Domestic goddess or domestic victim?

I believe two woman a week are killed in Britain by their husband/partner. I don't think men realise how easy it is to kill by squeezing the throat. I think I understand the objection to the use of 'domestic violence' - it makes it sound as if in some way it is different from other violence. (As, indeed, the police treated it until fairly recently).

Stansgran I can't believe you mean she somehow "deserves" this? That's like going back to the Dark Ages, justifying violence by men towards their woman. What on earth did you mean?
(PS I take the point about domestic somehow qualifying the term violence but the domus or home should be the place where a person is safest which makes it even worse.)

"Domestic" makes it sound cosy and on a small scale. Violence is violence, whether it is in the home or on the street.

I doubt that Nigella Lawson needed to find 'a safe billet' when she re-married. She's well able to support herself and her children through her TV shows and her cook books. It's not as if she comes from an impoverished background either.

She may have wanted to find an emotionally safe billet. As others have said, she has spoken about being abused by her mother during her childhood and she and her chidren had suffered the death of husband/ father. She may have thought Saatchi would love and nurture all of them. It seems she has been badly let down. I hope she will have the strength to leave him for good, and to realise that she does not need such an excuse of a man in her life. The look on her face in those photos is quite heartbreaking.

I am not sure whether it would have been less humiliating if it had been done in private - but then, there would not have been any evidence. I am saddened that no man in the restaurant felt able to tell Saatchi to desist - perhaps it tells us something about the clientele.

Despite what many people believe, domestic abuse is not due to the abuser’s loss of control over his behaviour. Domestic abuse is a deliberate choice made by the abuser. In this way it differs from other forms of violence where control is usually lost.

I find it heartbreaking too, nightowl. There have been loads of jokes in our family about Nigella's 'attributes' - never mind her recipes. Her books are on our shelves and we laugh at any caricatures. Harry Hill's weekly jokes used to have us in stiches but I was horrified when I saw the pictures.

Nigella and her children have already been through the heartbreak of her first husband's death. I hope she realises Charles Saatchi is a brute she doesn't need.

Very true Aka. Men who abuse their wives are very rarely unable to control their anger on the streets, or against other men. It is a convenient excuse to say it is their anger that is to blame, as though it had a life of its own. And before anyone jumps on me, I do know that domestic abuse (I don't like the term either) can be perpetrated by women against men, and is equally inexcusable. However, women are more likely than men to die as a result.

The Domestic in the title does have a purpose as it indicates that this abuse goes on inside a relationship and that the relationship itself is central to this.

Many abusive people, men or women can seem to be very well regarded and successful professionals and this abusive behaviour only occurs within a relationship.

Abuse rather than violence is the more useful term as it describes a range of unacceptable behaviour which may not include physical assault.

Very true.

He has 'accepted' a police caution - as if he had a choice!

I believe Nigella has left the family home. Let's hope she's strong enough to follow this through.

Dead right I'd be embarrassed if I witnessed something like that - "Embarrass: to cause confusion and shame to; make uncomfortably self-conscious; disconcert". Whether he gets away with it or not has very little to do with someone snapping away on their phone. If I was on the receiving end of it I'd also be embarrassed and that would be and aid and encouragement to get out of the relationship. To me embarrassment in a situation like this is an understandable response.

As they say on Mumsnet - LTB. (Leave the bastard)

if this is an example of his behaviour in public I dread to think what happens in private.

I can't understand the people who took photos but did nothing to intervene. I know people are wary of getting involved but there are some situations you just don't ignore.

My brother in law was passing an alley one night when he heard a woman calling for help, he went to investigate and found 2 men attacking a woman, he immediately waded in and as a result saved the woman from rape. In the course of the fight he lost his front teeth, but considers it a price worth paying. (He was later able to identify the men and they were both imprisoned).

Well done your brother-in-law, sunseeker. Good man!

If I'd seen Saatchi and Nigella I hope I would have gone over and asked her if she was allright. I hope I would. It's what I would want to do, but I don't know how brave I'd be really.

I don't understand the title of this thread. Why would it have to be either/or? Surely, becoming a victim of abuse doesn't take away what you are.

Agree with you Jingle. She remains a domestic goddess. I know she irritates with her provocative phrases (inner thigh wibble!) and flirtatious eye batting, but people are genuinely fond of her and feel quite protective of her, judging by the comments about this incident.

I read some Mumsnet posts, which say it like it is. I hope she's read them, too. Leave the bastard, Nigella! There'll be a queue of suitors lining up, if you feel inclined to pick a gentle man. Personally, I would take this as an opportunity to enjoy my own company and stay safe whilst I got to know my own strengths.

It very often does jo, that's why victims of domestic abuse keep going back for more, on average dozens of times, before they snap and ask for help.

Just meant to be an eye-catching thread title - a play on words OK?

It worked gracesmum

Both my OH and my SIL said they would have lumped the Bastard. Didn't matter who or where they were.

Can I ask a question that will probably bring tons of abuse on my head? Why does anybody continue to go out, let alone marry, someone who shows even the slightest sign of being controlling/abusive? I say people because there is another thread from a mother with a son with an abusive controlling (female) partner.

I only once went out with a long time friend who, once we started dating, showed in the first few dates elliptical signs of a controlling personality that I hadn't seen before and I immediately moved our relationship back into friend/acquaintance mode. When some years later I heard he was married, my immediate feeling was that his wife was taking a risk.

I have had friends and acquaintances who have married controlling men. Two of the women had continuing mental health issues, the third I never understood, her husband's family had a history of domestic violence and her secure loving home background presented no obvious explanation for her risking marrying a man with a worrying past, she was a beautiful caring woman and never lacked admirers.

flickety, it's complicated.

That's the simple answer. The problem isn't as simple as your question would seem to suppose. Or so I have understood from what others have said on this subject.