Safeguarding girls and protecting women post Jimmy Saville & #metoo

[SpareRibFem]

I don't understand, there was a lot of hand wringing after the revelations about Jimmy Saville became widely accepted. #metoo there was more handwringing about the need to listen to women when they are telling you something that makes you uncomfortable.

Saville was allowed to get away with what he didn't because he created an aura of fear and people would afraid of the backlash if they spoke up. Those that did suffered.

We were promised something like that could never happen again...

And yet now despite many women and girls saying they feel afraid and uncomfortable sharing single sex spaces with someone with a penis weren't told we're bigoted and verbally abused for saying that. Our employers are contacted and told we're bigots, we're doxxed.

And organisations like girl guides are going still further in saying it must be kept a secret when girls are being forced to sleep and change with a male bodied teen with a penis (& teen levels of hormones) and I'm not even allowed to identify what sex that male bodied teen with a penis is on a public forum

Girl Guides are taking that approach despite the knowledge that abusers use secrecy and shame to their advantage.

Just like with Saville anyone who excesses concerns is shouted down and accused of being the person in the wrong by the powerful. There is a culture of fear now. Celebrity voices in particular (thinking people like Munroe Bergdorf, Stephen Fry and long list of others) are given more weight to shout down women's concerns. Male bodied people feelings are paramount despite almost all sexual abusers being male bodied (and most of the tiny tiny number of female bodied sexual abusers working with and being in thrall to a male bodied abuser)

Did we as a society learn nothing from Saville & the multitude of other abuse scandals that women and children/girls should be listened to, that celebrities voices help hide abusers, that telling girls to keep secrets from their parents about the presence of penises in their bedrooms and changing rooms and showing them they will be blamed and abused if they transgress and tell someone creates an environment where abuse can flourish.

The thing about Gillick competency was that it was introduced as a way of preventing children from doing something irreparable, namely becoming a parent while still a child themselves, and finding themselves in a position of having lifelong responsibility towards another human being while still a child themselves.

I don't believe it was ever intended to be a way to permit children to do something irreparable and irreversible to themselves.

I think we could do with revisiting the whole concept of Gillick competency, starting from the good old adage of "first do no harm..."

Gillick competence demands children are discussing the context of treatment, have sufficient understanding and is about making sure kids dont do something daft, with assurance they are not being unduly influenced. Gillick Competence and fraser guidelines are not about trans rights activists being able to demand we do not discuss that context. Not even remotely.

(When I say parents need more confidence, I mean they need more support to have the courage of their convictions. Parents who have always tried to get on with it and do the right thing are an easy target to knock back)

IMPORTANT

Can I just say that @MNHQ and I have had a productive conversation with regard to the post I had deleted? I am satisfied with the outcome.

I have great concerns about the power dynamics with regard to the reporting and subsequent deletion of posts on this forum and have represented them to MNHQ. I don't agree with all their actions or everything they say about this but I am satisfied that they gave me a fair hearing about this particular post and took on board everything I had to say.

I don't think it would be right or proper to include specific details, so I hope you can all trust me on this.

Thanks LangCleg

OP *LangCleg wrote:

"This event is in Leeds on 1st August. Organised by MN favourite, Lisa Muggeridge. A slightly different emphasis to WPUK and WNTT in that it's trying to tie together all the fronts that women are fighting on.

Here's the event page:

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/correcting-a-blindspot-women-talking-tickets-47717202437

'Kate Belgrave will be discussing the impact of public sector cuts and how difficult it is to get media attention to focus on the systems at stake.

Lisa Muggeridge will be discussing the policy makers, academia and media view of our benefits system, systems that protect from violence, child protection and social care.

Miranda Yardley will be discussing female erasure.

Claire Graham will be comparing two sets of statutory guidance for schools, to illustrate the impact of this blindspot.

We have supplementary speakers from fields including child protection and domestic, campaigners against the Spearmint Rhino in Sheffield, and people who want to discuss the managed zone in Holbeck.'
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296082-Correcting-a-blindspot-Leeds-meeting-organised-by-Lisa-Muggeridge-and-others

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3260133-You-need-to-read-this-article-about-the-Leeds-red-light-district

I can't make it to this meeting but anyone who can and is interested in safeguarding or in how the big picture is looking with regard to women and girls and working class people, I couldn't recommend it highly enough.

Kate Belgrave is brilliant.

(Lisa's a bit rubbish though. )

Apologies it's not clicky (again) but this post argues that children have the right to be protected:

www.heraldscotland.com/news/16369924.sunday-herald-guest-comment-the-impact-on-children-of-accepting-transgender-ideology/

Ah it is clicky!

Sunday Herald guest comment: the impact on children of accepting 'transgender' ideology
Maggie Ritchie

Place-marking to read later

Noticed this today and thought it worth sharing as a reminder about why many young women need privacy and to feel safe :

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/22/sexually-abused-teenage-girls-likely-suffer-mental-health-issues-months-later-study

Sunday herald article is good. Who is Maggie Ritchie? Has she written other things?

maggieritchie.com/

My friend Google informs me she is an author and journalist.

Good for the Sunday Herald. A media voice in Scotland joining WoS. The Scottish Consultation just went under the radar in the mainstream media here. And the School Guidance needs to be seriously examined publicly.

The Sunday Herald article linked to says the author is Maggie Mellon, although a comment at the bottom by Mike Ritchie says it's the wrong by-line as Mellon did not write it. Where did you get the name Maggie Ritchie from Indierockandroll?

I cut and pasted it all from the original article, including her name.

I can see on Twitter she's also previously RT links to sexual assault on girls.

How odd regarding her name as the byline said Ritchie...

How strange! Maggie Mellon was a senior social worker and vocal about the named person fiasco, so both good women but I wonder who really wrote it?

Talk at Edinburgh Fringe recommended to Helen (Mermaids):

"Childhood is an injustice. Childhood infantilises, exploits, and oppresses children. Dr Philip Cook (University of Edinburgh) argues that justice demands we abolish childhood. But how can we abolish childhood? And would abolishing childhood harm children? Philip explains how society creates childhood through its laws. These laws aim to protect children, but they end up disempowering them. Children should be treated as equals, entitled to make their own choices about their lives. Treating children as equals might seem shocking, but abolishing childhood is the best thing we can do if we truly care about our children."

tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/abolish-childhood

Dr Philip Cook:
www.pol.ed.ac.uk/people/academic_staff/philip_cook

Betsy - that is so odd. I tried to find the window open from last night but I had closed it. But I cut and pasted directly. Bizarre.

What a very sinister synopsis, R0wantrees. Shades of PIE. I remember them talking about children's rights a lot. To consent mostly.

Indie and Betsy - it was definitely Maggie Ritchie last night. I asked who she was as a way of bumping the thread and the article ( not because I couldn't use Google! )

That little snippet about the talk by Phillip Cook rings so many alarms that it currently sounds like a fire station in my head.

Be very wary of anyone arguing that children are oppressed by the societal measures designed to protect them from predation.

Maggie Ritchie is on Twitter as @ MallonRitchie and I think previously used the name Maggie Mallon.

Maggie Mellon is someone completely different and I believe is the actual author of this article.

Confusing though!