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.

there is institutional redefinition.

We need to be the architects imo not sit and wait - I have one blueprint!!

So how has it come to pass that it is all being ignored? Because it's not to the benefit of children who question their gender. At all.

My suspicion is that, perhaps in the absence of religion, people have looked to politics for moralism. 'Liberalism' and 'progressiveness' got corrupted in this process in the same way that religion has often been twisted and selectively quoted.

People have lacked the facility to push back against that, because to oppose liberalism is to be 'a nazi' or to be a 'religious conservative'. You'll note both of these are regular put downs or deliberate smears.

The pursuit of the higher morality became more important that questioning whether the movement adhered to the principles that underpinned the principle. There is a definite 'religious tone' to what many trans allies come out with.

I guess its a human flaw, born of arrogance to see yourself as moral guardians without question. It repeats through history, and when the balance becomes out of kilter it eventually reaches a tipping point where there is a backlash.

Remember that the people pushing this hardest, tend to be overwhelmingly educated, white and middle class (with some exceptions) with a notable 'brosocialist' presence. In other words people most removed from the need for safeguarding. The principles of safeguarding are therefore least relevant to them.

We need to be the architects

I agree. Being positive and being ready with a 'blue print' to reframe the debate will be crucial.

born of arrogance to see yourself as moral guardians without question

Yes!

I identify as good and therefore I also identify as your representation.

Pretty much identical to the Victorian notion of improving the poor.

but only the 'deserving poor'

Yep. Same sentiment.

Worth noting that the Victorian notion of improving the poor, did spawn things like the age of consent, the first laws that prevented cruelty to children (and allowed the state to intervene) and organisations like the NSPCC and Barnados which undoubtably did improve the lives of children for the better. Even suffrage for women as an idea had firm roots in the era and stemed from trying to make life better and safer for the poor.

There is something of a bitter irony, that that has been very much forgotten, and today's generation are a lot more blind to the vulnerbilities of the poor, particularly poor children. Instead we've been blinded by the idea that the most vulnerable in society are vulnerable primarily because of their identity rather than because of economic pressures and disadvantages.

We are so disconnected from the route of the problem. I guess that in the Victorian era, poverty was more 'in your face' whereas now, I'm not sure it is visable in quiet the same way. Heightened by a barage of media which has the narrative that poor people spend their money badly and unwisely rather than thinking they simply have none.

Indeed Victorian Morality was very much a movement that was against greed and made exploitation into a public evil. You get no real sense of that today. Quite the reverse with celebrity culture.

Why do you think that on the left its the Labour Trade Unionists & Social Workers & older feminists who understand the roots of Pankhurst's activism who are particularly wary of the direction of militant trans-activism? This is also why some parts of Anonymous are making noises; they have anti-capitalist roots.

Its not a coincedence.

They understand the history and are most connected to the economic side of this. I think Lisa Mutteridge has been particularly articulate in making the point that economics is hugely relevant to the dynamic.

The likes of Owen Jones, reveal they are not as connected to socialism as they think they are and are primarily motivated instead by identity politics (I note that Jones's book 'Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class' wasn't about economics - it was about identity).

Its the fracture line that is running right through leftist politics.

FWIW the fracture also exists on the right along the lines of economics v identity atm. Its highlighted most acutely between those who think identity and nationalism is more important than economic concerns over Brexit.

There's an interesting series of podcasts which are part of Channel 4's 'Ways to Change the World series'
Its worth listening to Jess Philips MP & Ken Clark MP

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXjqQf1xYLQ5q7sTlD7K66f5xgXAqR_rZ

This whole identitarian mouses nest seems to me to be a massive, deliberate distraction from the elephant in the room which is class / economic disadvantage.

The economic thing is really interesting if you look at what the institute for fiscal studies came up with in its analysis of the 2017 manifestos.

You'd expect the most left wing Labour party since the 1980s to increase the income of the poorest in society through taxation and benefits wouldn't you?

Except that's not what they found.

Instead the Labour party didn't give a lot more to the poorest than the conservative party; they pandered to the UKIP vote and took on board the concept of the 'undeserving poor' and instead decided to merely be highly putative to the richest. But this punishment didn't benefit those at the bottom anyway.

It was actually the LDs who based policy on economics rather than a combination of economics and identity politics that had more to offer those at the bottom. (That's not to say the LDs aren't doing identity politics in a big way. They are utterly viralent with it in different ways.)

I've found this graph really interesting, and it's stuck in the back of my mind as I've not been able to process the mentality behind it completely as it flies so much in the face of the whole hype about Corbyn's image and how people perceive the Labour policy.

But if you start to think about Corbyn as an identity politician first (in both Brexit and on Trans Politics) ahead of being a true socialist who puts economics first, it does make an awful lot more sense. He does think in economic terms but only as something that comes second to identity.

Student politics as a whole has a tendency to be similar. It smacks of a certain blindness to economic privilege.

It has a certain irony given Corbynite dislike for 'neo-liberals' and Blairites.

Anyway, this isn't about the thread title and it's somewhat rambling, but I think worth commenting on, on the basis of the theory of the elephant in the room being economics.

It's something to keep an eye on, and see if the observation is right.

It's a potentially an Achilles Heel if someone can manage to get their act together and point it out in a coherent fashion.

Without a meaningful leftist analysis (or even acknowledgement) of the impacts of austerity which are wreaking havoc on so many lives, we are wide open to alt right or fascist ideas gaining currency.

Sorry for derail. I do think all these things are related though

RTB

I think you have it right. Labour doesn’t prioritise lifting people out of poverty as much as it does the appearance of egalitarianism. It Doesn’t care about the consequences of poverty in terms of increasing vulnerability for WAG to all manner of oppressions.

These failures are compounded by prioritising a supposedly egalitarian approach to self id which causes an easily exploitable loophole. Any attempt to point out the loophole is verboten and anti egalitarian. Censorship is imposed to prevent discussion.

Appearance is more important than substance. Again we dismiss experts, economics and foreseeable consequences.

Sorry for derail. I do think all these things are related though

Not a derail. It's all related.

Never forget: the Labour manifesto promised 4x the cash to middle class students than it did to reversing welfare cuts for the poorest. And it was going to keep UC, with all the disadvantages for women that has.

Lisa Mutteridge has made me realise bits and pieces of this and then be able to reconstruct points along the same lines.

I'm far from a true red socialist.

The thing with Corbyn for me, is just how often he professes to be one thing, but is something else. I think that's why I've always had something of an unfathomable sense of something being 'off' with him as a result.

I dunno. That and the trans ideology feeling 'off' too, and eventually over time being able to articulate it better has made me think a lot more about trusting my instinct and thinking about what I'm sensing rather than just accepting what I'm told. I wish I'd done it sooner for my own mental health.

In the context of safeguarding it's absolutely crucial we trust in those type of instincts and we shouldn't be letting go of those feelings because it's the politically correct thing to do. We need to be free to articulate concerns: remembering that not everyone is as able to do it in a fashion that is socially acceptable, but it doesn't mean they haven't got a sense that something is indeed 'off'.

Being politically correct doesn't ultimately keep us safe. Sadly. Indeed it can hinder attempts to voice concerns because not everyone can do it 'the right way'.

I live LM. She has insight into systems and structures that I would have completely missed.

I understand you about gut feelings too. Corbyn is a populist, he likes a rally, he fires up a crowd. He’s authoritarian, uses bullying tactics (remember the NEC), deploys double speak and inspires unquestioning devotion. Terrifying.

Being on 'the wrong side of history' tends to mean you were a victim of tyranny, rather than an oppressor. Thus you should perhaps be suspicious of those who us the term rather than see them as great progressives cos its not got a brilliant precident to fall back on. History is written by those who live, not those who die.

In this context, it becomes much clearer that its a concealed threat rather than a declaration of being a moral guardian to be on 'the right side of history'.

Thanks for that Red.
When this was first thrown at us (by libfems actually), I had a visceral reaction, because my brain immediately went to "history is written by the winners" followed by how much women and women's work has been erased from history.

Your addition of 'concealed threat' takes all that a step further for me, and I now realise why I had the reaction I did. Lightbulb moment, thank you.

The two list of cult tactics was a head nodding read.

Slight ponder here. A lot of all of this comes down to a lack of understanding in depth of political structure and institutional structure.

Does understanding this, comes from age and experience?

Why is no one picking up on this divergence from safeguarding principles (which are grounded in historic problems) or socialists who aren't that bothered about the poorest?

What the hell happened?

This is more than just the media at this point. It's a systematic failure to understand.

Have shifts in society where everything is instantaneous, in demand and condensed to the point that it's almost rendered our wider understanding of the world beyond our own bubble as useless?

Add to that shifts in the education system where targets have dominated, so that in many schools the style of teaching has been geared towards passing exams rather than deeper understanding and proper critical thought?

I don't know. As I say it's pondering. There is a generational divide over education. Like the one that's economic and cultural. Perhaps there is something in that. I'm not saying bring back grammar schools for a second, but people don't say things without there being a reason. It might not be the reason they think, but they say it because something is 'off'.

For example. Surely if you've got your head in a book learning the academic principles of politics and economics and theories such as Marxism right now, you'd be more attuned to what it isn't?

Or perhaps this is where all the post-modern stuff comes in, rendering all that knowledge useless out of an arrogance that somehow Marx wasn't as clever as a modern politics undergraduate who has a 'new improved understanding'.

I don't know. Everything at the moment politically feels slightly crooked and slightly not quite what it should be, in an ever slightly dystopian way, so you can feel it but not place it and explain it.

That is what makes politics right now, so dangerous and violatile.

I'm rambling. But I figure that if you can't figure out what's going on politically, and understand why the framework of safeguarding institutions are being undermined without consideration, you aren't going to have much push back. You have to get right back to the very foundations of those structures to reinforce them. You have to shout from the rooftops why they matter.

Cos it feels like everyone has either forgotten or completely missed the point, instead dismissing these protocols as a nuisance or meaningless beaucratic red tape.

Unless you reconnect people with that deeper understanding and historic context, safeguarding is doomed.

A large part of the problem is the capture of both our political class and our commentariat by a homogenous group of individuals with similar life experiences and education.

There are a lot of alternative voices out there (including the fabulous Lisa Muggeridge) with much better analyses but they are all to some extent shouting into the void because alternative narratives are effectively no platformed by our current system

Without an understanding of psychopathy and what needs to be in place to limit its reach, any system will inevitably deal the same hand- male white psychopaths draining public coffers and using and abusing women

Psychopaths start by defining the game, the rules, the pitch and the players on which they will play - another game plan needs developing

Red

I agree about the impact of education focus.

by way of example:
When I was at primary school, my teacher read Orwell's 'Animal Farm' to us.
We talked about it and thought about it. I have never forgotten what it described.

When I was a bit older, I learned more about the historical /political context etc. This added to my understanding of the book, author & context.

It is a GCSE text, most students are taught to answer the questions. There's little space/time possible to read, relect, consider and apply across subject disciplines or outside the classroom.
www.bbc.com/education/guides/zpybr82/revision/1

Nawal el Saadawi interview talks about the failures of education:

www.channel4.com/news/ways-to-change-the-world-a-new-channel-4-news-podcast-nawal-el-saadawi

Psychopaths start by defining the game, the rules, the pitch and the players on which they will play - another game plan needs developing

YY

We were all surprised and shocked when the revelations about JS came out, and that’s bevayse he’d put himself in an elevatod position of trust and respectability. He was on prime time Saturday afternoon tv granting wishes, he raised money for charities, he volunteered at a Leeds hospital. It’s only after it all came out that we realised why and what had been going on. As for insinuating that transpeople, Transwomen in particular are a danger to girls and women, that’s speculative at best based on ignorance of the facts. Transpeople in general are more likely to be the victims of an attack rather than the perpetrator, but were human too, were not perfect, no one is, and to single out a section of society like this based on outdated and ignorant stereotypes? Really?

We were all surprised and shocked when the revelations about JS came out, and that’s bevayse he’d put himself in an elevatod position of trust and respectability.

Were we?

There were rumours for years and years, that persisted and didn't go away.

Remind me why Louis Theroux did a documentary on him.