MNHQ here: Femicide Census - want to know what you could do to help?

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Lots of you have been discussing the Femicide Census this week - the data for 2018 has just been released and has been getting some coverage in the media.

We asked Nia, the charity that supports the Femicide Census, what MNHQ could do to help support their work - and they sent us this email. Of course we at MNHQ will be happy to do what we can, so expect to see more about this from us, but for now it felt as though the most useful thing we could do would be to pass this on directly to you - so here goes:

"In terms of supporting our work – it is often just really helpful to have people talking about the issue, referring to the femicide census, retweeting etc – it’s about keeping the issue at the forefront of people’s minds and in particular using language that situates the blame clearly with the perpetrators and recognises it as part of the wider pattern of sex based inequality and discrimination.

As we said in our press release endless excuses and rationales are afforded to perpetrators – he had mental health issues, he was depressed, he was upset at the relationship ending, he had lost his job, he had been declared bankrupt, he was being investigated by the police, he couldn’t cope any more, he found it too distressing to see his wife/mother/child suffer yet all too often if you question it you find he had a history of controlling or abusive behaviour .

All these conditions apply to the millions of women who do not control, abuse, belittle or kill people. Even where the man kills his child somehow it’s her fault. We always scrutinise women’s behaviour and their conformity to some stereotyped, fossilised code of behaviour expected of women and benefitting men and blame her if she is not conforming to that fantasy. So anything your users can do to challenge such misrepresentations or misplaced emphasis or unreasonable rationales would be very helpful.

We also sometimes support relevant strategic litigation and in partnership with other women’s organisations we may attend Court hearings or raise a demo outside the court or similar. We know this makes a difference to the woman whose case it is – it shows her solidarity and we think it may also help build gravitas and credibility for the media and the judiciary so we sometimes tweet demos and welcome women coming along to that. We also undertake other activism – so we are usually present at Million Women Rise March or Reclaim the Night March and again we encourage such visible activism as part of a wider women’s movement.

Of course the other thing is that we always need donations so if women want to do fundraising activities, runs, swims, silences, cakebakes or whatever and raise money for us – we are delighted. We are not big enough to have a dedicated fundraiser role or a team supporting people in the way we would like but we can always provide information, logos, leaflets, links to relevant information about us or about the issue and we’ll support as much as we can – we retweet fundraisers who are doing activities for us and encourage it as much as possible.

Also women’s various workplaces or communities sometimes are looking for a charity to support or their workplace may match funds raised or encourage staff to do fundraising activities so it may be that there are other ways to multiply fundraising reach. Similarly if women are involved in organising or attending conferences and events where there may be demand for a speaker – within limited capacity and with enough notice - we may be able to come out and talk about our work or the femicide census or violence against women. The place to contact us for these sorts of things is [email protected] and we of course on Twitter - @nia_endingvawg

Thank you for all your support"

BTW we will be having Karen Ingala Smith on for a webchat next week so there will be a chance to talk directly to her about all of these issues

Will we actually be able to talk though? Or will questions be deleted as per the previous webchat?

Can we ask her directly what she thinks about women being censored and prevented from speaking the truth because it might be seen as 'uncivil'?

Will we be able to say that on this site women are prevented from 'using language that situates the blame clearly with the perpetrators and recognises it as part of the wider pattern of sex based inequality and discrimination' because it is not civil towards the perpetrators of violence and sex based discrimination?

@Binterested

But your civility is deeply offensive to me Rowan. Why is there a hierarchy of who we must be polite to ? None of this is polite to women.

Women make up most of Mumsnet's users and civility is what we aim for across the board, not only on FWR. There are plenty of classic Mumsnet bunfight scenarios (WOHM/SAHM, bf/ff, private/state schooling) where we will if necessary step in and remind people to play the ball and not the woman, because we think that leads to better discussions and more understanding. We talk about it more on FWR partly because we have so many conversations about our moderation on that topic which necessarily becomes a bit repetitive on our part, and partly because as we said previously we're under a lot of pressure from all sides and trying to explain our thinking to everyone. But the principle is the same everywhere.

@FemiLANGul

BTW we will be having Karen Ingala Smith on for a webchat next week so there will be a chance to talk directly to her about all of these issues

Will we actually be able to talk though? Or will questions be deleted as per the previous webchat?

Can we ask her directly what she thinks about women being censored and prevented from speaking the truth because it might be seen as 'uncivil'?

Will we be able to say that on this site women are prevented from 'using language that situates the blame clearly with the perpetrators and recognises it as part of the wider pattern of sex based inequality and discrimination' because it is not civil towards the perpetrators of violence and sex based discrimination?

From what we've seen Karen has strong views on this whole topic area herself so we'd expect some of the conversation to be along these lines, but - in precisely the way we have so signally failed to do on this thread - we will want to keep the webchat focused on the topic of male violence against women, which is after all the object of the Femicide Census and a deeply important subject for most MN users. We'll take a view about how many questions about self-ID etc to allow but our aim will be to ensure a topic of vital significance to our users doesn't get swamped.

Sorry Rowan I understand exactly what civility is and why we need it. I’ve seen you step in and say ‘not in the spirit’ and all that when people are arguing about BF vs FF or whatever. Quite right and I agree wholeheartedly with your approach.

But nowhere else do you enforce compelled speech. That is nothing to do with civility. You require me to lie and say that some women have penises. You won’t let us speak truthfully.

I’d argue that truthfulness on MN is one of its USPs. One of the things that makes it so bracing, so smart and so brilliant. From posters who carefully but firmly lead someone to see that they are being abused to threads about politics where opposing views are firmly tested. You don’t allow people to say spiteful things but these threads would be nothing without honesty between women. Think of LTB! No smooshing the message to make people feel better. The power is in the honesty.

I don’t want to be rude or hurtful to anybody. I don’t want to retweet rude limericks or tell someone they make a ugly woman. If all you did was delete posts like that I’d be right behind you. But you are not doing that. You want me to say that some women have penises. Not the criminal TW - those we can admit are men. But the non criminal ones. Those women have penises.

This is not what civility means.

in precisely the way we have so signally failed to do on this thread - we will want to keep the webchat focused on the topic of male violence against women,

Which is exactly what we have been focusing on here. But it seems that the violence committed by some men is not to be spoken about, or if we do, we have to do it in a way that isnt "uncivil" to them. It's nothing to do with self ID.

We cant always use "language that situates the blame clearly with the perpetrators and recognises it as part of the wider pattern of sex based inequality and discrimination."

How are we to "challenge such misrepresentations or misplaced emphasis or unreasonable rationales" when it comes to scrutinizing the different behaviours exhibited by males and females if we cant state facts?

I really dont see how MN can post that statement by Nia whilst denying women the opportunity to speak about the points raised in it!

Nia are very clear about naming men's violence and the CEO has taken quite a risk to do so, I am glad MN has covered and promoted this. I agree that whilst we need to make the point about naming the problem, it's important not to let yet another important piece of feminist work be derailed by this argument. Women have spent too long getting dragged into these other arguments at the expense of our own agenda.

focused on the topic of male violence against women, which is after all the object of the Femicide Census and a deeply important subject for most MN users. We'll take a view about how many questions about self-ID etc to

I am feeling pretty frustrated and insulted at the insistence that these are two separate things.

The point is that we can no longer honestly talk about one without getting shut down, deleted, and banned, because of the other.

We're happy to talk honestly and frankly, but we are continually brought down over it.

I think the truth is there has been a loss of moral authority here. I understand the delicate line you are trying to tread but the fact is you have chosen a particular path and some sacrifices come with that. This is one of them.

If you’d chosen a different path you might perhaps have sacrificed some commercial success (not a negligible consideration I realise). You might also have suffered some unfair abuse from certain sections of society. Also horrible.

But you chose this path. Fair enough.

But since it is MNHQ’s choice, you need to own it and accept the consequences. That means women telling you how angry they are that on a thread about male violence they can’t speak truthfully.

Thanks for all your posts - the points made have given us a lot of food for thought.

Just one thing we'd like to stress, in terms of what we 'allow' (or not); moderating decisions are always contextual, and the tone of posts is really important. Civility isn't just in individual words, it can be an attitude that shines off a post, and when it does it makes us that bit more minded to leave that post alone.

Just one thing we'd like to stress, in terms of what we 'allow' (or not); moderating decisions are always contextual, and the tone of posts is really important. Civility isn't just in individual words, it can be an attitude that shines off a post, and when it does it makes us that bit more minded to leave that post alone

But that's also quite contextual and is hard to navigate under a 3 strikes rule.

I always found Lang Cleg's posts clear, reasonable and of an appropriate tone. Yet, she got the chop.

This goes beyond modding for me though. For me, it is about actively campaigning to call a spade a spade in terms of biology in all public fora.

3 women a week are killed. Normally by a man they know. Often by a man with a history of domestic violence.

Many women are raped Yet there are few rape prosecutions.

We should be asking where the funding is for shelters. What is happening to relationship education in schools? What is the impact of toxic masculinity?
What can men do to stop this?
Will the police take it seriously?
The courts have been decimated.

Sadly most women are killed by someone they know.

Maybe @MNHQ should just issue a trigger warning for the whole of the feminism forum, and then just leave us to speak how we like?
If someone wants to seek out sources of 'offensive' thought crimes, then they can't complain when they find it.

It's not derailing to talk about safeguarding.

If anyone seriously wants to tackle violence and abuse, safeguarding has to be front and centre.

Avoiding subjects for fear of causing offence leaves big blind spots. Thse are difficult, complex and often upsetting things to discuss, I understand that. They affect very, very many people, from personal histories and from present circumstances.

But we can't tackle them if we can't talk straight about some of the fundamental aspects of the issue. We can skirt round them, say how awful things are, offer bunches of virtual flowers. But if we can't name and address certain issues for fear of being labelled offensive, this risks creating dangerous blind spots, which weakens safeguarding overall.

I'm by no means an expert on this, I'm doing my best to learn. Another reason clear, reasoned informative posts are so valuable on MN.

I have every sympathy for HQ, I really do.

This is however the crux of every woman's issue. There's a thread in FWR at the moment that female violence has tripled in a decade.

The response is - to shrug. Because crime is now recorded by personal choice of sex identity rather than biology, so 'female' doesn't mean female any longer. So an ability to see any real societally relevant information for women is gone. There is no way to trace patterns, meet women's needs, identify what has happened and why to change things. The data is now meaningless. Pointless. Just a very expensive waste of time. Not to mention the issue of female people being blamed for crimes that weren't female ones at all (#notourcrimes) and this being used as a long favoured tool of MRAs to justify reducing female provision and sex based rights on the grounds that 'women are just as bad'.

Why has this happened? Because it was felt more important to be individually and superficially 'kind' than to face up to the issues involved, the big pictures, and to look at the needs of women as a class group. This is oppression of women in action. Not talking about it doesn't make it go away, it just causes whanging great cognitive dissonance.

I just don't understand the phrase "her penis"; I find it offensive and, if you like, uncivil. Sorry.

I don't understand the phrase "she exposed her penis" either. Is this a woman who owns a penis, keeps it on a shelf under a cloth but takes it out and waves it about sometimes? I just don't understand how this phrase can exist in the context of serious debate. Sorry.

I have just been reading a newspaper article today reporting the fact that more women's and domestic violence support groups have had state funding withdrawn because they refuse to admit biological males into their refuges. How can this issue be addressed if it cannot be discussed in plain English?
This is already happening in Canada and the fallout is dreadful.

I can get on board with being civil to a person with whom I am actually speaking, but how do I civilly talk about a predator who has a fetish about young girls and tampons!? I am not sure how to discuss such a vile person, who is not actually there, in a civil way?!
On the boards, face-to-face, following the guidelines of no personal attacks, then yes; I can be civil.

How can you be civil to an idea??

We find ourselves in tye most ridiculous state of affairs where women actually at risk cannot speak, cannot have safe spaces in refuges and are 'not allowed' to get angry at men who call their penis female.

Is that a real sentence, cognitive dissonance just goes off the scale, thats abuse.

In what world can a penis ever be female? Penis is used to rape, except when its a 'female' penis.

The two issues are deliberately interwoven as a means of destroying any platform for women to stand upon.

No sex stats, no sex crimes.

We find ourselves in tye most ridiculous state of affairs where women actually at risk cannot speak, cannot have safe spaces in refuges and are 'not allowed' to get angry at men who call their penis female.

This is exactly the state of affairs that some RWM wanted. Women, know your place.

I think there is a huge issue in understanding the why around male violence. I don't just want to understand the effect of patriarchy on men, I want to understand its effect on women. We know that women are overwhelmingly the victims of male violence and that there is learned behaviour which makes women fail to recognise abusive men before they get their claws into them. NB I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT VICTIM BLAMING.

Some of that includes telling women (overtly or covertly) that we should:

• be kind
• not upset men
• recognise that men have sexual needs (not wants, needs )
• mistrust our own point of view if a man disagrees with us
• prioritise a man's feeling over ours
• try and make it work for the sake of the children
• support men in their professional achievements
• not make a fuss

There's lots more.

One of the most valuable ways for women to unlearn those behaviours, to stand up against male abuse, is for women to talk to one another in female only spaces. Women together can unlearn all that shit. But we cannot do that if people with penises are in that space too. Then it is no longer a women only space and the power and strength is just washed away.

Thank you for listening regarding the Femicide Census. I posted the original thread(s) highlighting the latest release and so many posters were shocked that it was not headline news on every news bulletin/paper that day.

I know you say you are NOT victim blaming, but there are many conmen out there who convince and earn trust, and often nothing actually starts until theres a clear power hold, like marriage, pregnancy, coerced out of promotions, full time work, gradually sidelined from friends, its slow and insidious, so yes, blaming women for 'not seeing it' is blaming women.

You don't know if someone starts lying to you until a pattern develops (or they're shit liars!).

These men fool police, solicitors (who work with them all the time), courts, social workers, everyone, they are often highly manioulative/persuasive, and it can be a real shock and alternate state of mind to adopt that the person you love isn't who you thought he was (because he was so good at convincing you he was someone else).

Bullying in school is high profile at the moment, teaching children the red flags, over and over will equip children to be armed and protected from it, but often bullies are kept in their classes and its, as usual, the victims who have to be uprooted because even teachers and schools run scared of child bullies it seems .

Yes, women and children are killed, but also womens and children's lives are destroyed, beyond repair, or severely limited, which is also the end of purposeful living and die of many related conditions.

The stats for this vast damage don't exist. The stats for the cost on childrens mental health, and life potential, NHS costs of treating, whole professional teams, policing.

Yes, we have stats on death, and reports to police, but not women who kill themselvss, or die from starvation, as a result, or drug and alcohol abuse trying to cope, forced pregnancies, forced abortions, the cost is vast and unmeasured.

I'd like to note that what we're told as a society about 'romance' and being swept off our feet, 'rescued' , etc feeds neatly into a narrative that suits abusive men very well.

So I think we should look at all the messages we're giving children, sexist stereotyping, etc.

Theres also that trope about the damaged, violent man who just needs to unwavering love of a woman to 'fix him' and make him a better man.