Many within the BDSM community have spoken out against EL James’ portrayal, labelling it “inaccurate,” as well as “offensive,” whilst expressing concerns for those who may attempt an unsafe version of BDSM as a result of reading the trilogy.

For a start, it is paramount in a BDSM relationship for the partners to command equal respect and to have their safety considered and their individual needs met. Ground rules must be set and adhered to. Safe-words are used for the protection of both parties. Although Christian provides Ana with a “contract” and pre-loads the laptop he buys for her with information on his lifestyle, he does not adequately prepare her for the world he expects her to enter. When Ana hesitates about becoming involved in a BDSM relationship, he actively persuades her to reconsider, gaining coercive consent through sex, rather than taking time to listen to her concerns. He does not listen to her at any point, thinking only of his own desires. When Ana tells him that she doesn’t want anal sex, he tells her they’ll try it anyway. This selfishness would be damaging in any relationship, but in a BDSM situation, it can cross the line into dangerousness. Christian is not respecting Ana’s limits.

From their earliest encounters, in spite of her insistence that she enjoys her time in Christian’s “Red Room of Pain,” Ana contradicts herself. Throughout the trilogy, she makes references to being afraid that Christian might “beat” her if she steps out of line. Her internal monologue makes several mentions of wanting to bring Christian “into the light” and somehow rid him of his “need” to physically punish her. After their first foray into spanking, although Ana is aroused whilst she is with Christian, as soon as he leaves, she feels guilty, embarrassed and upset at what has happened to her. She tells the reader:

“Have I strayed so far from who I am? …What Am I doing? The irony is, I can’t even sit down and enjoy a good cry. I’ll have to stand.”

Later in the same chapter (chapter 16, book 1), Ana weeps: “He actually hit me.” When Christian returns to her apartment, Ana goes so far as to inform the reader: “I don’t want him to beat me.”

Indeed, the poor writing in the Fifty Shades series means that Ana constantly yo-yos from being excited at the thought of physical admonishment for her misdemeanours, to being genuinely frightened and wanting to avoid punishment. Whilst this may be accidental on EL James’ part, the fear of physical repercussions to trivial “crimes” is a common theme in physically abusive relationships and does little to detract from the fact that Christian Grey is an abuser himself. A caring, responsible Dom would be aware enough to pick up on subtle signs that his partner is not enjoying their play as much as he is. Christian, regardless of whether or not he can tell that Ana is happy, makes no effort to show restraint and continues to take their BDSM relationship forward. He also makes frequent threats of physical punishment (“I will hit you and it will hurt”), in spite of knowing that his partner is inexperienced and has shown some reluctance. Again, this not only shows a bad Dom, but an abusive man. Instead of showing any consideration for his partner’s obvious distress, he tells her (again in chapter 16, book 1): “I want you to behave a certain way and if you don’t, I shall punish you and you will learn to behave the way I desire.” In a mutual BDSM relationship, this would be fine, but Ana is quite blatantly expressing enormous concern about entering into that lifestyle and so Christian’s words come across as threatening and cruel.

Despite Ana’s doubts about the BDSM aspect of their relationship, Christian does not back down from his desire to pursue it anyway. When Ana bites her lip, or rolls her eyes, or commits any other trivial offence, he reminds her that his “palm is twitching.” This means he wants to spank her and the reader is supposed to view this as erotic. However, within the confounds of this relationship – in which one protagonist has expressed large doubts about being physically punished – this is no such thing. Instead, it becomes the threat of the abusive partner, using words and the prospect of pain to ensure he retains complete control at all times.

As a result of Christian’s emotional manipulation of Ana (which we will explore in greater depth in another blog), she begins to shrug off her own physical and emotional responses. Remember the mention of “scalding” in the list of physically abusive acts? In chapter 25 of book 1, Christian encourages Ana to shower with him and we have the following exchange:

“‘Ow,’ I squeal. The water is practically scalding. Christian grins down at me as the water cascades over him.

‘It’s only a little hot water.’”

It may seem trivial, but even something as simple as this, shows that Christian is not considering Ana’s physical responses. Although Ana goes on to say that actually, the temperature is “heavenly,” it appears that her response comes from Christian’s words, rather than her actual physical senses.

As their relationship progresses, so does the BDSM – again, not with Ana’s complete consent. At the end of book 1, we finally see Christian’s unsuitability as a Dom, as well as Ana’s unsuitability as a submissive.

Ana questions Christian as to whether she is able to say “no” to his “punishment.” Christian tells her that if she does, he will “have to find a way to persuade” her to allow him to physically admonish her. Ana then tries to jokily run away from Christian and when he remarks that it seems as though she really doesn’t want him to catch her, she confesses “I don’t. That’s the point. I feel the same way about punishment as you do about touching.”

Christian has told Ana that he does not like to be touched. He went as far as to describe it as one of his hard limits. Here, Ana is clearly telling her partner that she DOES NOT WANT TO BE PHYSICALLY PUNISHED. She uses phrases such as “I worry you’ll hurt me” and “I do it for you… You need it. I don’t,” to describe her feelings about BDSM. She is making her feelings known and a good Dom – a good boyfriend – would listen. However, Christian then uses emotional manipulation – playing on his tortured past – in order to get Ana to change her mind.

Ana tells Christian to show her “how bad it can get.” Christian fetches a belt and makes it blatant to Ana that he is going to hurt her as punishment for threatening to leave. To reiterate: In a safe, consensual BDSM relationship, this would be an enjoyable experience for both partners. This relationship is not safe or consensual. As a result, Ana cries and is in very obvious distress. She is too upset to use her safe-word. Christian does not stop hitting her with the belt until they have counted six blows, in spite of her distress. Ana then leaves him, saying she can’t take his lifestyle. It should have been incredibly obvious to Christian, in spite of Ana’s later protestations in book 2 that she missed his “kinky fuckery” when the couple reunite, that her reaction to being hit proved that she did not want that kind of relationship. Instead, he pursues his own desires, telling her that he “wants” to hurt her. This massive power imbalance has nothing to do with BDSM. Christian’s selfishness and his total disregard for Ana’s feelings are not the actions of a Dom. They are the actions of an abuser.

In book 3, Christian demonstrates possibly the most worrying display of physical abuse in the trilogy. After Ana sunbathes topless on their honeymoon, Christian physically drags her from the beach, in an action designed to humiliate his wife. Ana begs him: “Please don’t be mad at me,” but Christian informs her that it’s “too late.”

They ride a jet ski together, but rather than relax and enjoy herself, Ana is displaying classic signs of an abused wife, internally asking: “Please forgive me?” as they ride, in spite of having done nothing wrong. Upon arriving back at the boat they’re honeymooning on, Christian tells Ana he wants to punish her. Ana asks him not to hurt her and he acts as though the suggestion offends him, telling her he would never do such a thing. He then proceeds to have sex with her, using handcuffs which he deliberately puts on too tightly around her wrists and ankles, leaving “deep, red welts.” He also gives her love-bites all over her chest (remember “biting” as a form of physical abuse?), causing bruises to her breasts, which he tells her will ensure she doesn’t sunbathe topless ever again. Ana has never, ever consented to having her body marked in any way, yet Christian does this in order to ram home the point that she belongs to him and that her sunbathing had to be punished. The act of marking her body was entirely non-consensual (Ana is horrified when she sees the marks). This is NOT BDSM.This is physical abuse.

Ana is even too afraid of physical repercussions to admonish her husband properly for his abusive behaviour. She remarks:

“Can’t he see what he’s done? …I want to shout at him, but I refrain – I don’t want to push him too far. Heaven knows what he’d do.”

Even when Ana is standing, with her body covered in welts and bruises (in spite of Christian promising her that he wasn’t going to hurt her and acting offended by the suggestion that he might), she does not feel able to adequately express her feelings because she is afraid of what he might do in response.

IN WHAT WAY IS THIS ROMANTIC?

As a lousy cherry on the cake of abuse that is this awful trilogy, Christian then manipulates Ana emotionally by reminding her of his terrible childhood and how hurt he was to see her sunbathing topless and Ana asks him for forgiveness.

This is not a book about BDSM. In a safe, consensual BDSM relationship, a sub would have previously agreed to having his or her body marked. Ana has never agreed to this and indeed, in the same chapter, Christian tells her that she’s his wife, not his sub. Yet he shows a total lack of respect for her by deliberately marking her body against her will, in order to show that he owns her and she must obey him.

There is nothing sexy or erotic about this relationship. Christian Grey is an abuser, using his physical strength and power against a naive young girl who he manipulates into being too afraid to share her real feelings.

BDSM does not equate to non-consensual physical abuse. But 50 Shades does NOT equate to BDSM. 50 Shades is abuse.

(Cross-posted with permission from @50shadesabuse)

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: 50 Shades of Grey, domestic abuse, domestic violence, male violence

50 Shades – Psychological Abuse by @50shadesabuse

February 8, 2014

(Cross-Posted with permission from 50 Shades is Abuse)

The UK definition of “Domestic Violence” covers: “Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.”

As part of Domestic Violence Awareness month, @50shadesabuse will tackle each of those forms of abuse – psychological, physical, sexual, financial and emotional – and provide evidence of it being displayed in the popular 50 Shades of Grey series. In this blog, we look at psychological abuse.

Psychological abuse refers to a person subjecting another to behaviour that intends to cause emotional or psychological injury. This form of abuse may result in anxiety, depression or Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder. Abusers often play upon an imbalance of power within a relationship. As psychological abuse is intended to seep into the victim’s brain, causing them to doubt themselves and their own worth, the person experiencing the abuse often blames themselves for it and does not label what is happening to them as any kind of mistreatment, imagining instead that they have brought it upon themselves through their own behaviour and they must change in order to fix the situation.

From very early on in the 50 Shades trilogy, we see Christian Grey using classic psychological abuse against Ana. It could be argued that even the wording of Christian’s “contract” for their D/s relationship is designed to cause Ana to question her own wants, needs and even her own intelligence. Ana is thrown in at the deep end, with no knowledge of the kind of world Christian expects her to enter and she is handed a faux-legal document, which she is expected to sign. Christian applies emotional pressure on her to sign the contract, without giving her adequate time to consider her response. Ana thinks: “My head is buzzing. How can I possibly agree to all this?” In a healthy relationship, her partner would realise that she should not be pressured into agreeing to something that is possibly not right for her. Unfortunately, the relationship portrayed in 50 Shades is unhealthy and when Ana jokes that “it has been nice knowing” Christian in an email, hinting that she’s not sure she’s ready for the kind of relationship he wants, he responds by turning up unannounced at her apartment, ready to cajole her into agreement through sex. He is showing no consideration for her needs or her concerns, thus subtly giving her the psychological message that only his desires are important. This sets the whole tone for their relationship.

In their early dates, Christian controls where and when they meet; again subtly letting Ana know that she is secondary to his whims, causing her to question herself. When she asks, in chapter 13 of book 1, whether she can drive to their date, Christian responds by insisting that she is picked up. She thinks to herself: “Doesn’t he understand that I may need to make a quick get-away? …I need a means of escape.” Clearly, even this early on in their relationship, Ana is harbouring concerns about her partner. This is evidence that Christian’s behaviour is beginning to take its toll on Ana’s psyche. She is becoming anxious and nervous at a point in their relationship where she should be feeling excited about their dates. In the same chapter, when Ana suggests that they eat somewhere public, in the hope of talking, rather than being distracted by Christian’s amorous advances, he replies: “Do you think that would stop me?” Ana refers to this as a “warning,” albeit a “sensual” one. Again, this is designed to let Ana know that he is in control, not her. Another psychological blow from this supposed romantic “hero.”

Christian also toys with Ana’s emotions by promising her one thing and delivering something else entirely. He tells her “we’ll take this slow,” yet his actions prove that he has no intention of doing so. This leads Ana to admit to being confused about the state of their relationship and she refers frequently to the power imbalance between them. Again, Ana’s internal monologue is filled with anxious questions and self-blame, when in fact the cause of this is not anything she has done, but Christian’s deliberate psychological tormenting of her.

In order to explain away his behaviour, Christian tells Ana that he is “fifty shades of fucked up” (chapter 16, book 1). Again, this sets a tone for their entire relationship, as it puts Ana in the position of nurse to Christian’s emotional wounds; a job she is not qualified for and which puts far too much pressure on her. However, these are not issues that trouble the abusive Christian. Although we are supposed to feel sympathy for Christian due to his harsh childhood, the message the book gives is that what he experienced is an excuse for his behaviour towards Ana. Sadly, it is worryingly common for abusers to explain away their behaviour by citing abuse or distress in their own past. There is never an excuse – abuse is always a choice and it is deeply concerning to see a best-selling novel perpetuate the dangerous trope that a person cannot help their behaviour in the present, if they were abused in the past. This is one of Christian’s most consistent and dangerous psychological tools. He is aware that if he continues to tell Ana that he is “messed up” and not to blame for his actions, Ana will continue to try to “fix” him and won’t want to abandon him, the way he tells her that his mother did. It’s a subtle form of emotional manipulation, designed to ensure that Ana stays with him and never blames him for his persistently abusive behaviour.

As their relationship progresses, Christian uses the word “mine” to describe Ana. This would be sweet, if done in a mutual, romantic manner (perhaps), but he is possessive, jealous and controlling. He tells Ana in chapter 19 of the first book that she was “denying me what’s mine” when she refused to allow him to touch her sexually at the dinner table, whilst in the company of his family. Such a decision was entirely her right, but her choice to exercise that right causes Christian to angrily suggest that she belongs to him and he tells her that he wants her “frustrated” as punishment. Christian uses the word “mine” so frequently throughout the trilogy, that, inevitably, Ana begins to use it to describe herself. Seeing herself as “his,” she gains self-worth. This is Christian’s intention; to take a woman who sees him as too good for her and to plant the thought in her head that her only real worth is from being in a relationship with him. This means that Ana won’t leave him, in spite of his treatment of her – why would she? She is nothing if not “his.” The psychological use of the word “mine” also ensures that Ana is too afraid to freely see her friends and family without seeking permission from Christian first. She cannot make her own decisions anymore, because she belongs to Christian, not herself. When she goes out without asking him, she describes herself as having to sneak out of the house. This does not show romance or passion. It shows fear on a deep, psychological level.

Christian’s insistence on controlling every aspect of their relationship – from where (and what) they eat, to what topics of conversation are acceptable – ensure that Ana is kept in a constant state of confusion, never entirely being able to judge what Christian may say or do next. Her anxious state of mind is testament to the psychological mind games that the supposed “hero” has been playing on her. In chapter 19 of book 1, when Christian begins to speak intensely about their relationship, rather than being pleased or excited, Ana does not know how to “correctly” respond, musing: “What do I say? Because I think I love you and you just see me as a toy…Because I’m too frightened to show you any affection in case you flinch or tell me off, or worse – beat me?”

Again, we see use of fear. Christian has moulded Ana’s responses so much with his psychological tricks, that she is now afraid of admitting to her true feelings, or behaving in a way that is natural to her, in case he reacts badly.

Ana is, we are told, a bright and intelligent young woman. Christian should be encouraging these traits, yet there are several points within the trilogy where he is seen to talk down to her, or mock her for her lack of worldly experience. Again, this is a psychological trick, in order to ensure that Ana continues to think that he’s too good for her and that she should feel grateful for his “love” and attention. Christian even goes so far as to buy her place of work and have her promoted. When Ana discovers that her promotion was bought, rather than earned, she feels belittled and angry and understandably begins to question her own intelligence and skills, thus furthering the anxiety she already feels.

In book two (chapter 5), Ana expresses that she wants to “run, fast and far away. I have an overwhelming urge to cry.” Again, this level of anxiety, this constant state of uncertainty within a relationship is deeply worrying and further evidence that 50 shades should not be held up as any kind of romantic ideal. Psychological abuse, as mentioned earlier, refers to behaviour that is intended to cause anxiety, depression or mental injury. Ana is, in this quote, expressing exactly these feelings as a result of Christian’s behaviour towards her. He has taken her to a hairdressing salon, run by an ex, to which he has taken all of his other exes. Ana is intimidated and hurt by this. His behaviour has made her feel minimised and as though she is just another of his subs and although Christian is described as “having the grace to look contrite,” he later dismisses her in order to take a phone call and then tells her she is going back to his apartment, even if he has to “drag you by your hair.” Again, Christian is showing little concern for Ana’s welfare and she is left confused, hurt and silenced. As always, Ana explains away her feelings, citing Christian’s terrible childhood as well as her own inexperience – a very typical response from someone who has been psychologically conditioned not to blame her abuser for his own actions.

As things become more serious between the couple and they look towards building their own mansion together, Ana shows very clear signs that she still harbours doubts and insecurities. She wants to discuss the problems they have within their relationship, but every time she tries, Christian distracts her with sex – psychologically reaffirming the idea that Ana has just one role in life: To satisfy him and to allow him to give her any self worth. This is evidenced in chapter 18 of book two, when Ana muses: “I slightly resent how easily I fall under his spell. I know now that we won’t be spending the evening talking through all our issues and recent events… But how can I resist him?” Christian is using the sexual chemistry between the pair to distract Ana from the complications in their relationship. Since she has no prior sexual experience, Ana is unused to being so desired, or to fulfilling a man’s needs. As a result, this becomes more important to her than it otherwise might and Christian uses this to his advantage, rather than nurturing a warm, caring relationship with more to it than lust. Yet another sign that Christian Grey is playing a psychological game with his young partner, rather than treating her with any real respect. He even uses sex games as a way to ensure that Ana agrees to his proposal of marriage, asking her whilst in bed: “What can I do to make you say yes?”

Once Ana has agreed to the marriage, the psychological abuse does not stop. In the first chapter of the third book in the series, Ana admits that she and Christian have rowed over whether or not she’ll agree to “obey” him as part of her marriage vows. Although the argument is unseen and Ana tells the reader that she won it and didn’t use the word in her vows, the point is moot, given that Ana still does everything Christian tells her to and demonstrates fear when she exercises free will. The psychological effect of Christian’s controlling nature from the outset has led to Ana frequently questioning her own decisions; wondering whether things she chooses to say or do will make her husband angry with her. She is self-censoring due to the anxiety that Christian has caused her. There is nothing romantic, or sexy about that.

Christian also once again refers to Ana as “mine” on their wedding day. During their honeymoon, in a supposedly tender, sexy scene, he kisses various body parts, saying “mine” to each one. This may seem passionate or romantic to some, but is in fact a subtle reminder to his new wife that she is his property, to do with as he sees fit. Ana is already psychologically conditioned to believe that her only real worth is as his partner, yet Christian feels the need to ram the point home as often as possible. Another symptom of this possessiveness, is that Ana begins to alter her own thinking and “parrots” Christian when referring to him. She begins using the word “mine,” as she has heard him do so many times. In chapter 8 of book three, she thinks: “He’s mine. Annoying – infuriating, even – but mine.” Thanks to Christian’s manipulation, she no longer sees his negative traits and instead simply repeats his own patterns of ownership. This need for “ownership” comes to light most startlingly, when Christian notices that Ana has not changed her surname at work; he berates her for not showing the world that she belongs to him. This is incredibly unhealthy and shows a complete lack of respect for Ana as a separate human being.

As the final book in the trilogy continues, so does Christian’s excessive control over Ana. His manipulation of her is such that whilst he is away on business, Ana feels she must ask his permission to go out for a drink with her best friend. She tells him:

“I’ve only seen her a few times since you and I met. Please. She’s my best friend.”

Ana is effectively reduced to begging her husband for his permission to go out for drinks with her friend. Christian attempts to emotionally manipulate Ana by saying his concern is for her safety, when in fact, it’s a barely concealed attempt to maintain control over his wife, even when he’s in a different state. After an argument, Ana tells him that she’s going to stay in and her internal monologue tells the reader: “I feel guilty for worrying him.” This is just one of several examples of Ana taking responsibility for Christian’s negative behaviour and is another classic sign of abuse within a relationship. Christian has succeeded in making his wife believe that she is to blame for all of their troubles and that she is also responsible for fixing them.

This message is rammed home further when Ana announces that she is pregnant. She ponders giving Christian the news whilst their security are on hand, showing that she still has a deep-rooted fear of how her husband might react to her. She is concerned that she may need protection from him. She even considers telling him about the pregnancy during sex, as that is her most important value in Christian’s eyes and subsequently in her own.

Ana is right to be worried. Christian is the father of her child; he is responsible for having gotten her pregnant. However, when he discovers her condition, Christian reacts violently, screaming that she is “stupid.” This is another buzz word, designed to make Ana question herself and her decisions. On a deeper level, once the storm has passed, psychological abuse such as this makes a victim feel that they should be grateful for their abuser staying with them, when they are so undeserving. This is an emotion which Ana conveys frequently throughout the trilogy and is not a healthy attitude to have in a relationship.

When Ana cries after Christian’s violent outburst, he screams at her: “Don’t turn on the waterworks,” thus implying that her emotional response is somehow not real or valid. Again, this is a device used in psychological abuse – the abuser may mock or question their victim’s honest response to his/her cruelty. As is so often the case in these situations, Ana apologises, in spite of the situation not being solely her fault and in spite of Christian’s hurtful reaction being entirely his responsibility.

Christian goes on to show signs of jealousy towards his unborn child, ensuring that his psychologically damaged wife feels it’s her duty to make him feel better, despite the nastiness he has displayed towards her. Again, he plays upon his own tragic childhood as an excuse for his abusive present.

The marriage that Ana and Christian have is an abusive one. To suggest that there could be a “happy ever after,” is a dangerous lie and the introduction of children into this toxic relationship would, in reality, be potentially catastrophic.

Christian Grey is an abuser, psychologically belittling his wife, leaving her fearful, anxious and feeling as though she must somehow “cure” her husband of demons she cannot begin to understand. To idealise a man like this is to ignore the reality for women across the world, abused and manipulated by the men they fell in love with.

50 Shades is not romance. 50 Shades is abuse.

(Cross-Posted with permission from 50 Shades is Abuse)

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: 50 Shades of Grey, domestic abuse, domestic violence, male violence

Nigella, blame culture and why society turns a blind eye to Domestic Abuse by @rachelhorman

February 7, 2014

(Cross-Posted with permission from Rachel Horman)

The recent pictures that undoubtedly appear to show Nigella Lawson being physically assaulted by her husband in public are shocking and outrageous. What is even more outrageous is the fact that no-one intervened. Had she had her handbag stolen you can rest assured that many of the on-lookers would have gone to her aid to prevent it happening and pursued the thief. Had she been assaulted by a passer by; again someone would have helped.

So why then do people treat domestic abuse differently? I believe that it is society’s dismissive attitude towards domestic violence, even when committed in public, that allows it to infect our communities and that this same attitude is translated into poor police investigations and inadequate sentencing. The answer? Blame.

Society points its judgemental finger at victims of domestic abuse, apportioning blame with the victim. A similar attitude is also often present in cases of rape. ‘She must have done something to deserve it? Why doesn’t she leave him? She must like it.’

We don’t do this with other crimes. We don’t blame people for flaunting their phones, jewellery or handbags in public and say that they were asking for it when they are stolen. We treat the offence as a crime, concentrate on bringing the offender to justice and rarely give a second thought to what kind of person the victim is.

Even with photographs showing Charles Saatchi clearly gripping Nigella Lawson by the throat several times, pulling her nose and her looking frightened and tearful many commentators and members of the public are still not able to describe what happened as a crime so it is hardly surprising that no-one saw fit to intervene.

Several newspapers described it as ‘an alleged attack’ which in the face of the evidence of the photographs suggests that they believe that domestic violence isn’t an attack or a crime but “just a domestic.” A journalist on Radio 2 claimed that he wouldn’t class it as a crime and said that it was wrong to intervene in such circumstances as ‘you don’t know the background or what has happened before.’

In my view this translates as – domestic abuse is acceptable and she may have deserved it.

Another commented that Saatchi could have ‘been checking her throat for cancer’! I’m unclear as to why the commentator felt that checking for cancer may also require Saatchi to drag her nose and argue in an aggressive manner but I may be missing something.

The most ridiculous explanation however came from Saatchi himself who described it as ‘a playful tiff’. To anyone working in domestic abuse this denial and minimisation is very common and a known risk factor in assessing risk from the perpetrator. If Saatchi is prepared to do that in public then I do wonder what on earth he does when he’s actually angry and behind closed doors. Domestic abuse incidents are rarely one-offs.

This episode should raise public awareness of the fact that domestic abuse is not just confined to council estates. It permeates every section of society. In my experience I have found that it tends to be middle class women who are the least likely to report it to the police or other agencies due to feelings of shame and heavier financial consequences (albeit temporary) if they separate. I have acted for the wives of all kinds of professionals – doctors, lawyers, magistrates, accountants, police and even clergy, many of the victims being professional women in their own right.

If a woman with independent wealth, power and intelligence can be a victim then we all can. Domestic abuse is the most insidious of all crimes and women often don’t realise that they are experiencing it until its too late and their confidence is battered, they feel frightened and intimidated and don’t feel able to get out of it.

It is then the victim rather than the perpetrator who is once again judged and blamed by society. If I had a pound for every time someone asked me ‘why don’t they leave?’ I would have retired and made a large donation to Women’s Aid. Instead of asking why doesn’t she leave, we should be asking – why is he violent to her? Why is he being aggressive? Why isn’t he being prosecuted? Why hasn’t he received a proportionate sentence from the courts?

Until blame is removed from victims and laid firmly at the door of perpetrators society will continue to turn a blind eye to domestic abuse even if the victim is Nigella Lawson.

(Cross-Posted with permission from Rachel Horman)

Rachel Horman: Feminist legal blog by family legal aid lawyer of the year Rachel Horman. Mainly domestic abuse /forced marriage and violence against women. Sometimes ranty but always right…..

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, male entitlement, violence against women

The Power of Silence in Enabling Domestic Violence by @CratesNRibbons

February 5, 2014

(Cross-Posted with permission from Crates&Ribbons)

Society has long known the power of words. In 1838, Edward Bulwer-Lytton coined the phrase, “the pen is mightier than the sword”, a phrase that has proven its own point by marching its triumphant way down the generations. Books and speeches have been immortalised as turning points in history, ideas that have taken root and changed the world. And as the power of words has been celebrated, the power of silencing has emerged as a crucial tool of the patriarchy, a way of keeping women underfoot. This is why old texts like the bible contain the following lines – “Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak” (1 Corinthians 14:34), and “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:12). It is why many cultures around the world require women to be demure and soft-spoken, speaking infrequently, and why, even in what we think of as the progressive West, outspoken women are regularly labelled ‘shrill’ or ‘hysterical’. It is a pattern cut from the same cloth, a way of ensuring that women’s views are kept hidden away, that we are kept compliant in the face of a system that has always been stacked against us.

Of course, it isn’t only women’s words that are erased. Any man bold enough to speak out against the patriarchial order is mocked for it, called a ‘gender traitor’ or ‘pussywhipped’, sometimes even leading to social exclusion. Given the immense social pressure to go along to get along, it is no wonder many choose to stay silent, no matter how much they may disagree with the rape joke that has just been told, or how much they dislike seeing their friend sexually harass a passing woman. And in this way, by meting out punishment to its critics, the status quo maintains itself.

And when it comes to domestic violence, the silence can be deafening. There is an overwhelming tendency in society to see it as a personal problem between two people, something they should sort out for themselves, and that it isn’t our place to judge the relationships of others. Our judgment centers around the woman in the relationship—we wonder why she doesn’t leave, speculate on her individual character, all the while viewing it as her problem to bear, rather than as a crime plain and simple, committed by the perpetrator. But here’s the key thing. Whenever we portray domestic violence as somehow less bad than random violence against a stranger, we’re furthering the idea that being in a relationship automatically gives a man the right to a woman’s body, and that being with him is tantamount to consenting to be hurt in that way. I feel this is really important, so I’ll say it again: Whenever we think that a woman who just doesn’t leave is responsible for what a man does to her, and that he is less culpable than if he had beaten a stranger, we’re implying that being in a relationship with him is akin to giving consent for whatever he might do to her. In other words, we’re equating a relationship with ownership, and decide that what goes on within it is nothing to do with us.

We need to break this silence, and decry domestic violence as an epidemic that is everybody’s problem. In the aftermath of the Cleveland kidnapping horror, it has emerged that warning signs aplenty were ignored—Castro’s long record of violence against women, neighbours’ calls to police treated lightly, and not followed up on. Could it be that, given that these incidents were taking place in a house, it was seen as ‘just’ domestic violence by the police? A personal relationship problem, and not a ‘real’ crime?

If you follow my blog or regularly read feminist writings, you’ll be familiar with the fact that 1 in 4 women will be a victim of domestic violence in her lifetime. Yet despite this staggering statistic, it is still largely marginalized as a ‘women’s problem’, and virtual silence in the mainstream about it as a pressing social issue. Male celebrities (especially white male celebrities) who have committed domestic violence, like Charlie Sheen, John Lennon, Mel Gibson, and Gary Oldman, have been subject to a ripple of condemnation, before the curtain of silence fell again. And while many brave survivors have spoken out about it, the onus cannot be placed solely on them. Every single one of us has a part to play in breaking the silence that has served to protect perpetrators for so long.

domesticviolenceuk.org

So what does ‘breaking the silence’ entail, exactly? Well, we could start by firmly disagreeing whenever someone makes a joke about violence against women. We could write to our MPs, asking them to make tackling DV a priority, and to increase funding for women’s shelters and other support services. We could volunteer at said services. We could contact companies selling products that promote or trivialize domestic violence and let them know how abhorrent we find it. We could air our views online, take to Twitter, write a blog, post on Facebook. We could challenge those who make excuses for violent men, and publicly refute those who mock or blame the victims. And we (especially the men amongst us) need to be far more vocal in challenging other men, and ask what it is about male culture that continually churns out men who abuse and control women.

None of this is easy. But if we keep turning a blind eye to the rampant problem of domestic violence in society, and insist on seeing it as isolated cases of relationships gone sour, if we excuse celebrity men for their actions and stigmatize the victim instead of the perpetrator, then the culture of male violence against women will continue to flourish in the silence of our complicity.

———-

* If you know a friend or family member who is experiencing domestic violence, please see this guide from Women’s Aid on what you can do to support them.

Crates&Ribbons: A feminist analysis of society [@CratesNRibbons]

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, male violence

33 Women in 111 Days by @sianushka

February 4, 2014

Cross-Posted with permission from Sian & Crooked Rib

First Published in 2012

It’s been a year since I wrote my letter to our political leaders regarding the cuts to domestic violence support services, and just under a year since I received my (sole) reply from Theresa May. Since then, despite May assuring me that councils were being asked not to see this area as an ‘easy cut’, along with a vague reference to investing in ‘people’, everything that we predicted would happen to the sector and the women it supports, has happened.

In particular, refuges are closing down or losing their funding. Women’s Aid are reporting that refuges are turning away 230 women a day (http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/care/charities-have-to-turn-away-women-seeking-refuge/6520815.article), often with advice to sleep in occupy camps or A&E departments, or even in bus stations. Of course, many of these women, having found the courage and strength to leave a violent home, often with children in tow, will be forced to go back. They might not have anywhere else to go.

The warning from the domestic violence support sector was stark. Make these cuts, they said, and more women will die. And they have, devastatingly, been proven right.

According to Nia Central, between 1st Jan 2012 and 20th April 2012, 33 women and girls have been murdered as a result of gender-based violence. The suspects are their husbands, their boyfriends, their exes or male family members. That’s 33 women in 111 days. That’s one woman or girl (as some of the victims are under-18) every 3.3 days (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=362416127128605&id=251422554894630).

There is little to say in the face of such horror, such damning evidence. Other than that this is a war against women. As a comparison, less UK military personnel have died in Afghanistan (15) than women have died as a result of gender-based violence in the same time period.

The government cuts are leading to the destruction of a support system that was – despite always being underfunded and overstretched – helping 1000s of women every day escape violent homes (and men too – Gemini for example provides refuge places for men). The closure of refuges has resulted in hundreds of women being told every day that there is no-where for them to go to escape violent homes. And this lack of support, this lack of escape route, is resulting in a higher rate of domestic abuse deaths – a figure that some evidence suggested was decreasing (from 2 a week to 1.5).

A report published last month found that funding from local authorities to organisations supporting victims and survivors of domestic and sexual abuse had fallen from £7.8 million in 2010/11 to £5.4 million in the current financial year (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/03/refuge-chief-warns-charity-close). This is in spite of official reports that there were 400,000 domestic violence incidents reported last year and the police receive a domestic abuse related phone call every minute. Some local authorities have made funding cuts to this sector of nearly 50% (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12402776). Despite Theresa May’s promise to me last year, councils are seeing domestic abuse support services as an easy cut. Victims and survivors of domestic violence are being silenced and they are being forgotten. And with the continued closure of refuges, women are being offered the impossible choice of staying in a violent home and risking being killed, or leaving and sleeping rough with their children. This is not a choice at all.

When I write about domestic abuse murders, I am often questioned on my statistics. People who don’t believe the numbers, who think they are ‘too high to be true’. On the flipside, I’ve (unbelievably) had people comment that 104 murdered women a year doesn’t seem ‘very much’. I now feel that the government and local authorities have joined those online ‘trolls’ who don’t see the terrifying domestic violence figures as ‘very much’. Because, really, how many women have to die, before they say enough is enough? Before they stop these cuts? Before they see that closing refuges, cutting domestic violence support services is leading to the deaths of more and more women every week?

33 in 111 days?

Mr Cameron. Mr Clegg. Mr Osborne. Ms May.Ms Featherstone. Enough is enough.
I will be sending a copy of this blogpost to above names.

Admin: The Counting Dead Women campaign is recording the names of female victims of fatal male violence. There is a petition demanding the government create a fit-for-purpose record of fatal male violence.

Sian and Crooked Rib I‘m a bristol based blogger who writes stories, talks about feminism and politics and generally muses on happenings. [@sianushka]

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence, male violence, male violence against women and girls

Bristol Fawcett report reveals the impact of the cuts on domestic abuse support services by @sianushka

February 4, 2014

Cross-Posted with Permission from Sian & Crooked Rib.

Originally posted in 2011

“Fair” has been the buzzword from the start. Since the emergency budget announced by the Shadow Chancellor in the summer of 2010, to the last budget plans of April this year, we have been assured over and over again that these cuts will be fair. ‘We’re all in it together’, we were assured. ‘The most vulnerable will be protected’, the line went.

But it didn’t take long for the National Fawcett Society, as well as some Labour MPs, to uncover who would be shouldering the real burden of these cuts. Women. Yvette Cooper’s and Fawcett’s investigation into the emergency budget discovered that the 70% of the money raised from the cuts would come from women’s purses.
Considering the assurances given that the most vulnerable would be protected from the cuts, it has been shocking to learn that a sector that works hardest to protect the vulnerable are in the firing line for budget cuts and centre closures. I am talking of course about the domestic violence sector. From Devon initially facing 100% funding cuts to their support services (eventually reduced to 42% cut) to Women’s Aid’s announcement in March that 60% of refuge services will receive no council funding in the coming year, it seems that it is exactly the most vulnerable, and the most silent, groups of people who are having their lifelines cut.

So what does this mean for the city I live in, Bristol. Partly as a response to Fawcett’s national challenge, the local Bristol Fawcett group have created a report to explore how the cuts are impacting women living in the city. Amongst the shocking statistics, there is plenty of evidence to see how cuts to health and social care, legal aid, housing and benefits system will make the lives of those fleeing violence harder.

And there have been direct cuts to support services too. The city council were faced with the difficult decision of how to allocate money to domestic violence support services, and the commissioning process led to funding being given to one central organisation, Nextlink. This has left a range of local community charities and support services without funding. Whilst it is important and necessary that funding has been provided to tackle domestic violence, there have been some questions raised over this decision, with concern that centralising services will reduce choice for women seeking to leave violent relationships. The commissioning process has meant that Bristol now only has one council-funded organisation that specialises in domestic violence. Nextlink will be running support services for women and men, as well as providing dedicated support for BME women and men.
As the cuts start to bite, domestic violence continues to be a big issue for the city. Bristol Fawcett’s anti-cuts report found that between 15,400 and 22,000 Bristol women will experience intimate partner violence each year, and around 130 women are raped in the city each month. These women are from all the different communities and areas of Bristol, and there is a real concern within the sector that the cuts to support services will reduce women’s choices and accessibility to the services they need to leave a life of violence.

One of the organisations that lost their council funding in the commissioning process was WISH, a domestic violence support service and charity based in South Bristol who offered support to both women and men victims and survivors. Facing closure, WISH received funding from BBC Children in Need to run a project working withyoung perpetrators of violence.

I spoke to Sian Taylor, an independent domestic violence advisor working with the charity about the impact of the cuts on WISH and the victims and survivors of violence who they support.

Taylor explained that ‘the funding cuts mean we will have lost our core work of supporting victims and survivors.’

Both the Bristol Fawcett report and Sian Taylor recognise that the problem with the cuts isn’t just an issue of lack of funding for support services. It goes a lot deeper than that. In the socially deprived areas of Hartcliffe and Withywood where WISH is based, issues such as housing provision and cuts to other benefits make it harder for women to leave violent relationships.

‘The cuts to housing benefit have a massive effect on those who want to leave and don’t feel able to,’ Taylor explains. ‘Not having access to housing makes it harder for them to be independent. The perpetrator of domestic violence often feeds on making their partner feel that they are completely dependent on them, and they will make their partner feel like they can’t leave. Many women end up staying with a violent partner because he controls the finances, so she fears that she can’t cope without him or that she is tied to him because she doesn’t have the money to get away. As a result, a lot of people who leave end up going back. We often find that someone leaving a violent relationship will return a couple of times before leaving for good.’

High private rental costs, cuts to housing benefit and depleted council house provision work together to make leaving a violent relationship difficult financially, as well as the obvious emotional trauma. This lack of support, encouraged by the cuts, leaves those trying to escape with limited options. Currently, if someone has a mortgage and tries to leave a violent relationship, they will find it difficult to get the financial support they need, be that from council housing or benefits – a situation that completely ignores how domestic abuse works and how perpetrators often control and withhold money. ‘Victims of domestic violence shouldn’t be penalised for owning a house’, argues Taylor. ‘People fleeing a violent relationship don’t always have access to money and that needs to be better understood’.

Although ostensibly legal aid has been protected for victims and survivors of domestic violence, in reality it is becoming increasingly difficult for it to be accessed. In order to claim in a domestic violence case the claimant needs to provide “evidence” of the violence. This of course sounds reasonable, but in practicality it can be hard to define what evidence of domestic violence is. Taylor explains to me that on average there are 35 incidences of violence before a victim goes to the police – 35 incidents that aren’t recorded and therefore aren’t evidenced. Evidence also immediately suggests physical violence, which ignores the nature of how domestic violence works. ‘The definition mustn’t be just about physical violence but about coercive control, emotional abuse – these are difficult to prove and difficult to evidence, but they are still violent acts. By not taking this into account, it makes it very hard for those leaving to get the help they need’.

When I wrote to Theresa May earlier this year to find out more about how the cuts were impacting on the domestic violence sector, she responded that ‘the Government has made it a key priority to take a strong lead on tackling violence against women and girls to help ensure this issue remains a priority at local level…local authorities must not see this sector as an “easy cut” when making difficult decisions.’ She assured me that the government ‘have also provided ring-fenced Home Office funding for local specialist services to tackle VAWG with over £28 million allocated until 2015 for Independent Domestic Violence Advisors, Independent Sexual Violence Advisors and Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference co-ordinators.’

But in a country where two women a week are murdered by their current or ex-partner, 100,000 UK women are raped each year and 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence in their lifetimes (rising to 1 in 3 teenage girls), this simply isn’t enough money or support. If it were, vital organisations such as WISH would not have had to cut their support services. Women and men in violent relationships are among the most vulnerable in society, and this is an issue that affects people across the country, and across class.

‘I’d like to see more refuge provision’, Taylor says when I ask her about what we could be doing more of in our city. ‘I’d also like the sentencing for offenders to match the crime – offenders are often released having had short custodial sentences (if sent to prison at all) – what kind of message is that delivering to our society? And why would women want to go through the ordeal of giving evidence in court if sentencing is so minimal anyway? I’d like women to have a choice of services. I’d like to see women supported, regardless of age, history, and whether they have a criminal record. I’d like to see those fleeing violence given priority for social housing. And I want to see more protection from harassment.’

The future of WISH, in a rather more limited role, is safe, for now. With funding from Children in Need for two years for the 11 to 24 Project, the team are moving further into prevention, working with young people and young perpetrators of violence. Taylor hopes that the project means that rather than ‘mopping up’ the aftermath of violence, it will tackle the root causes of violence with an aim to educate around consent and respect. But after those funded two years, Taylor isn’t sure what the future holds.

‘Wish have two years worth of funding, after this the future is uncertain. So many good projects are set up but then plugged because of funding constraints – I dont want this to happen to Wish.’

To learn more:

The Wish Centre

Bristol Fawcett

Stats on VAWG in Bristol: ( Based on a rate of between 7 and 10%. Domestic Violence is often under-reported. The British Crime Survey 2009/10 records a rate of domestic violence of 7%

Women’s Rape Crisis

British Crime Survey shows a lifetime rate of sexual abuse or rape of 19.7%: Home Office., 2010.
Crime in England and Wales 2009/10 findings from the British crime survey and police recorded crime (Third Edition) at p.72 [online] Based on Female population of 220000. Available at:

National VAWG stats: Home Office and BCS as above

Cuts to Devon services

Women’s Aid announcement

Sian and Crooked Rib I‘m a bristol based blogger who writes stories, talks about feminism and politics and generally muses on happenings. [@sianushka]

Categories: Featured Blog, Violence Against Women

Tags: domestic abuse, domestic violence

What could we do if we wanted to hide the reality of men’s violence against women?

Posts

Campaigns

Reviews

Postive & Promise: The Memories & Musings of a Neurotic Bookworm

Language: A Feminist Guide

We Mixed Our Drinks

Storm in a Teacup

Mairi Voice

Hiding under the bed is not the answer