Sandra Orozco-Stapleton Foundation
Erin Pizzey's Blog
| Home | News | Quotes | Link | Erin Pizzey

In 1971 Erin Pizzey founded Chiswick Women's Aid, the first refuge for battered wives. Her 1974 book "Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear" brought the issue to the attention of the public.

About Erin Pizzey | Articles by Erin Pizzey

This Way To The Revolution - Part 1

Written by Erin Pizzey Friday, April 13, 2007 5:49 AM
« Previous Next » »

I have been putting together my research for a book detailing the birth of the first refuge in the world opened in Chiswick, London in 1971 and the rise of the feminist movement in the Western world.

For this purpose I am going to write bout my first trips to America when I was invited on March 12, 1977 to begin a tour to talk about domestic violence and also to help with the opening of Shelters - as they were called in America.

Soon after I opened my refuge I tried to find information on the subject of domestic violence. There was none. Very little was known about battered children and those discussions were largely confined to medical journals. What went on behind the front door remained there and I was aware as a child immured behind my parents front door and exposed to both their violent and dysfunctional behavior that the subject of family violence was a deep and shameful secret.

Certainly the myth that only the poor, disenfranchised and inarticulate men battered their wives was expounded by the many caring agencies that were supposed to be caring for these families. It was explained to me very early on by a social worker that; ‘he beats her because he loves her and she only recognises his love for her if he hits her.’ This patronising attitude existed because in the sixties and seventies the whole concept of social work was largely practised by middle class women with middle class attitudes. Social work was in its infancy and there was a huge divide between the ‘deserving poor’ and what was then called ‘dustbin families.’ I knew that this was a huge fallacy because my father worked for the British Foreign Office. We lived in big houses with plenty of servants but both my parents screamed, yelled and fought all across the world. My mother had private money and could have gone back to her family in Canada but she preferred to maintain her appalling relationship with my father and the two of them ruined our childhood. My other experience was also that for many years we were left in boarding schools in England. There some of the girls whispered the stories of their sufferings at home. In those days some fifty years ago loyalty to your family was absolutely sacred which is why domestic violence probably remained a silent scream for so long. I particularly remember one girl whose mother shot her father and another case where a girl told some of us that she had been raped by her father and she was expelled by the nuns - silence was enforced.

So I realised that with no literature that I could find on the subject and no where to turn, I had to sit down and try and put a book together in order to get the subject out in the open and to help create other refuges across England.

Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear was published in 1974, but only after a fight with the Managing Director of the publishing house who demanded that I blame capitalism for wife beating, while I insisted that wife beating was as prevalent in his beloved Russia as it was here. Much to his fury, the book was taken up by The Daily Express Newspaper and overnight the whole subject of domestic violence became national news.

I was aware that the feminist movement were going to wage war against my refuge. From the beginning I employed men and women to work with the mothers and the children. We also had staff who were willing to see any of the men who wanted our help. From the very beginning we had women coming into the refuge who were just as violent as the men they left and they were violent towards their children. We saw these women as most in need of our help. All this ran in direct contradiction of the feminists who insisted that all domestic violence was perpetrated by men.

Other countries were taking copies of Scream Quietly Or the Neighbours Will Hear and photocopying the book in order to open refuges in their own countries. I was in negotiations with American publishers over the possibility of publishing Scream Quietly when I became aware that the book was likely to be politicised and naively I thought that by my cancelling the publication, I could at least protect one source of information from being hi-jacked by the feminist movement. I knew by now, that none of the women in this movement had any interest in the subject of family violence. For the leaders of this new political movement the subject of family violence was merely a high road to funding for their cause - the destruction of the family and of men.

In 1977 Del Martin, a lesbian activist in California, wrote her book Battered Women, and of course she lifted a huge amount of Scream Quietly to bolster her argument that domestic violence was a direct result of marriage. At that time, the lesbian movement within the women’s movements across the world were the most highly organised and vociferous leaders. Heterosexual women were considered traitors to the cause and were guilty of ’sleeping with the enemy.’ I lasted but a few months within the women’s movement in England before I was booted out. Even then I tried to point out that lesbian women were coming to my refuge beaten up by their partners, but I was ignored.

My first tour included a meeting with Professor Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, and then next on this extensive tour would be a meeting with Gloria Steinem and lunch at Ms. Magazine. I was already in Ms. Steinem’s bad books because we made film which was to be shown on PBS and she had insisted in fronting it. I was nervous because, yet again, I knew she would use it to batter men, and I was desperate to get the message across that domestic violence was not a gender issue. She threatened that if she was not allowed to front the film, PBS would not show it. I capitulated. Any refuge was better than none. And that was my dilemma in those early days when even to get a refuge open in many countries was a huge enterprise.

Copyright © 2007 Erin Pizzey, All Rights Reserved

« Previous Next » »

Other articles by Erin Pizzey

22 Responses to “This Way To The Revolution - Part 1”

  1. John C. Reilly LCSW, BCD Says:


    It’s with great pleasure that I get a chance to contact the person that enabled me to survive a false DV and false rape charges during a destructive divorce from a women who had two MFA degrees, spoke two languages yet she was allowed by the feminists court to stalk me over 200 times in 11 months because she claimed to be a victim and got an OOP (Order Of Protection) which the State of Illinois get money from the federal government as an “incentive” to end violence against women. Your work “The Emotional Terrorist & The Violence-Prone” has been a staple in my feudal attempt to get my profession (social work) to understand that they deny any voice to men.

    Time prevents me from stating all the things your works have done for me. You are one of the few women who have stood up to the total trashing men have had to endure for the past 50 years. I’m in your debt.

  2. Erin Pizzey Says:

    I’m delighted to hear from you and I well remember another man I worked with when I lived in Santa Fe, New Mexico. His wife came into my refuge saying that he had molested her daughter who was four at the time. He was a very successful business man. She told everyone she could and rushed off to the police. He lost everything and when I came across him he was living in rented accommodation with no furniture and at night he slept in a walk-in cupboard curled up in a foetal position.
    I contacted him because the wife’s story didn’t add up. She claimed that he was a womanizer and had contstant affairs. Paedophiles are mostly impotant with adults - they can when they are grooming manage intercourse. The other concern I had was that the daughter seemed very conflicted in her telling of her story. The mother was an extremly manipulative woman. In one of my councilling sessions with the daughter she told me that it wasn’t her father who molested her it ws the next door neighbour who turned out to have a hareem of little girls all silenced under sentence of death if they told. He had not seen his children for two years and when he came to see me I gave him his children and let him take them out. Of course I had a furious phone call from the D.A. but I told him he was about to be sued for what he had done to this completely innocent father. Eventually I got the father’s name cleared and the daughter went back to live with her father and the boy had continuous access. The man will never recover from the horror of the charges.
    It isn’t just men and fathers who have been damaged - it is everybody. The woman concerned needed treatment. She encouraged the little girl to name her father because he was trying to divorce her. Eventually I went to the head of the police in Santa Fe and asked why none of my child abuse cases were targeted. He said theirs weren’t either because the DA had been divorced for the same reasons. I worked for many years there and I was never alllowed near the refuge.

  3. George Rolph Says:

    Hi Erin.

    I have a question for you. If you were being interviewed by yourself, what questions wold you like asked?

  4. Erin Pizzey Says:

    How could the entire Western world be fooled so completely by a laughable political theory that all men are potential rapist and batteres because they carry a ‘y’ chromazone?

  5. George Rolph Says:

    Yes, good answer.

    Perhaps those with suits wanted to be fooled and those without believe everything those with suits tell them?

    The other question is, can we wake them up?

  6. erin pizzey Says:

    take the money away and they will all leave

  7. George Rolph Says:

    An important deabate is starting to open on the “Coppers blog” Here is a quote of relevence to you.
    Found here:
    neo111 said…

    Is this face bovvered Neo?
    Tony’s face aint bovvered, but mine is, that you are unhappy.
    This face is bovvered, Neo.

    Ha Ha! Wonderful responce.

    As long as we are BOVVERED by the right things huh? The things that divide our people and promote sick behaviour under the guise of “Tolerance” “Equality” and “Justice.” You know, like that phrase, “In the best interests of the child” and which is used to strip children from good parents because it is in the, “best interest” of the left wing anti family brigade.

    Born Today: Sorry, this went over my head:-
    ” How Doc E is, and if “Steven” has been deployed”

    I know my post with quotes was a little long but the point had to me made and driven home. I could have just quoted tow of the feminist leaders but I was worried the readers would dismiss that as just two nutters in a sea of feminist ideas. I have learned through experience that this is how feminists dismiss the argument when only a few of their leaders are quoted. Also, I wanted everyone to see just how “deep the rabbit hole goes” to quote Morpheos from the movie, “The Matrix.”
    This is VERY serious stuff. Much more than just an anti-feminist rant. It is a real and present danger.

    Can I just say this. I am not against women having rights or being treated with respect or care. What I am against is when that respect and care are DEMANDED with disrespect and carelessness. When I am insulted and my family are attacked. Or, when my son and daughter are taught lies in school to prop up a theoretical political ideology that should have died a death in the 1970’s and one of those kids is filled for hate for the other, while the other is filled with false guilt just for being male.

    Anonymous claims not to be a feminist or to have been indoctrinated by them. Yet, she began her defence of her statements by quoting, word for word, the lie about the ancient, mythical tribe of Amazonian women who hunted for themselves before marriage was “invented” which is one of the foudational (and false) principles of feminist thought — well, excuse me for not believing a word about her innocence concerning all things feminist.

    Good women deserve good treatment and respect. They are the glue that hold the family together and a good woman can mould a child’s mind (along with a good dad) to make a friend of all of us. Bad women and bad men create bad children that we have to fight to bring to the courts and what passes for justice.

    What we must all learn to do, I think, is be more discerning and realistic about matters and the abuse issue is a case in point. For those who want to make a real difference in matter of abuse and understand the dynamics begind it, I would highly reccomend the writings of Erin Pizzey. You can find them online. She is a smart, clear-thinking and authoratative voice on the issue. She clears up much of what we do not understand about those who go back again and again to abusive homes. She explains the reality behind the phenomenon of mutual abuse and gives cautionary advice about being misled by the “victim” attitude of many abusers pretending they are innocent.

    We are too quick to be fooled by the crying female claiming “its all HIS fault. Please help me officer, I am afraid.” Abusers OFTEN hide as victims and only clever questioning can reveal who is really abusing who or whether they are BOTH at it.

    The simple truth is that the feminist model of abuse thinking and responce fails and it fails because it is based on untrue, injust, and false assuptions about “power and control” being a male only issue. It also fails because it does not address the abusive female issue except to make excuses for them.

    Sometimes (very often in fact) the “terrorist” in the family, wears a skirt.

    7:33 PM
    neo111 said…

    PS. You can read Erin Pizzey’s seminal work on abuse, “Prone To Violence” here:

    Just a note of interest. The publishers and book stores that distributed this book where threatened with fire bombing if they continued to sell it. Erin, the authoress, was threatened with death for writing it and had to flee to America.

    Sisterhood is powerful……Right?

    Who are the REAL abusers?

  8. Ed Havey Says:

    Erin Pizzey, how wonderful to read your experiences.

    After decades of experiencing and researching the gender war, I currently think the following (be patient, try to read on).

    1) The CIA captured grassroots feminism circa 1978, for corporate exploitation schemes.

    “Inside the CIA With Gloria Steinem”,
    Blacklisted News, which reprinted from Overthrow, July 1979,
    which reprinted from Nancy Borman, Village Voice, May 21, 1979.

    2) Male and female chauvinism forever alternate throughout history, two waves of exploitive injustice. Flattery fans those flames.

    3) Every generation has and will have forever have an emerging ‘liberation’ of man-hating women. It is essential to the stabilization of society.

    4) The basic desire for gender relationships and family are usually exploited at full price, at the individual level and at the institutional and corporate level.

    Evidence: Aristotle taught rules for the demagogue to Alexander the Great. Several of these rules are about a “feminism” where women are encouraged by gov to undermine men, in order to stabilize ruling powers and forms of slavery. Kingdoms can be overthrown, but the tyrant continues, thus tyranny stabilizes the state. He writes of a “democracy” of picayune laws where all citizens can be criminalized. See Aristotle’s “The Politics” or Bertrand Russell’s “Power” for details.

    Due to institutionalized feminist schemes, I saw my life worse than a soldier stuck in the jungles of the Vietnam war. My story was horrible but probably ‘normal’.

    “Austin Powers” (film) captures the era with its “sexy models that shoot bullets from their tits”.

    One good thing about chauvinisms is that they allow us to ’see’ men and women and individuals more clearly, as all great lies do.

    Then there is that line by Sophocles, something like, “There is no such thing as injustice in love.” (paraphrased), though he probably was defending the institutions that claim to provide justice in love.

  9. Erin pizzey Says:

    I am interested in what you have to say and I agree through out history there has always been a war of attrition between men and women. I am aware only from my own experience that in 1970 - ten years after the feminist movement errupted in America (read Susam Brownmiller “iN OUR TIME”for the history of the movement in America that there was a very organised attempt from some politically sophisticated people to subvert women in this country. I say this because when my father was an Acting Consul General in Dakar, Africa my twin sister and myself were sent to work with missionaires in the villages outside the city. We were made very aware by the missionaires that were running the medical centre of the communist prty who had an encampment quite near us. The doctors explained that they believed that if you can subvert the women first you can then destablishe the country. Overtly in the office in London where the feminist movement had their headquarters it was largely run by students and young inexperienced women however once I began to look carefully at what was heppening I could see that the organisation of groups in women’s houses and then the gathering together of women and invitations to attend large regional conferences were very highly organised events and there seemed to be an unlimited source of money. Where it all went wrong and very badly wrong was the women on the left turned on their men and declared them the enemy which resulted in the collapse of the left wing movements in England and paved the way for Margaret Thatcher to become Prime Minister. I wrote to her when she first came in and asked her what she intended to do about Domestic Violence and I got a letter back from her office to say that Mrs. Thatcher was not interested in women’s issues.
    The pendulum is now swinging back and more and more women recognise that in the end it is women who have lost out in this last battle but of course the damage that has been done in the name of feminism will take years to heal.
    Because of the feminisation of the Western world and the demonising of men the family courts have become ‘Star Chambers’ and are biased against men.
    I think the changes that need to happen will have to be done by women because any attempt for men to make changes will be met by a wall of hositility.
    I was at the conference a few days ago and one of the male presenters dared to give an example of a mother who told her daughter that ‘daddy is coming home in a bad temper you go into our bedroom and see that he is alright’ He said he wasn’t excusing the father’s sexual abuse of his daughters but he felt the mother was implicated as well……he was met with a furious reaction by many women in the audience who insisted that the mother had no options. Yet again women were not responsible for their actions. We are a very long way off from bringing rational, sane common sense to this matter.
    Very simply I believe that women will always need the care an protection of the fathers of their chldren while they are pregant and involved in the business of family life. This required women to be ultruistic and put the needs of the family before their own. Men too need to protect their families and bring home the money to share meet the needs of the growing family. This also requires him to be ultruistic and put the family first. In what has become our selfish and ultruistic societies men and women put their needs first and therein lies todays tragedy.

  10. Be Positive Says:


    Google “LAISSEZ-PERJURER” to learn more.

    Stephen Baskerville has just finished a book which should be read by all associated with (or victims of) FAMILY COURT. It is a must read. TAKEN INTO CUSTODY is a a first-rate scholarly, timely, and topical work. It is a must read for VOTERs in the forthcoming election as it reveals how we are babystepping from a democracy and republic to a KRYTOCRACY (rule by judges) whose unaccountability, immunity, and privelege of self-governance have allowed them to think that because they supervise ‘courts’ they are princes and princesses. These uberlords of law have crafted with attorneys and myriad others an Orwellian Ministry of Families (MINIFAM) far more real and terrifying in the banality and fact of its evil than the fictions of Orwell’s 1984.

    MINIFAM’s covert workings and self-serving, self-aggrandizing, self-empowerment reveals its BIG SMOTHER agenda. And it is clear that the American Family is being sacrificed to that SECULAR god. Baskerville details the lockstep march of family courts and the ubiquity and constancy of their abuses in many common law countries. The depiction of the court’s ‘best interest of the child’ brought to mind the similarity between the empathy of family court judges and the ‘greeters’ at an SS concentration camp as they separate children from parents. What family court judges, MINIFAM’s ministers, agents, and acolytes, and BIG SMOTHER are doing, is a VIRTUAL BLOODLESS - but profoundly psychologically damaging - HOLOCAUST. Under color of law, living souls are tortured; despite their oaths of office, constitutional rights are ignored; they have sowed the seeds of ruin - today with worse yet to come - and called it ‘progress.’ MINIFAM’s family courts are just another way of atomizing familial bonds and rendering them into ashes.

    It is clear that the language of MINIFAM and BIG SMOTHER is DOUBLESPEAK and its thought processes, DOUBLETHINK. Baskerville’s frequent allusions to Orwell are profound in the parallels they bring to mind and the actions, language, and thought processes of MINIFAM’s ministers, agents, acolytes, and partisans. THOUGHTCRIME is an appropriate characterization of BIG SMOTHER’s attitudes towards alternative opinions and viewpoints of its juggernaut policies and credo of mythologies. BIG SMOTHER views anyone who fails to be a true believer, a heretic. The media has lost its journalistic courage. One should only expect as much where moral cowardice is the regnant virtue and its owners unwilling to criticize the STATE or its CELEBRITIES lest its commentators and talking heads go begging for hard hitting interviews in lieu of the pabulum and propaganda of BIG SMOTHER.

    Baskerville’s TAKEN INTO CUSTODY reveals the inner and actual workings of MINIFAM’s courts and uber-bureaucracy and he points out how these exempt themselves from the principles and precedents of either common or constitutional law. But in many ways what should we, the people, expect from a government - at all levels - that looks increasingly like a mostly owned subsidiary of the American Bar Association and American Trial Lawyers Association (I combine these to yield, ABATLA)?

    In a nation of 300 million, there are nearly 1 million attorneys and this 1/300th of the population owns more than 1/2 the US Senate and 1/3 of the US House. It is additionally insightful to consider that 1 out of 3 members on Capitol Hill are attorneys and of course 100% of those (both at state and federal levels) that run the judiciary and the executive branch’s prosecutors/attorney general’s offices. Should we not be surprised that lawyers and attorneys are doing a very good job making business for lawyers and other attorneys? It is time that the VOTERS remove the strangle hold this self-governing, self-serving, self-aggrandizing group wields as it is choking our liberties. It is time for we, the people, rise up and recover our power. We, the people, are the source of the MEANING of the LAW and not the DOUBLESPEAK, DOUBLETHINKING ministrium and sinecuria of MINIFAM. Perhaps it is time for a constitutional amendment wherein we specify that it is the common language which ought to underpin both common law and common logic.IT is OUR INTERPRETATION of the law and not THEIRS that must be MADE to MATTER.

    In many ways, we, the people, should not be surprised at the abuses Baskerville reveals. They are not unprecedented and in fact, just another marker on a path that has for years included a justice system that condones, winks, and thus invites RAMPANT PERJURY. Like many of Baskerville’s disclosures, rampant perjury is unseen (willfully ignored) and those in our courts PRETEND it isn’t there. Just like MINIFAM won’t receive or hear of certain information, prosecutors and judges have set up procedures and interpreted rules in a manner that buffers and insulates them from ever being actually seen to know it. Orwell’s line “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” is clearly their policy. We have what I call a LAISSEZ-PERJURER (Allow perjury) policy. What is clever about this policy is that it is based on INACTION rather than an open power grab. Its success requires the COLLUSION and CONSPIRACY of the EXECUTIVE branch’s prosecutors with the JUDICIARY’s judges while the LEGISLATORS CAPITULATE in their OVERSIGHT function (reminding all again that most legislatures are saturated with attorneys - fox guarding the hen house). By condoning PERJURY, judges can pretty much find a basis to support their bias - and as we nearly saw from INQUISITOR KNIFONG, guarantee convictions. It is startling to read what a DISTRICT ATTORNEY thought he could get away with:

    Baskerville’s support is derived from many anecdotes, emails, and the work of journalists, scholars, and researchers. I will tell you that he is credible and vouch for him by providing a means for you to test my claim of LAISSEZ-PERJURER. One need only mention the word ‘perjury’ in a court and it will be expunged from the record and unresponded or unacknowledged by a judge. Alternatively, just call your local prosecutor’s office and say you would like to find out the procedures that office uses to handle an allegation of FELONY PERJURY arising from material misrepresentations in FAMILY COURT. You will discover that NO ONE KNOWS and NO ONE CAN HELP YOU. Should you ask for related prosecution or convictions statistics, you will find a SIMILAR HOLE. Now consider the chaos and contention that characterizes family court as well as the public’s polemic. Consider that where there is NO TRUTH there is NO JUSTICE and thus NO PEACE. Consider too that ALL JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, and ATTORNEYS that are AWARE and LOOKING the OTHER way - remaining WILLFULLY IGNORANT - of PERJURY. Their SILENCE is their CONSENT. Why is there such STRIFE? We are AFRAID to TELL each other the RAW, BRASS TACKS’ TRUTH. We cannot speak of these things. And UNTIL we are able to openly ADMIT that the INTEGRITY OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ITS GREAT LIE, we no longer deserve the liberty, freedom, and genuine rule of law that was our LEGACY.

    Some future archaeologist may find Baskerville’s work in the rubble that once was America (and the West) . It will be then universally acknowledged as a “PRE-MORTEM.”


    WHERE THERE IS NO TRUTH, THERE IS NO JUSTICE and FROM THE PAIN in your LIFE it seems there will NEVER be any REAL PEACE until the LIEs, and DECEIT and the PERJURY is DEALT WITH.


    There’s much more on LAISSEZ-PERJURER at the link below.,7.0.html

    Be Positive.

    For more on LAISSEZ- PERJURER see:,7.0.html

  11. daz Says:

    Why didn’t you say all this in the 1970’s? If you are so instrumental to the buildings of shelters then you also must have had a lot to do with pushing the notions that the shelters be used only for women and children. I applaud your efforts now, but isn’t it YOUR damage that you are trying to undo? If you’d researched the problem in 1971, perhaps those shelters you opened would have been available to the men that we now know existed back then, battered and abused just as the women you tried to help were. Your situation then reminds me of the women who violently protested for the vote in 1917…..while at that very moment, thousands of men and boys who didn’t have the right to vote lay face down in the mud in France. Those women didn’t demand voting rights for those men who died by the thousands, just for themselves.

    Also, did your book on DV cover the entire issue, or just men beating women?

  12. Erin Pizzey Says:

    I did of course try to open a house for men just after I opened my first refuge. I understood almost immediately the need for men to have refuge because as I have said many times I recognised that of the first 100 women who came into the refuge 62 were as violent or more violent than the men they left. I was given a very big house in North London by the GLC (Greater London Council) for free but I could not raise a penny from anywhere to run it. We did open however but couldn’t stay open. Many of the men who were only to willing to contribute money to the women’s shelter would not lift a finger to help men. I have always said that dv. is not a gender issue and yes if you read Prone to Violence the message in that book is loud and clear.
    I don’t think much will change until men decide that they will co-operate with each other and bring and end to this dreadful inustice. I have spend an enormous amount of my time talking to men’s groups across the world and the most depressing thing about it all is the men who do work hard and devote their lives to this subject but find that once most men have had their personal problem resolved by their brothers they melt away into the night and are never seen again.

  13. Amfortas Says:

    The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

    More power to you Erin. You are a true heroine. You continue to speak your mind.

    But it isn’t ‘men’ !! ™ who will restore sanity. It is men and women. Men can barely open a mouth without having feminsist mantras rammed down their throats by ordinary, everyday women, and dismissed as ‘all men are rapists’. It is women who must undo other women’s mendacities first. Women like you.

    No, it is going to take a Political Party dedicated to overthrowing Untruth and Corruption, the twin forces that encouraged Feminism. The Princess of Lies rules the Western world.

  14. Gender Wars and How to Serve the Greater Good? - Personal Development for Smart People Forums Says:

    […] I can’t help but wonder if it’s some sort of social conditioning that keeps them in their present state of mind. Interesting you should say that, I have read a lot of sources that suggest the Feminist Movement is linked to Marxism. It is claimed that Feminists adopted a lot of Marxist propaganda techniques for the movement and this is where some of the more damaging ideas about male roles in family life began. I began reading some of Erin Pizzey’s work today, and she has some rather interesting views on the Feminist Movement based on her experiences back in the 1970s with their (in her words) hijacking of the refuges she set up for men, women and children who were victims of domestic violence. Apparently the Feminist Movement turned the issue of domestic violence to women as innocent victim whereas men are the perpetrator when the truth is men and women usually display the behaviour of violent parents before them - women were just as likely to be initiators of violence as were men. If any of you are interested you can follow this link here There is also a further assertion from some members of the Men’s Rights Movement that Marxism was concerned with destroying the family and therefore Feminism had the same aims by their association with ‘Marxist ideology’. I really need to do more research in this area before I can agree (or disagree) with this theory myself. It has been well-documented in MRM circles as far as I can tell. I have read a lot of information on this topic, from all sides and as you said it is a matter of determining if what may be thought as an issue, is really an issue at all!! I have often wondered if we could change our perceptions of the issues that face men and women at the moment whether these issues of gender bias would go away? __________________ - Engendertruth www. […]

  15. Antony Inglis Says:

    I find this an interesting dicussion.

    I was one of Erin’s first ‘children’ having been taken to Chsiwick Women’s Aid in London by mother with my five siblings (I was 7 at the time).

    I don’t agree with the way that Erin has been ‘officially’ cut out of the women’s movement because of her views on women being as capable of violence as men; indeed being in violent dependent relationships with men.

    However, I don’t necessarily agree with her views about there being different types of women who are in one sense or another dependent or stimulated by violence. It doesn’t mean Eerin doesn’t have the right to voice those viewpoints.

    What I will say is that Erin’s work literally saved my life. The night we turned up from Norfolk on the doorstep of the refuge was 24 hours after my father had tried to burn my mother, me and my brothers and sisters by setting alight to the house, with all of us barricaed into one room. The choice was 1. open the door and face him with a hammer in his hands (which I’m convinced he intended to use) or stay and the room and be burned out. We chose the latter and emerged from the bedroom window.

    What I remember about that refuge in Chiswick is the feeling that as a kid of a violent father I was not alone. It was a mix of cultures, histories and stories - I remember the stories the most.

    Although I associated London with the Queen and expected servants when we arrived (a vivid mind of a child) - what we actually got were matresses on the floor and mice. But that was far preferable to being burned alive and for that I salute Erin and her collleagues for setting up that first refuge and I wish her every happiness.


  16. Reuben Says:

    I’m from New Zealand and the ‘hoods are very strong here.

    Below is my article on relationship violence I’ve been trying for a long time to get published in the “opinion” pages of our daily newspapers and various magazines without success.

    The feminist-driven “domestic violence industry” is part of an ever-expanding, taxpayer-funded “bureaucracy of compassion” with its attendant caregivers, social workers, regulators, intellectuals and social scientists. Its use of the term “domestic violence” rather than the more gender-neutral “relationship violence” is based on the Marxist analysis of gender relations penned by Marx’s collaborator Friedrich Engels which presupposes a male ‘oppressor’ (”Within the family, man is the bourgeoisie, woman and children the proletariat”) and a female ‘victim.’

    Feminists with a strong emotional investment in the presumption of an oppressive patriarchy base their assessment of men as “the violent sex” on police, court, hospital and refuge data while waving away numerous academic studies implicating both sexes equally in relationship violence. These seriously troubled sisters will cite police blotter statistics and other official data to falsely conclude that relationship violence is a male problem (”That’s just part of how ‘they’ treat ‘us’ as women”).

    There are a number of compelling reasons why a man might be reluctant to complain to authorities that his wife assaulted him. These include fear of ridicule or being disbelieved; threats that if police are called his wife will level a counter-accusation and he’ll be the one arrested by an establishment predisposed to take her part; a reluctance to walk out of the home that he probably paid for; the likelihood that access to his children will be denied by a gender-biased Family Court should he leave to escape the violence; and fears for the children’s physical safety if he’s no longer around to protect them from a violent mother.

    One of the saddest accounts of male victimisation by a violent female was that of an army drill sergeant in the United States, who placed his gun in his mouth at the dinner table and blew his brains out in front of his family, after the contrast between his macho parade ground persona and the reality of his miserable existence became too much to bear.

    New Zealand has a network of Women’s Refuges but not a single Man’s Refuge. And if a man did show up at a Women’s Refuge seeking relief from a violent female partner, do you think he’d be admitted? Like police blotter statistics, “refuge data” clearly have significant limitations in terms of providing an accurate picture of relationship violence in our community.

    US researcher, Dr Martin Fiebert has examined 155 scholarly investigations, 126 empirical studies and 29 reviews and/or analyses in concluding that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 116,000 and can safely be regarded as statistically robust. Fiebert’s annotated bibliography, first published in Sexuality and Culture Volume 8, Number 3-4, Summer-Fall 2004, can be viewed online at

    Contrary to the demonstrably false feminist picture of relationship violence, men and women are implicated in relationship violence in approximately equal numbers at all levels of severity as assessed by a standardised “Conflict Tactics Scale.” Both sexes are more or less equally represented in every category from throwing a teaspoon all the way up to murder. In some categories (e.g. punched, kicked, hit or slapped one’s partner), female involvement slightly outstripped that of males.

    Approximately one third of violent incidents were found to be “he assaults her,” one third “she assaults him,” and one third “they assault each other.” Most of what is categorised as “relationship violence” was found to be occasional, low level, and didn’t result in serious injury, i.e. shoving, pulling, slapping, throwing small objects etc.

    The most violent individuals, whether male or female, represent a tiny minority of those studied. Severely violent men typically used their fists and feet on spouses or partners. Severely violent women characteristically used weapons to even up the size difference or attacked spouses or partners when they were asleep or otherwise off-guard.

    Erin Pizzey, a female family rights activist who set up the first Women’s Refuge in England in the early 1970s, had a well-publicised falling out with the Sisterhood after she wrote a book claiming that many women presenting at her Chiswick Women’s Refuge were “at least as violent as the men they had left behind” and self-admittedly addicted to the adrenalin rush they got from provoking violent reactions in their male partners, though few enjoyed the violence itself. These women were repeatedly and often seriously verbally and physically violent both to their own children and to other women in the shelter.

    The foregoing analysis demonstrates conclusively that relationship violence is in fact a human problem, not a gender issue as the feminist movement would have us believe. It is long overdue for women as a group to acknowledge the female contribution to such violence rather than simply blaming males for something women are, on all the evidence, equally involved in.

  17. George Rolph Says:


    I walk so I will remember what freedom looked like when they steal it and as I went for my customary stroll this evening I saw an astonishing sight. Standing on one corner, deep in conversation, were two men. Obviously this was a “testosterone fueled” discussion so I thought I had better give them a wide berth in case one or both of them produced a large automatic weapon and started killing everyone is sight. That’s what “testosterone fueled” men do you know. Honest! A feminist told me so it must be true. I thought they just built things — you know — like civilisation, but apparently not.

    On the other side of the street on another corner, a group of women were also standing together. They seemed very angry and were all stabbing an effigy of a male with a sign around his neck which read, “Real Man.” I noticed that the effigy had two very large testicles and an average sized penis which one of the women was trying to cut off. However, no matter how much she hacked away she could not remove it. This seemed to infuriate the whole group and they began stabbing and screaming with ever greater fury. One of them had a T-Shirt on which bore the slogan, “Harriet’s Angels.” Beneath it was a patch that had the words; “We want equality so give us all the power now!” on it. This, was a feminist, oestrogen fueled, “discussion.” I shuddered as I thought about the prospect of a whole cabinet made up of women like this and the nuclear button winking a red light invitingly, close by. Our entire stock of nuclear weaponry aimed at football stadiums around the country.

    I left them to it and wandered onwards. It was not long before I came across a group of normal women. “Evening ladies.” I said, as I approached them. “Hello love.” One of them replied. We chatted about this and that for a while as we stood in the pleasant evening sunshine. As I bade them farewell one of them called after me.

    “Have you seen Bob?”

    I stopped and looked at her. “No. Not since yesterday. Why? Do you have to talk with him about something?”

    She smiled. “No. I just wondered how he is. I haven’t seen him for a week or so.”

    I returned her smile. “OK. If I see him I will tell him you asked after him. He was fine when I saw him yesterday.”

    “OK. George.” She said, waving at me as I walked away.

    Nice and normal. I made no attempt to oppress them and they did not hate me for being male. Not one of them mentioned a glass ceiling. Not one of them said I was part of the patriarchal conspiracy to keep them down. Consequently — and you will not be surprised at this — none of them had ever worked for the BBC or the Sun newspaper. Oddly, there was not a single lesbian among them either. All of these women (I have known them for years) either have kids now, or have had kids that have grown up and left home. Not one of them bore the marks where the mythical slave anklet had scarred their skin from being chained to the kitchen sink and all but one of the five was still married and a housewife. I was astounded at their normality.

    OK. Concerning the women stabbing the effigy. I was exaggerating a little there. In fact, a lot. They were not really there but, women like this do exist and many of them are in the House of Commons and the BBC. A case for reform of both institutions if ever I saw one. The point is though, that these creatures really do think like this. They really do. Not all of them are women either. I just needed a contrast between the insane feminists and the normal women I know and love. Please excuse my poetic license.

    Oh. In case you think I jest too much. Here is an actual quote from a feminist or three concerning men:

    “It cannot therefore 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 or cohesion”.
    Anna Coote, Harriet Harman, & Patricia Hewitt. The Family Way

    And just to show I am not biased, here is one from a patriarchal male of no consequence:

    “The women’s suffrage movement is only the small edge of the wedge, if we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Women are well represented by their fathers, brothers, and husbands.”
    Winston Churchill

    Tsk! Men huh? Just shows how wrong he was!

    Finally, here is one from a nice cuddly Russian who murdered a few million Estonian people by starving them to death and from whom, feminists get their ideas:

    “Destroy the family and you destroy society ”

    On the way home I called in to see a colleague and friend of mine. Also female. Married with two children and happy. I opened the back door and wandered into the kitchen. She was not there but I could hear her moving about upstairs so I called out.

    “Hello oppressed one? It’s only me. Your friendly neighbourhood oppressor and potential rapist.”

    “Make yourself a cuppa.” She called and then added. “Make me one too, will you?”

    I checked myself. Nope! Not a single urge to beat her to death for daring to ask ME, a superior man, to make HER, a mere woman, a cup of tea. Another feminist male stereotype bit the dust. As I poured the hot water into the cups she called down again.

    “I have got something for you.”

    A joke was called for. I could not resist. “Does it come in see through nylon?” I yelled back.

    Another voice called out. Male this time. “If it does. I want to see it first. It’s been hiding for a week.” It was Trev. Her husband.

    Just then there was a loud thump.

    “Did she just hit you?” I yelled. I heard his wife laugh.

    “No. It’s OK.” Trev shouted. “I just dropped a roll of carpet”

    “Want a cuppa, Trev?” I called.

    “Nah. Got one thanks.” He replied.

    Just a normal, everyday banter filled conversation between long time friends. Both of which vote.

    In the world of the loony PC infected morons that escaped from the nuthouse years ago and joined the Labour Party, the Sun’s editorial staff, the BBC, turned to feminism or became David Cameron’s nanny, this conversation should have been banned years ago. The thought police hate stuff like this; but then, they would, this is normal life and they are nutters.

    As I waited for them to come down, I sat on the back door step enjoying the evening sounds around me and smoking a cigarette. Another taboo, beloved of Marxists and Fascists (This conglomeration is known as, “The Third Way.”) in the health service and government. As I dragged on my fag, I pondered that if global warming is real — and not just a way for business to get richer and government to impose carbon taxes on us once we have all been made to feel guilty enough — I might grow my own tobacco in the garden.

    As I thought of this, I had a vision of armed police smashing in the front door (they don’t learn about doorbells in police training camps) and bursting through the house and into the garden. There they forced me to lie down and practiced their, “resisting arrest restraint techniques” on me for five minutes or so and then, when I had regained consciousness, they told me my rights — none — and explained in the kindly way the British Bobby is famous for all over the tourist postcards, that I was, “F****** nicked under E.U. directive 1,245000,368.3 section 4h subsection 83m/b for being in possession, with intent to enjoy, a banned substance. Namely, tobacco.” I was then warned that anything I did not say would be made up and used in evidence against me and hauled before an unbiased Magistrate. Once there, I was sentenced to death by shooting for daring to place the National Health budget at risk, before I had time to say, “not guilty your PC-ness,” to the judge.

    The two reprobates I call friends arrived and as his wife drank her tea and chatted to me, Trev went off to find the DVD he wanted me to look at. After a while his shout of, “found it!” was the cue for us to file into the living room to watch it. Like a good subservient female dominated by the men around her and cowed by that domination, Trev’s misses led the way and I trotted on behind.

    In the living room I watched the DVD and then Trev got on his computer, copied off the segments I wanted and handed me the results. I thanked him. We all smoked a fag and then I left. All the way home I mercilessly beat myself with an invisible club for not washing the cups up, doing the housework and digging the garden before I left the poor helpless female in the company of her repressive patriarchal monster of a husband.

    At home I watched the segment and uploaded it to a file sharing site so others around the world could see it and store it. Another bit added to the pile of evidence to be used later.

    So ends another day in my humdrum life of trying to educate people about feminism, with some success, I might add. Of course I have my failures. Lots of journalists and BBC staff are too brainwashed to think for themselves and most of the political world is even worse — but not all of them. A few know what I am saying is right and some of those have got testicles big enough to fight back. Among the women I know there is a great new awareness growing up about just how conned they have been by feminists. One lady — I shall call her Pat — actually spat on the floor when I mentioned feminism to her and she said, “We should give them their own island and a lifetime supply of dildo’s and leave them to it.” She takes great exception to having her sons and daughter described in terms like this:

    “Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of semen…[Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny…”
    Cheryl Clarke, “Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance,” in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color, ed. Cherrie Moraga (Women of Color Press,1983), pp.128-137.

    Before I go, I want just to say that quite a few feminists got their knickers all bunched up because I said recently that business had conspired with feminists to drive women out of their homes in the late 50’s and early 60’s and beyond, by selling them the lie that if they went to work they would be free. To do this of course, it was necessary to back up the feminist idea that men treated women badly as a matter of routine and so they started to wind up women by making highly offensive adverts and putting them out on radio and TV. Giving the impression that all men thought as they were portrayed in the Ads. The amount of hate mail I got from the “sisters” was quite staggering, even for me. I love it when that happens. It means I have struck a nerve they would rather I did not talk about. Now, where did the idea come from that women were better off abandoning their families and young children and going off to slave away in factories and shops alongside the men, thus undermining one of the principle foundations of western civilisation, the family unit?

    Here is a clue. He was a Marxist.


    OK. Here you go….

    “The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.”
    Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (1942) p.67

    Has the penny dropped yet? Through business greed and Marxist infiltration, our society with its freedoms, its beloved institutions, its security and its history is slowly being taken over by Communism. Step by step. One of those steps is the stealing of children to be brought up by the State (Also known as “Village” politics) and that means removing their fathers.

    “The care of children infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation…[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women.”
    Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179

    Remember this?

    “It cannot therefore 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 or cohesion”.
    Anna Coote, Harriet Harman, & Patricia Hewitt. The Family Way

    Welcome to the revolution you did not see coming because it has taken 50 years to get here. Step by stealthy step. Coincidently, political correctness has Its origins in something called the Frankfurt School. Look them up on the Internet. Guess who they were.
    Guess what the aim of PC is.
    The destabilising of western society.

    So! Next time you hear about children being forcibly taken away from perfectly good parents because they are “too stupid.” Or, kids stabbing each other. Or, Muslims being let into the country in droves and then rampaging on the streets calling for the deaths of people they do not like. Or family courts removing all contact with children from their fathers. Just think about why it is all happening and then picture Harriet Harman as prime minister.

    Getting it now?

    I will leave you with this quote. As you read it, think about how the meaning of once innocent words are being changed in PC Britain. If you want your country back, YOU have to take it back and you cannot trust any politician currently in government or opposition to give it back. That means you have to vote them out or force them out by the courts and the use of common law and you have to take their place. What you are watching is treason taking place and YOU are the target of it. They are taking you for a fool and stealing your freedom, your families and your children while they do it.

    “All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. …
    The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan….
    The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.”
    Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

    And you thought feminism was a noble thing dedicated to giving women “equality” didn’t you?

    Study it and wake up! Think for yourself. They HATE that!

    George Rolph
    June 14th 09

  18. erin pizzey Says:

    I’m going to debate at the Oxford Union next week. The question is ‘did white middle class women betray the feminist movement? My answer is yes because the Marixt Feminists hi-jacked the movement from the beginning.

  19. erin pizzey Says:

    Home Secretary plans to further persecute men: ‘Jacqui Smith says that ’serial perpetrators’ could be monitored in a similar way to pedophiles. This and other new recommendations which include a ‘go order’ only apply to men. Serial perpetrators will be put lists like sex offenders and women can demand to see if her new partner is on the list. Anyone can make allegations against any man and there is no need for verification. The ‘go orders’ mean that a man can be ousted from his home and his family and made to stay away for an indefinite amount of time again without any evidence needed. This plan is backed by the Police. I think this is a very serious abuse of power by women in power in England. The men in Parliament and in the House of Lords are ignoring the issue. Recently Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill has been in the House of Lords it is now back in the House of Commons and will for the first time practice reverse discrimination against men. Employers will have to favour women against men. I see these things happening and feel so helpless. I spoke to the conservative Peers in the House of Lords and warned them that they would have to fight back but it looks as if they lost. Sometimes I can’t believe I live in these times and these things are happening and everybody except those of you on this site are asleep.

  20. public schools in mississippi Says:

    Why didn’t you say all this in the 1970’s? If you are so instrumental to the buildings of shelters then you also must have had a lot to do with pushing the notions that the shelters be used only for women and children. I applaud your efforts now, but isn’t it YOUR damage that you are trying to undo? If you’d researched the problem in 1971, perhaps those shelters you opened would have been available to the men that we now know existed back then, battered and abused just as the women you tried to help were. Your situation then reminds me of the women who violently protested for the vote in 1917…..while at that very moment, thousands of men and boys who didn’t have the right to vote lay face down in the mud in France. Those women didn’t demand voting rights for those men who died by the thousands, just for themselves.

    Also, did your book on DV cover the entire issue, or just men beating women?

  21. My Evolution From Feminism to the Pro-Male Movement Says:

    […] Re: My Evolution From Feminism to the Pro-Male Movement Great post. You should read Erin Pizzey’s blog posts here: Sandra Orozco-Stapleton Foundation Erin Pizzey This Way To The Revolution - Part 1. She talks about a similar experience. […]

  22. Mike Says:

    “Men’s rights activists must wake up and realize that the time for trying to counter the hypocrisy with rationality – with essentially male arguments, using facts and truth, in the hope that sense will prevail – is not going to make any difference to the relentless feminist long march on men” -Herbert Purdy ICMI-16

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2007 Erin Pizzey, All Rights Reserved