|
join Mens-Studies
|
Erin Pizzey's Struggle - In
Her Own Words
How Feminists
Victimised Her For Caring
Erin Pizzey, wife of broadcaster Jack Pizzey and founder of the world's network of battered women's refuges, on how feminists - with the collusion of New Labour's leading women politicians - hijacked her cause and used it to try to demonise all men. Read here about how the feminists abused her and made threats on her life.
During 1970, I was a young housewife
with a husband, two children, two dogs and a cat. We lived in Hammersmith,
West London, and I didn't see much of my husband because he worked for
TV's Nationwide. I was lonely and isolated, and longed for something other
than the usual cooking, cleaning and housework to enter my life.
By the
early Seventies, a new movement for women - demanding equality and rights
- began to make headlines in the daily newspapers. Among the jargon, I
read the words "solidarity" and "support". I passionately believed that
women would no longer find themselves isolated from each other, and in
the future could unite to change our society for the better.
Within
a few days I had the address of a local group in Chiswick, and I was on
my way to join the Women's Liberation Movement. I was asked to pay £3
and ten shillings as a joining fee, told to call other women "sisters"
and that our meetings were to be called "collectives".
My fascination
with this new movement lasted only a few months. At the
"collectives" I heard shrill
women preaching hatred of the family. They said the family was not a safe
place for women and children. I was horrified at their virulence and violent
tendencies. I stood on the same platforms trying to reason with the leading
lights of this new organisation.
I ended
up being thrown out by the movement. My crime was to warn some of the women
working in the Women's Liberation Movement office off Shaftesbury Avenue
that if it persisted in cooperating with a plan to bomb Biba, a fashionable
clothes shop in Kensington, I would call the police.
Biba
was bombed because the women's movement thought it was a capitalist enterprise
devoted to sexualising women's bodies.
I decided
that I was wasting my time trying to influence what, to my mind, was a
feminist movement touting for money from gullible women like myself.
By that
time, I'd met a small group of women in my area who agreed with me. We
persuaded Hounslow council to give us a tiny house in Belmont Terrace in
Chiswick. We had two rooms upstairs, two rooms downstairs, a kitchen and
an outside lavatory. We installed a telephone and typewriter, and we were
in business.
Every
day after dropping my children at school, I went to our little house, which
we called the Women's Aid. Soon women from all over Chiswick were coming
to ask for help. At last we had somewhere women could meet each other and
bring their children. My long, lonely days were over.
But
then something happened that made me understand that our role was going
to be more than just a forum where women could exchange ideas. One day,
a lady came in to see us. She took off her jersey, and we saw that she
was bruised and swollen across her breasts and back. Her husband had taken
a chair leg to her. She looked at me and said: "No one will help me."
For
a moment I was somersaulted back in time. I was six years old, standing
in front of a teacher at school. My legs were striped and bleeding from
a whipping I had received from an ironing cord. "My mother did this to
me last night," I said. "No wonder," replied the teacher, "You're a dreadful
child."
No one
would help me then and nobody would ever imagine that my beautiful, rich
mother - who was married to a diplomat - could be a violent abuser.
Until
that moment 35 years later, I had buried my past and assumed that because
we had social workers, probation officers, doctors, hospitals and solicitors,
victims of violence had enough help.
I quickly
discovered, as battered women with their children poured into the house,
that whatever was going on behind other people's front doors was seen as
nobody else's business.
If someone
was beaten up on the street, it was a criminal offence; the same beating
behind a closed door was called "a domestic" and the police had no rights
or power to interfere.
The
shocking fact for me was that there had been a deafening silence on the
subject of domestic violence.
All
the social agencies knew about domestic violence, but nobody talked about
it. I searched for literature to help me understand this epidemic, but
there was nothing to read except a few articles on child abuse in medical
journals.
So in
1974 I decided to write Scream Quietly Or The Neighbours Will Hear, the
first book in the world on domestic violence. I revealed that women and
children were being abused in their own homes and they couldn't escape
because the law wouldn't protect them.
If a
husband claimed he would have his wife back, she couldn't claim any money
from the Department of Health and Social Security, and social services
could only offer to take the children into care.
Meanwhile,
our little house was packed with women fleeing their violent partners -
sometimes as many as 56 mothers and children in four rooms. All had terrible
stories, but I recognised almost immediately that not all the women were
innocent. Some were as violent as the men, and violent towards their children.
The
social workers involved with these women told me I was wasting my time
because the women would only return to their partners.
I was
determined to try to break the chain of violence. But as the local newspaper
picked up the story of our house, I grew worried about a very different
threat.
I knew
that the radical feminist movement was running out of national support
because more sensible women had shunned their anti-male, anti-family agenda.
Not only were they looking for a cause, they also wanted money.
In 1974,
the women living in my refuge organised a meeting in our local church hall
to encourage other groups to open refuges across the country.
We were
astonished and frightened that many of the radical lesbian and feminist
activists that I had seen in the collectives attended. They began to vote
themselves into a national movement across the country.
After a stormy argument, I left the hall with my abused mothers - and what
I had most feared happened.
In a
matter of months, the feminist movement hijacked the domestic violence
movement, not just in Britain, but internationally.
Our
grant was given to them and they had a legitimate reason to hate and blame
all men. They came out with sweeping statements which were as biased as
they were ignorant. "All women are innocent victims of men's violence,"
they declared.
They
opened most of the refuges in the country and banned men from working in
them or sitting on their governing committees.
Women
with alcohol or drug problems were refused admittance, as were boys over
12 years old. Refuges that let men work there were refused affiliation.
Our
group in Chiswick worked with as many refuges as we could. Good, caring
women still work in refuges across the country, but many women working
in the feminist refuges, about 350, admit they are failing women who most
need them.
With
the first donation we received in 1972, we employed a male playgroup leader
because we felt our children needed the experience of good, gentle men.
We devised a treatment programme for women who recognised that they, too,
were violent and dysfunctional. And we concentrated on children hurt by
violence and sexual abuse.
Yet
the feminist refuges continued to create training programmes that described
only male violence against women. Slowly, the police and other organisations
were brainwashed into ignoring the research that was proving men could
also be victims.
Despite
attacks in the Press from feminist journalists and threatening anonymous
telephone calls, I continued to argue that violence was a learned pattern
of behaviour from early childhood.
When,
in the mid-Eighties, I published Prone To Violence, about my work with
violence-prone women and their children, I was picketed by hundreds of
women from feminist refuges, holding placards which read: "All men are
bastards" and "All men are rapists".
Because
of violent threats, I had to have a police escort around the country.
It was
bad enough that this relatively small group of women was influencing social
workers and police. But I became aware of a far more insidious development
in the form of public policy-making by powerful women, which was creating
a poisonous attitude towards men.
In 1990,
Harriet Harman (who became a Cabinet minister), Anna Coote (who became
an adviser to Labour's Minister for Women) and Patricia Hewitt (yes, she's
in the Labour Cabinet, too!) expressed their beliefs in a social policy
paper called The Family Way.
It said:
"It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life,
or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social
harmony and cohesion."
It was
a staggering attack on men and their role in modern life.
Hewitt,
in a book by Geoff Dench called Transforming Men published in 1995, said:
"But if we want fathers to play a full role in their children's lives,
then we need to bring men into the playgroups and nurseries and the schools.
And here, of course, we hit the immediate difficulty of whether we can
trust men with children."
In 1998,
however, the Home Office published a historic study which stipulated that
men as well as women could be victims of domestic violence.
With
that report in my hand, I tried to reason with Joan Ruddock, who was then
Minister for Women. The figures for battered men were "minuscule", she
insisted, and she continued to refer to men only as "perpetrators".
For
nearly four decades, these pernicious attitudes towards family life, fathers
and boys have permeated the thinking of our society to such an extent that
male teachers and carers are now afraid to touch or cuddle children.
Men can be accused of violence towards their partners and sexual abuse
without evidence. Courts discriminate against fathers and refuse to allow
them access to their children on the whims of vicious partners.
Of course,
there are some dangerous men who manipulate the court systems and social
services to persecute their partners and children. But, by blaming all
men, we have diluted the focus on this minority of men and pushed aside
the many men who would be willing to work with women towards solutions.
I believe
that the feminist movement envisaged a new Utopia that depended upon destroying
family life. In the new century, so their credo ran, the family unit will
consist of only women and their children. Fathers are dispensable. And
all that was yoked - unforgivably - to the debate about domestic violence.
To my
mind, it has never been a gender issue - those exposed to violence in early
childhood often grow up to repeat what they have learned, regardless of
whether they are girls or boys.
I look
back with sadness to my young self and my vision that there could be places
where people - men, women and children who have suffered physical and sexual
abuse - could find help, and if they were violent could be given a second
chance to learn to live peacefully.
I believe
that vision was hijacked by vengeful women who have ghetto-ised the refuge
movement and used it to persecute men. Surely the time has come to challenge
this evil ideology and insist that men take their rightful place in the
refuge movement.
We need
an inclusive movement that offers support to everyone that needs it. As
for me - I will always continue to work with anyone who needs my help or
can help others - and yes, that includes men.
Many
people have commented on this story so far. Here are just two of them ...
You sound like a very sensible, good woman trying
to do good. I hope and pray that voices like yours will be the dominant
ones, because I love men and there are many good ones around.
I remember all this well. I could not agree more. On a
parallel level: back then, we were young and had little children, in our
case worried about the threat of nuclear war. It was the 70s. Scary times.
We joined the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. For a while, then my husband
was told he could no longer be a member of that particular chapter when
the 'elder stateswomen' of the group announced that "all men are rapists
and natural murderers" and when I objected, they followed up further that
I, by wearing a wedding ring, was succumbing to bondage." What utter rubbish.
He wears a wedding ring too. So we are...'bonders'? Believe me, he would
no more hurt me than fly to the moon, hurting me was never, ever a first
option and the moon thing an increasingly unlikely second option as age
and gravity take their toll. On a serious note though, yes, I agree, and
how many battered women, children AND men have fallen through the cracks
of the support system because of this hijacking by the feminista?
Some
Relevant Links to the Article
http://www.bennett.com/ptv/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197550,00.html
Domestic
Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know
How
The Women's Movement Taught Women to Hate Men
http://www.dadsnow.org/essay/PIZZEY1.HTM
http://www.angryharry.com/reAnEssaybyErinPizzey.htm
http://www.fathers.ca/erin_pizzey1.htm
http://www.futermanrose.co.uk/pizzey.html
http://www.sossandra.org/erin-pizzey
http://www.womenspeakers.co.uk/speakerdetail2.asp?speakerid=32
http://fathersforlife.org/pizzey/pizzey.htm
|