Increased levels of domestic violence at Christmas time

This is an article I wrote for my university newspaper recently:

As Christmas grows closer and the nights draw in, the old adage begins to resurface – women should not go out alone after dark, they should stick with people they know, who can protect them from strangers. Yet while usually well intentioned, such maxims hide a much darker truth.

The stark reality is that women are far safer walking alone at night than they are at home with their partners and families. Millions of incidents of domestic violence take place in the UK every year, and as many as one in four women and one in six men will be victim to domestic violence at some point in their lives. Schools, parents, and the government go to great lengths to warn of the dangers around us – from drink driving to smoking, even to eating the wrong thing. So why are we told so little about domestic violence?

Researchers investigating the prevalence of domestic violence have found many reasons for the silence around this issue. If society were to truly acknowledge the true extent of the situation, it would become a huge public health concern – not only does domestic violence have a significant effect upon the mental and physical health of both men and women, it also leads to the death of two women every single week. This is not a small problem. Yet the facts are hidden deep beneath the myths that abound in society and the media.

                             

One such myth was exemplified in an interview with Rihanna about the much publicised incidence of domestic violence she experienced at the hands of her boyfriend. The interviewer said that people had been surprised that Rihanna had been a victim of domestic violence, because she had always seemed so strong. Rihanna’s response debunked this myth perfectly - she is strong, and she didn’t choose for it to happen. Domestic violence is never the fault of the victim – whether that victim is male or female, a boyfriend or girlfriend, physically stronger or physically weaker - culpability always lies with the perpetrator.

Nevertheless, perpetrators will often insist that their behaviour was “caused” by their victim. Over time, some victims will come to believe that it is indeed their fault. This is not surprising considering that they are usually spending much of their lives alongside somebody who systematically disrespects and abuses their entire sense of self. Victims can become isolated and cut off from sources of support – they may fear meeting friends due to their partner’s intense jealousy and accusations, and often become depressed as a result of their partner’s behaviour. Such situations can become particularly dangerous around the Christmas holidays, as financial pressures coupled with extended periods of time in one another’s presence can lead to increased levels of abuse.

Domestic violence is rarely, if ever, an isolated incident. It is a systematic abuse of power. When a perpetrator physically attacks their victim, they are not losing control, they are demonstrating their control over the victim. Such an attack is not a moment of madness in an otherwise respectful relationship. It is often the tip of the iceberg, the most salient form of attack in a relationship characterised by emotional, verbal or financial abuse. The perpetrator will employ many other forms of domestic violence on a daily basis – stopping the victim from seeing their friends, controlling their finances, endlessly criticising them, or threatening to harm their children.

As a consequence, domestic violence is well hidden. Perpetrators often behave in caring and considerate ways around their friends and colleagues. This was exemplified in recent literature by the case of a domestic violence perpetrator who behaved calmly around his friends, and even worked to diffuse aggressive situations, yet in private he smashed a glass over his pregnant girlfriend’s head. As such, it is unsurprising that some victims are afraid of being disbelieved if they do decide to speak out. In addition, many victims fear that seeking help will result in even more harm to themselves or their children. They may not have anywhere else to go, especially if their partner controls their finances. The level of governmental provision for victims of domestic violence is woefully inadequate, and most services for such victims are charities. To get an idea of the state of help available for these victims, it is worth considering that a donkey sanctuary in Devon gets more money in donations than the key anti-domestic violence charities put together.

Despite this, the charities which do work against domestic violence, such as Refuge and Women’s Aid, are dedicated and committed. There is now a national, 24 hour free helpline for people experiencing domestic abuse, as well as a number of centres across the country which offer specialist support and advice. Yet domestic violence cannot be eradicated by these charities alone, and thus it is crucial, especially at this time of year, that the media and society leave behind old fashioned myths and misconceptions, and begin to acknowledge the true scale of the issue with clarity and transparency.

  

  - Lizzy

The Apprentice has already come up with a brilliant definition of irony, where team leader Dan exploded with the phrase “have some f***ing patience!”. Also amusing was Stuart’s online audition video, in which he noted that his drive comes from being alive, because “there’re so many people that aren’t alive, or who have died, unfortunately”. It’s safe to say the nation’s business acumen will be vastly improved by following the example of this year’s crop of contestants.

Having said that, one or two participants have been genuinely impressive. In the second week, one of the women, Stella, was asked to lead the men’s team. Her leadership was far superior to that of the majority of previous Apprentice contestants, and she led the team to success. This was particularly notable considering the discrimination and prejudice that women still face in the workplace, especially in business environments. She showed not only that women are as good as men in business, but that they can lead a team of men with strength and clarity.

Unfortunately, while the men did function well under her leadership, and generally respected her, one incident involving some of the team members represented just how hard women still have to fight to achieve the same respect and privileges as men. The team had designed an item to be used on the beach. For very little apparent reason, the three-man subgroup decided that it would be better to have a female model on the packet than to have a male model. Thus, they decided that Stella should be the model. They asked her over the phone, and she quite rightly stated that her role was to lead the team, as opposed to being a model, and was reasonably clear that it was not something she particularly wanted to do. Yes, she said she would do it if she really had to, but it was clear this was more of an attempted concession to team work and possibly peer pressure than a genuine choice. The group of three team members responded to her comments that she did not want to model by going shopping for a bikini for her to wear.

Again the issue was addressed, and again Stella was reticent. But the men would not relinquish their pressure, one of them stating that she should “take one for the team”, and eventually she accepted. The only positive was that they had bought an outfit which covered a comparatively large portion of her torso, but frankly this did nothing to compensate for the pressure and misogyny driving the scenario.

And so a talented woman, whose leadership skills were commended by Alan Sugar himself, was pressured into taking her clothes off to sell the product of the team that she was managing.

This sort of thing happens all the time throughout advertising and the wider media, but it is perhaps even more shocking in this instance because it was both readily acknowledged by her team mates, and implicitly condoned by Alan Sugar and his aides, that her gender was the sole reason she was being asked to remove her clothes. The Apprentice begins its series with equal numbers of men and women, and it has crowned a number of women among its winners, yet as this example shows, even females with the most powerful and intelligent minds are still expected to use their bodies in the pursuit of success. 

- Lizzy

Beyond Eminen and Rihanna

Last month I wrote a blog post about “Love the Way You Lie” by Rihanna and Eminem. While its relative positives and negatives are a matter for debate, the one thing that everyone agrees on is that the song, and accompanying video, are anything but subtle. In many ways this is a positive thing – keeping domestic violence hidden underneath stigma and social norms isolates victim-survivors and allows the British government to get away with providing pitiful levels of support for such a critical and widespread human rights issue. But on the other hand, it is possible to raise awareness of domestic violence without enlisting confusing sexual representations of the victim-survivor’s situation. I’ve come across a couple of examples of this, in “Witchcraft” by Pendulum, and “Sweet Sixteen” by Feeder.

The lyrics of “Witchcraft” appear, to me, to represent the singer’s longing for his female friend(?)’s escape from an abusive relationship, and his desire to help her to do this. It gives a subtle insight into the mechanisms of control involved in domestic violence, “caught in a cellphone’s rays”, “pleading on the sofa”, but similarly it does not shy away from a clearer picture of abuse, “bleeding on reaction”. In the last verse the singer finds his friend in darkness in the bedroom - he “can’t hear her breathing”.

In my opinion, this song deals with the horrific realities of domestic violence in a respectful way, without sensationalism. The singer clearly has a lot of respect for the woman he is singing about.  Indeed it seems as though, *shock horror*, he actually cares about her as a friend – the lyrics never mention a romantic element to his concern. He longs for her freedom because he is concerned about her, not because he wants her for himself. This in itself is a refreshing alternative to the usual way that songs deal with male/female relationships – it manages not to fall into one of the typical restrictive categories (lust, love, and break ups).

Feeder’s “Sweet Sixteen” tells the story of a girl (possibly aged 16), who is caught in an abusive relationship. She is “afraid” of her partner, who “impos[es]” himself upon her and “work[s] her like a dog”. As with the Pendulum song, the (male) singer clearly cares about the woman in the lyrics, and is keen for her escape. Nevertheless, he is not ignorant of the difficulties faced by women who wish to get out of such situations. Both songs highlight the desire for the woman’s freedom, yet do not place any blame or expectation upon the person herself.  

The lyrics of these songs clearly support, and to an extent focus upon, the reality of a life beyond the abuse. In light of Rihanna and Eminem’s much publicised work, in which Rihanna’s character “like[s] the way it hurts” , it is encouraging to hear songs which address the issue of domestic violence with respect and a hope for change.  

Dealing with disability

Society has a problem with disability, whether the disability be physical, mental, or both. For the time being I’m going to resist discussing the issues faced by people with mental health problems, as I’m genuinely concerned that if I begun to address it, I wouldn’t be able to stop talking (typing) until next week. I’m planning on going to Alton Towers on Wednesday and wouldn’t want to miss it.

The underlying prejudices regarding physical disability are highlighted in the media, especially via comedians’ jokes. Don’t get me wrong, I am in the camp which thinks that the vast majority of serious topics *can* be funny if dealt with correctly, the key usually being to avoid laughing at someone else’s difficulties or at the individual themselves. The BBC's "Ouch!" website is good at this – one of my favourite comments being “when you illegally park in a disabled parking spot, is it because you think that disabled people don’t exist or that you don’t exist?” Unfortunately a lot of comedians don’t seem able to make the distinction between comedy and disablism. Jimmy Carr, for example, informed his audience that when he saw a sign for a disabled toilet that read “Disabled, out of order”, he thought “I know what ‘disabled’ means thanks.” To me, this “joke” has very little comedy value, as it is doing nothing but claim that himself and everybody else who is able bodied is correctly functioning, while disabled people are some sort of sub-species. If I’m being pedantic, the complexities of the human body and mind are such that the only valid categorisation of the concept would be that the “out of order” person was indeed dead. And then they wouldn’t need a toilet. 

"Love the Way You Lie" - a confusing portrayal of domestic violence

“Love the Way You Lie” by Eminem and Rihanna provides a dramatic depiction of domestic violence. It has brought the issue into the public sphere, which in itself is a positive thing - hiding domestic abuse underneath social stigma isolates victim-survivors and allows those in power to blithely ignore its existence with little public backlash. Thus, many will agree that the production of such a high profile song/video dedicated to the issue will inevitably have some positive repercussions. Beyond this, the predominant reaction seems to be one of confusion. Regarding the ways in which women and women’s issues are depicted in the media, I’ll admit I’m not usually short of an opinion, but when a friend asked for my thoughts about “Love the Way You Lie”, I was stumped. Investigating analyses of it online, it seemed many others were similarly perplexed. This is because the song simultaneously initiates both very helpful and very detrimental portrayals of violence. Quite how it has managed this, I really don’t know. It’s certainly quite a feat.

On the positive side, in addition to raising awareness, the song gives a rudimentary insight into the mind of a domestic violence perpetrator. The internet isn’t sure whether Eminem is drawing upon personal experience or using dramatic licence, but either way, his depiction of the situation is at least more complex than the stereotypical good guy who snapped.

In terms of the negative aspects of the song, Rihanna’s lyrics “just gonna stand there and hear me cry, but that’s alright because I love the way you lie” and “just gonna stand there and watch me burn, but that’s alright because I like the way it hurts” seem to confuse domestic violence with BDSM. This interpretation is accentuated by the way that Rihanna delivers these lines in the video, nicely summed up here as, “what is Rihanna doing with her face?” Her expressions are solely those of sexual pleasure and engagement with the viewer. I am not disagreeing that domestically violent relationships elicit a huge array of emotions – indeed sexuality, and even consensual BDSM, are not necessarily exempt from the picture - but I think that the song/video’s portrayal of a predominantly sexual response to such brutality is entirely unhelpful. You can’t get much closer to victim blaming than having the victim literally saying “that’s alright” when faced with “lies” and “burn[ing]” (literally, at the end of the song, “tie her to the bed and set the house on fire”).

Rihanna has said that both she and Eminem have “experienced” domestic violence “on different sides”. Considering the widely publicised abuse against Rihanna by her then-boyfriend Chris Brown, it is reasonable to assume that her comments suggest that she is a victim-survivor while Eminem has been/is a perpetrator. Does this make their collaboration more powerful or simply more profitable and sensationalist?

Rihanna’s lyrics can be interpreted on a deeper level. As in a portion of real life relationships, she may be staying with her abuser because she loves him. Her lines could represent an attempt to explain away or justify his behaviour. Whether this is the song’s intention, I don’t know. But given the prevalence of domestic violence myths and widespread ignorance about the issue, I don’t think the majority of the audience will be looking for such a subtle analysis, especially not in the context of Eminem’s previous work (such as “Kim” in which he overtly depicts murdering his ex wife). While I am very much in favour of a complex analysis of domestic violence via mainstream channels, I don’t think that the key elements of this song (Eminem’s very blatant, leave-nothing-to-the-imagination lyrics, the sexualisation to sell the product) lead the listener towards the more subtle interpretation. As such, the audience is likely to come away with the more overt message, which, paraphrased, is “it’s alright that you are hurting me and making me cry because I love/like it”.


- Lizzy

Eat less by purchasing our cereal!

The advertising industry is a strange world. It’s full of fake promises, fake lives and fake boobs. The overt falsities are somewhat ridiculous – the idea that a mascara can “millionize” your eyelashes (L’Oreal), or that a certain body spray will literally attract swathes of women (Lynx). While these lies are absurd and annoying, they don’t necessarily seek to undermine women to the same extent as those which enlist the more subtle enforcing of stereotypes and popular mythology. The same restrictive stereotypes are repeatedly reiterated throughout the media, protected by the guise of fact or accepted norms. Two recent adverts for popular products exemplify this phenomenon perfectly – Kellogg's Special K, and Gillette's Venus Embrace razor.

Kellogg’s capitalise on inaccurate societal myths about femininity and autonomy via their advertising campaign for Special K. The adverts centre around their free “personal plan” to help us “get slimmer”. Using a diet (restriction of food) to sell a food product is sadly a pretty telling analogy of the way advertising works. The TV advert in question shows a woman on a dull day looking longingly at a red dress in a window display. She is feeling depressed, ostensibly because she can’t fit into this dress. Quite why she didn’t realise she could buy it in a different (healthy, sexy) size, I don’t know. Perhaps it was the last one in the shop. For whatever reason, this woman is sad because she perceives her body as not good enough to wear this dress. She doesn’t look overweight at all. Reading the small print, the advert notes that people with a healthy BMI should not undertake the diet. If this woman is unhealthily overweight then Kate Moss is a perfect example of a healthy weight. I emailed the Advertising Standards Agency about it, and apparently the model’s BMI is 0.9 over a healthy weight. Well that’s fine then. Then again, the advert never even pretended to be about health, it was always about looking “good” in that dress.

Which raises another problem – the dull day, the loneliness, the sadness, are all associated with not being thin enough. Once the lady is thin enough, it’s sunny and she has loads of friends around her. Perceived “fat” equals lonely, grey life. Perceived “thin” equals happy, sunny life. What is more – this woman is presumably a capable person, with enough earning potential to buy a luxury item such as this particular dress. Yet the advert insinuates that her entire life and mood is experienced as a response to her perceived bodily “flaws”.

The average dress size of a woman in the UK is either 16 or 14, depending on which source you look at. The model in the video (Signe Nordstrom) is a size 14. Perhaps I’m being cynical, but I can’t help thinking that the advert specifically chose a woman of this size to ensure that the number of women who “need” to utilise the diet is as large as possible. If this gorgeous, average/below average sized actress is unhappy about her weight, what message does it send to the millions of normal women watching?

Tellingly, the woman in the advert is the same size after her diet as she was before it. To me, that really wasn’t a successful attempt at losing weight. Kellogg’s don’t expect their viewers to notice this. They have made an advert for a food product which encourages people to eat less, with the end result of looking exactly the same. And yet in spite of this failure to address anything of relevance to their product, it is safe to assume that Kellogg’s’ advertising campaign is indeed increasing sales of Special K (judging by the length of time that they have been banging on about it, that is). 

The Gillette advert, if you haven’t seen it, aims to sell us a razor which will give a close shave. Fair enough. It does this by showing a number of women in “idyllic” situations with their male partners. These wonderful experiences are made possible because their legs are so beautifully shaved, “it shaves you closer, so you can get closer”. I’m not debating the fact that you can literally get about half a millimetre closer to someone else if there is no hair in the way, but then again neither is Gillette. They are claiming that if you have perfectly shaved legs, you can be more intimate, and men will want you sexually. They are playing on the idea that if one’s legs are not shaved, they can’t be a part of intimacy. Perhaps you could still have sex, but you’d have to make sure you kept your legs away from your partner (I imagine that would be logistically difficult, but nevertheless). Women naturally grow hair, they always have, as far as I know, and the human race is doing pretty well. Who are Gillette to say that having shaved legs is a pre-requisite for intimacy? One of the situations in the advert didn’t even involve the man touching the woman’s legs, are they suggesting that a man who loves a woman would be so appalled by a bit of hair that he wouldn’t want to hug her, or sit next to her? Personally, I don’t think many men would even notice. Throughout this advert is the idea that women who use this product are “goddesses” – it is insulting that the advert has the audacity to pretend it is empowering women, by selling the idea that they must deviate from their biological norms in order to be capable of participating in fulfilling human relationships.

This ties in with a piece of advice I once read in a “women’s” magazine. Regarding the pre-sex disaster of not having shaved your legs, their advice was to take a shower with “your man”, and get in five minutes before him to give you time to sneakily shave. The likelihood is I would have already had a shower that day, why should I bother having another one? What if the guy doesn’t want a shower? What if it’s a chilly day?

Believe it or not I do know a few men who wouldn’t be bothered about this, especially if they were in love with the woman – I doubt there is a man who has fallen in love with a woman’s lack of leg hair. It is simplifying men to a breed who only want a woman if she conforms to society’s version of “female”, and simplifying women to people who would (and should) not think twice about taking fairly extensive and awkward measures to hide the fact that they are an adult female who grows hair. If a man did complain, perhaps the woman could always ask him why he hadn’t shaved his legs?

This particular advert is dripping with stereotypes and biased opinions  – that women choose to shave their legs for no other reason than to please their man, that a man and a woman is the only relevant relationship set up, that happiness comes from heterosexual relationships (as long as you shave of course) –  yet viewers are supposed to take such myths on board without questioning them.

Ironically, both Kellogg’s and Gillette owe their success, in part, to their competitors and colleagues throughout the advertising industry and media as a whole, for their incessant insistence that women must be thin and hairless in order to be happy and loved. Thankfully, this restrictive notion of life, beauty, and femininity is about as realistic as Katie Price’s cleavage. 

- Lizzy