'normal for the 70s'...

[gangstersandhoodlums]

I have name-changed.

I work in broadcasting and had a conversation with a group of men I work with today, about the recent cases where historical abuse has been reported and resulted in a court case.

Almost wholly they believe that the women reporting the abuse are doing it for money. I am not sure what they would think if it were men reporting abuse like those in the care homes in North Wales for example.

One of my workmates is old enough to have worked in broadcasting at the same time as people like Dave Lee Travis and says it was absolutely considered the norm to grab women and fondle them in the queue at lunchtime (this was the specific example he gave) and that it was an accepted part of the culture of the times. I asked him if it was just women being groped and he said yes and accepted that it was unacceptable but pressed the point that back then it was 'normal'. Or at least that people never questioned it and women never complained. He said work Christmas parties are so tame compared to how they used to be - the scene he describes was one where women were dragged into cupboards and fondled by their co-workers.

I tried to explain to them that just because the women didn't make complaints it didn't mean they were happy to be treated that way and that many people coming forward would be doing so because they now believe they will be taken seriously.

As a victim of abuse myself (Attempted - as a child) I am considering talking to the police about what happened to me, just because the thought of this (Now dead) man getting away with it makes me really angry. he was actually taken to court but escaped without charge. I want to tell my story for the sake of those people who didn't get justice.

Anyway - sorry for the rambling, my question is: Does anyone have any links to any blogs or information about why it is so important to report historic abuse if you want to, and why these women are not just liars trying to get money?

many thanks in advance and sorry for the length.

Also interested in any views on why men believe that it is OK for them to target 50% of the population, why a woman's personal space doesn't need to be respected etc.

It's terrifying when I think back to growing up in the 70s and early 80s - my main hobby (which I loved and still love) involved trips away and overnight courses. It was not considered unusual for male tutors to have sexual relationships with girls in their teens, and while I knew that was "ick" it would never in a million years have occurred to me to report the carryings on to the police. Not because I didn't realise it was wrong, but because the times being what they were, you couldn't see what would be done about it. Thank heavens for the times changing. (And on a personal level, thank heavens for being a late-developing ugly duckling who never got preyed on - it makes my heart break for the girls who were abused, though).

Yes sexual abuse of women and girls was 'normal' in the 70s, normal for abusers. I am so glad those days are over. One of my friends is of that age and she absolutely hated all that, was called 'uptight' and worse for saying no.

Is there any actual evidence that the women who came forward about past abuse have been given money by anyone?

MrsS - no evidence whatsoever, I should think.

In response to OP, I think Beertricks got it right - even if you came up with cast iron evidence they wouldn't want to accept it, because they were the gropers back then, and they will not be prepared to accept that what they did was sexual assault rather than "a bit of a lark."

The real issue is the underlying feeling or acceptance. it seems to me that the only reason men don't do these things now is because of the social stigma or changing acceptability. But does that mean that they have changed their own attitudes? I just don't think so. if they could get away with it - they still would.

I agree, whatdoesittake48. It does seem as if a lot of people (both male and female) are reacting to these cases like this:

1. It happened all the time back then but it wasn't a big deal because women knew how to handle themselves. They managed just fine by slapping a groper on the hand (or stubbing out a cigarette, as Ann Leslie said last week on PM) or kneeing them in the groin. Why all the fuss now?

1. Well, OK, some of them didn't know how to handle themselves and things went a bit too far. That was just bad luck but frankly it's all been a long time and they should have got over it by now.

1. It wouldn't happen now because that kind of thing gets treated so seriously now! Honestly, nobody has any fun any more.

It makes me furious. It shouldn't have happened then and I am delighted to see the alleged worst offenders in court now. The scandal is that it took this long.

I've always wondered that, MrsS - where is "the money" supposedly coming from for those that report? Maybe if people were threatening to report unless they were paid off - but then, by definition, we wouldn't hear about those.

And anyway, even if every person to whom this happened got £10k compensation or whatever - then a crime would still have been committed! If a burglar steals my telly and turns out to be a minor celeb. I might get a few quid from the daily mail for a story but it doesn't mean I wasn't burgled.

It does seem only to be women's rights being belittled. No-one says "oh, it's just a little racism; lighten up!"

Women didn't complain because they would lose their job.

Simple.

No one liked it, I mean no woman liked it.

It was like different payscales for women. It has never been right, but it was the norm.

I'm also thinking about reporting something a teacher did to me at school. Not for money, but because he did it to exert power over me and to humiliate me. I'd like him to have that power taken away.

Really interesting question.
When I was in the military, I didn't get married or pregnant because that was the rule at the time - if you got married or pregnant, you would be asked to leave. We all knew that.

Some people got pregnant and were asked to leave.

Eventually the ECHR was involved, it was all deemed illegal, and a whole lot of women burst forth and got one hell of a lot of compensation, leaving those of us who had made a decision to comply with the rules (and perhaps put off having children/ getting married etc) slightly nonplussed.

Norms are funny things.

I'm all for changing norms (and certainly I am in no way arguing that women should still have to abide by such outdated nonsense, get groped in the street, or get sacked for being pregnant) but it does all get a bit more complex when hard cash is involved.

The obvious difference is that in the 'groping in the lunch queue' story, the woman had no choice. So the social norms and rules needed to be changed.

The military one, the women had a theoretical choice (but no choice if they wanted to keep their jobs etc, probably similarly to the 'groped in the lunch queue' women).

I'm not entirely sure that anyone should be compensated in either instance, tbh.

But it's interesting to look at it in terms of reward for calling out the rules and correcting them...

But Arabella, lots of these reports don't lead to any monetary compensation.

Oh, I know. But it is the usual claim - just for the money. So it becomes a part of the conversation even if there is no actual money involved.

That's not just a gendered thing, though, the ambulance chasing stuff is just more common now across the board.

The actual 'bringing people to justice' thing is different, and if there is no money, where does the 'just trying to make money' thing start?

Funny how it may have been the norm but no one points out that it was still illegal.

The fact that these women still remember the details speaks volumes about the impact that it had on them.

It wasn't normal behaviour - women were just as entitled to bodily integrity in those days but we didn't have the easy access to technology or social media which has given these women voices to speak up. Women were told to shut up, that they imagined it, that it was something all women suffered. They didn't have access to any other sources telling them otherwise.

It's almost as crass as trying to justify keeping a slave. The fact that slave owners believed slaves were inferior doesn't mean that they were. Their erroneous beliefs don't excuse their actions. Appalling behaviour isn't forgiven just by the passage of time.

Human traffickers today consider their victims as less than human. Just because that's their norm doesn't make it right nor will history vindicate them.

Arabella, maybe because things get into the papers and people assume victims have sold their stories?

It's quite wrong for people to say this kind of sexual abuse was the norm in the 70s.

First, because it pre dates the 70s. Abusive men choosing to assault, or prey on women and children, is nothing new. Secondly, it has never been normal.

What was different 40 or more years ago was that there was no redress for such assaults. At work, women couldn't report casual assaults to HR: they weren't interested. There was nothing much they could do anyway. You couldn't report it to police either. If you couldn't prove assault, with actual physical evidence, it was felt there was nothing to investigate.

The police were in any case quite male dominated at the time, and even serious crimes against women were not treated in the same way they are now. This TV series epitomised what it was like for complainants (which thankfully resulted in major changes to the system).

www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/464502/

Sorry this doesn't answer your question OP, but I feel quite strongly about this. It was never OK, and it's wrong for people to suggest it was.

Yy, maybe doc. I have no idea why folk assume money is involved in this case, perhaps the media interest thing is the cause?

I wasn't old enough in the 70s to remember bar culture, but even in the early 80s it was considered appropriate to grope a female. Culturally, even if if not technically legally. But you'd have a hard time getting anyone to listen to you 'just' for groping, however wrong that is.

I don't know which cases the op is talking about specifically, so I'm commenting more generally.