An argument I have heard far too often of late is that feminists and others misuse the term violence’. The general position of some is that only ‘real’ violence should be a concern: that resulting in bodily injury or death. Anything that does not result is of a lesser seriousness, if it should be regarded at all. Obviously one aspect of this ridiculousness is to regard the fears of women and others. The response is usually, and quite justifiably, to enquire if people need to die before anyone will act on an issue.
The opposing *male* position is that these groups are trying to manipulate language to their own end. Firstly, there is of course nothing wrong with this. Language is malleable. But the objection is also based on falsehood. I’m no expert, but I recall that many of those charged with violence and condemned to the Inferno of Dante hadn’t been physically so (we looked into it as part of a pub conversation about where exactly in hell we’d expect to find ourselves. Which probably tells you more about us than the actual results of the ‘research’). The blasphemous were deemed to be violent against god, and homosexuals and other sexual ‘deviants’ violent against nature. So even if I can’t win an argument with these fools on any more reasonable grounds, at least I can pedantically point out that the notion of non-physical violence has been knocking around for at least a few centuries.