Women’s domestic abuse charity loses funding

[SaddenedByThis]

Aibu to be really upset by this?

Sorry, I know it’s a Sun link but I came across this on Facebook and I’m appalled.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/14129416/domestic-abuse-charity-gender-neutral/

Women’s Aid boss Nicki Norman, said: 'We are at serious risk of losing our network of refuges run by women for women'.

This isn't about trans people. They lost their funding because they didn't cater to men.

Even though they said they could extend to do that.

This is the continuation of the corporatisation of the this sector. The larger orgs are able to offer a whole load of stuff and they focus on getting the funding (IE expanding) and will be spending money on professionals to develop their sales pitches.

They will also know all the current buzz words etc and also I suspect they are cheaper (scale).

What is lost is the grass roots, people on the ground. Who have set these things up often because of a personal link and have a deep understanding of the issues. They don't have an expansion model or a corporate level pitch. They have their track record of helping but, well. The council sees flashier cheaper and there you go.

The thing I find interesting with this is that my (limited) understanding is that different services are needed for different groups of people.

My understanding is that often men are in a different financial situation and the risks of DV are different. There's also the children factor. And it's generally agreed that different types of help is required.

Will this be delivered by the new company? Do they have a truly in depth understanding when it comes to the needs and barriers around DV for women v men, gay men/ lesbians, trans people? Isn't it better for these services to be provided by grass roots groups who really understand, and aren't those groups often happier talking to people who are also in that group?

It all seems pretty off.

If men need help then have some stuff for men. There are charities for men, grass roots ones.

It all seems wonky. I think women will have to start again without assistance from government somehow.

I also find it very weird that the sun seem to be picking up on this stuff! But there you go.

Why don't trans women campaign for their own refuges

The article doesn’t mention trans women. It mentions trans men.

Most refuges are self contained units with their own kitchens/kitchenettes and bathrooms these days anyway.

It happens all the time. Smaller charities loose funding all the time.

@NiceGerbil

You are pretty much everything in your post is bang-on with regard to how I'm experiencing it in my field.

Corporatisation, yep.

Economy of Scale, yep, enormously attractive to LA's who are not above cuts to agreed funding even half way through contracted terms. Their attitude if you challenge this is 'sue us'. Seriously.

Loss of specialist knowledge as grass roots orgs fold, yep, you betcha.

Ah it's ok the comments are more like what you'd expect!

Women wanted equality now they've got it, ha!

been having a bit of a rummage around because I'm keen to try and find out a bit more background as to Brighton Council's thinking behind this process and their decision.

Information is a bit sparse, especially so in relation to the Council's viewpoint, but the article linked below appears to imply that the entire tendering process was carried out by an 'independent procurement service' on the Council's behalf, which I find utterly baffling if that is indeed the case. Funnily enough, before I did what I do now, I actually worked in procurement, and I can not imagine how anyone would conclude that this is the sort of service that can be commissioned by anyone other than people who have an intrinsic understanding of the nature of what is required, what purpose it serves, who it is providing to etc, but this is Council business after all, and having dealt with them myself on a long-term basis, absolutely nothing would surprise me.

www.theargus.co.uk/news/19089879.rise-brighton-loses-13-million-seven-year-contract/

Councillor Druitt said: “It’s much better for Brighton and Hove City Council to run our own procurement and that is something we have committed to do.

“This situation won’t be able to happen again because we will run our own procurement with our own values and our own emphasis that we place on social value and the third sector and its role in the community.”

That just beggars belief.

It's also a very valid point being made that they decision to just press on with the retendering process during the Covid pandemic is also extremely puzzling. No doubt the previous contract would have been for a fixed period and scheduled to end in March 2021, but they've had almost a year to ponder this. It could have been provisionally extended on existing terms for at least twelve more months until things have settled down. I know this, because I've seen it done in circumstances that were far less challenging than the current crisis.

Sounds like its a typical Council shitshow all around.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

They have to let you know (well probable don’t tell you till you arrive) that men will be there too

This isn't how it works where I am. The same provider provides the service to both women and transpeople, but the refuges themselves are still very much 'women only' spaces, staffed by women, inhabited by exclusively women, and so on. Facilities for transwomen are still entirely separate an in a totally different location.

This misconception arose when provision for counselling for sexual assault and rape victims was recommissioned as well. People jumped to the conclusion that because the organisation offering counselling to women also had the tender for transpeople, that women would be sent to see transwoman counsellors, have to use the same building as trans victims and so on. It simply was not true. Victims are still matched with a counsellor on stated preference, and the counselling for and by trans people takes place on a specific, dedicated day. Trans and non trans victims are never in the building at the same time.

I don't know of a single organisation that would expect a female victim to be counselled by a transwoman. It would be egregiously bad practice to foist an unwelcome counsellor upon a service user without their express consent, and it's certainly not something any of the organisations I refer people on to would countenance.

This is not true. Look up Mridul Wadhwa who lied to get a job in a rape crisis centre In Scotland. In 2019 MYrdal made this astonishing statement in an interview.

Most importantly, rape crisis centres are spaces for those affected by sexual violence, most of whom are women. The Student asked Wadhwa if she believes a man could be a successful rape crisis centre manager. She does not: “I don’t think men are ready to go out and set up services of this nature. Women’s aid organisations and rape crisis centres have been set up with the blood, sweat, and tears of women. It’s about the women’s experience of sexual violence. Our workforce is reserved for women only.”

Mridul also said

Another thing that we should be thinking about is what happened after the disclosure. The whole decision as to what happens after the disclosure is up to the survivor. They should remain in complete control of that experience and as a friend I would recommend that you enable that control. Whether they report to the police or not is their decision.

Mridul took the control away from rape survivors by not disclosing that their counselor was a transwoman. Some women would not have minded but those who might have minded did not have the choice.

It really shouldn't be about how well you pass. What sort of society says it is OK to lie and take away other people's choice just to validate your own feelings?

What part of it is 'not true'?

Mridul lied and engaged in deceit.

I'm talking about official policy, best practice, and what actually happens in places that are run by honest people who are not engaging in lying and deceitful practice.

You can't use one outlier exception to imply that it either must go on everywhere, or that it's the tip of the iceberg and a sign of some sort of nefarious, insidious concerted plot. It doesn't and it isn't. It's the tale of one rogue individual acting completely outside of all accepted good practice.

What sort of society says it is OK to lie and take away other people's choice just to validate your own feelings?

None that I recognise, which is likely why Mridul's behaviour has met with universal revulsion and condemnation.

Men don't have safe places to be away from abusive women either. My council only provide a helpline for women.
The consensus is that women are always the victims. Why not provide a refuge for everyone.

@Boredoutmymind

Men don't have safe places to be away from abusive women either. My council only provide a helpline for women. The consensus is that women are always the victims. Why not provide a refuge for everyone.

I do think there should be help available to everyone. I’m not saying men and trans men/women shouldn’t be helped. Just not at the expense of women. I think it’s very important that women have safe, men free, spaces where they can go, should they need to.

None that I recognise, which is likely why Mridul's behaviour has met with universal revulsion and condemnation.

Not at all. Mridul has been lauded by Scottish politicians, is women's officer for a branch of the SNP, has written for the guardian, and has given lots of interviews, and was even given a place on the SNPs all women shortlist for Stirling. Only those nasty radical feminists have condemned Mridul's behaviour in any way.

@Boredoutmymind

Men don't have safe places to be away from abusive women either. My council only provide a helpline for women. The consensus is that women are always the victims. Why not provide a refuge for everyone.

Did you read the article? The overwhelming majority of people who need these services are women who were abused by men?

No one wants one generic refuge for everyone where women are in with men. That would be extremely unsafe as many abusive men phone DV hotlines claiming they are being abused.

Very few heterosexual men need a refuge place. Most local authorities provide them with individual emergency accommodation and a DV support worker.

There is a very severe shortage of refuge places for women especially those who have come over on a spousal visa and therefore have no recourse to public funds and disabled women. Providing equal places in refuges for different groups is not giving people equal treatment if DV does not impact on people equally.

It also shows that there is a race to the bottom to provide the cheapest services possible rather than thinking of the needs of those who will access the refuge.

@NiceGerbil

This isn't about trans people. They lost their funding because they didn't cater to men.

Even though they said they could extend to do that.

This is the continuation of the corporatisation of the this sector. The larger orgs are able to offer a whole load of stuff and they focus on getting the funding (IE expanding) and will be spending money on professionals to develop their sales pitches.

They will also know all the current buzz words etc and also I suspect they are cheaper (scale).

What is lost is the grass roots, people on the ground. Who have set these things up often because of a personal link and have a deep understanding of the issues. They don't have an expansion model or a corporate level pitch. They have their track record of helping but, well. The council sees flashier cheaper and there you go.

The thing I find interesting with this is that my (limited) understanding is that different services are needed for different groups of people.

My understanding is that often men are in a different financial situation and the risks of DV are different. There's also the children factor. And it's generally agreed that different types of help is required.

Will this be delivered by the new company? Do they have a truly in depth understanding when it comes to the needs and barriers around DV for women v men, gay men/ lesbians, trans people? Isn't it better for these services to be provided by grass roots groups who really understand, and aren't those groups often happier talking to people who are also in that group?

It all seems pretty off.

If men need help then have some stuff for men. There are charities for men, grass roots ones.

It all seems wonky. I think women will have to start again without assistance from government somehow.

This!

I posted a couple of weeks ago about the refuges the community charity groups I work/volunteer for is run. All was well at that time. We have a women only refuge, it is run by and for women only. There is another refuge about 10 miles away that caters for more. Anyone can access its services, male, female, trans. There are individual and groups spaces that can be opted into/out of. It is closer to town and we run regular minibuses between sites.

And now we are having a funding challenge. It is not, it seems, good enough to have spaces for everyone across sites, we must be inclusive at each site We have, apparently, a disparity of provision! Well yes, because about 90% of our clients who flee their homes are female, many with kids. When given a choice of sites they choose the women only site.

We are having a crisis meeting this week. We may decide to tell the council that we need to rethink our relationship with them, but want to be sure we won't cut off our relationship with various people, social service, NHS etc.

I have worked/volunteered here for over 20 years. From Smoking cessation, community health, literacy sessions, legal and social support and the foodbank I have spent time in many of the separate charities that make up the loose knit community hub. And now this determined focus on inclusivity at all times is threatening almost all of our services.

For example we have a reading group. It started almost by accident, a group of young mums started to wait near the library whilst waiting for their kids to come out of school. Some had younger kids and they would wait in the library if it as wet or cold. They started to sit in a corner and read books to their kinds and chat. So we helped make it more organised for them, got a bit of funding and arranged for a literacy tutor to visit them. It has been a real success. It has been written up as a Best Practice grass roots situation.

But now we think that the little bit of funding it has will be withdrawn because it has never had a male participant.

My current argument is that we also have a group for men. It is based at the back of a newsagents, quite out of sight. It's where young men hang out to be "cold and anti social" - as one of them expained it a few years ago. They now have an indoor space and a range of people dropping in, a grief counsellor is the most used support there. It is what they want, what they use. No women use that service. It's funding has not been targetted. That's great because it is a great service. But the inequity is so easy to see it is hard to look at counsellors who refuse to acknowledge it.

Sorry, I'll stop. I could rage for a few hours at this point. I am making notes to take with me later.

I fully support women needing a safe space from DV. however Womens Aid are an awful charity, they simply take the word of the woman that goes to them with no evidence to a abuse. As they claim that the woman for whatever reason believes they are a victim of abuse. In my current situation, the one claiming to be a victim is actually the abuser, the victim is getting no official support (legal aid, solicitors, police support) as both women's aid and the police have said he can't possibly be the victim as he is a man. The gender bias goes both ways and with regards to abuse accusations evidence should always be required. Both women's aid and the police have been disgusting in their treatment of the victim

So much for #webelieveyou

One woman does not negate the whole service.

One liar does not negate the real issues.

@Mynotsoperfectlittlefamily

I fully support women needing a safe space from DV. however Womens Aid are an awful charity, they simply take the word of the woman that goes to them with no evidence to a abuse. As they claim that the woman for whatever reason believes they are a victim of abuse. In my current situation, the one claiming to be a victim is actually the abuser, the victim is getting no official support (legal aid, solicitors, police support) as both women's aid and the police have said he can't possibly be the victim as he is a man. The gender bias goes both ways and with regards to abuse accusations evidence should always be required. Both women's aid and the police have been disgusting in their treatment of the victim

So your answer to dealing with one particular case is that women-only services should close taking away that support for all the genuine women who are abused (predominately by men) and open a service open to everyone?

If you open a gender inclusive service, how does that mean the man will get more support and the women proven a ‘liar’? Why don’t you spend more time lobbying for men’s only services instead?

This is the link to the petition. Please all sign and share

www.change.org/p/brighton-hove-city-council-rise-up-bring-our-women-s-refuge-home

twitter.com/risejogo/status/1363868637317185539?s=19

And anyone on Twitter can support them here.

Brighton council is now Green Party run so residents should get used to crappy anti women policies.

@TrialOfStyle
Like I said I fully support women's services and especially DV support. But they should not just be taking it on her word

@Proudboomer

Brighton council is now Green Party run so residents should get used to crappy anti women policies.

Exactly this, what do you expect with the Greens in charge? People think the Greens are a nice safe alternative to the mainstream parties, but they are just as bad as them. Voting for the Greens isn't just a statement that you want to protect the environment, it is a statement that you want to promote trans rights over women's rights and the abolishment of all gender division, which includes so-called safe spaces.

What has also come out from some digging is that the new provider - Stonewater housing association - has a 20% pay disparity between its male and female employees.
Lack of money is a huge impediment to women leaving abusive relationships. But in all events any organisation that is intent on equality as seems to be the case here should be ensuring pay equality across their workforce

There's some pretty anti-women comments under that article

That FrankD who is commenting is about as Incel-y as they come. He even brought up men being laughed at by women.......