I stand with Lisa Muggeridge

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

Just that. Lisa has been scapegoated from all directions for being the truthsayer about austerity and it’s unconscionable impact on the lives of the marginalised, particularly lone mothers and their children. She talks with inside knowledge, as an experienced social worker, about how the systems established to support them have been decimated over many years by financialisation. In other words, putting money ahead of people has deliberately undermined the user design focus and purpose of those support frameworks, including the safeguarding of children. This has resulted in the re-creation of Victorian workhouse conditions, where poor and sick women and their children have no rights in practice and are subjected to handouts at the whim of kind benevolents, cementing their place as the underclass. Many women have been consigned to economic deprivation by such combinations as:

1. leaving adult male violence perpetrators and abusive relationships of all types (coercive control, financial/physical/sexual/economic violence)
2. being estranged from families that perpetrate family violence and don’t acknowledge their victimisation of children and adults
3. wholesale financial abuse enabled by divorce courts, that lead to women not getting their fair share of combined assets
4. being continually forced to compromise their own economic wellbeing for the safety and protection of themselves and their dependents
5. no secure housing tenure
6. frequent disruptive relocations
7. being sexually victimised as children and/or adults
8. being re-victimised by aggressive systems such as family court & hostile exes who never give up/weaponised welfare/ unjust judicial and law enforcement that protect abusers and harm victims
9. inadequate health systems

10. unaffordable quality child/elder care up until the age of majority/death 11. unreasonable demands and expectations on those with no/few support systems 12. being forced to live week to week, below the poverty line, whilst in the front firing line from many hostile bodies listed above

In other words, instead of getting what they need to get back on their feet, women and children experience 360-degree withholding from opposed systems designed to keep them in their place, at the bottom, as punishment for daring to stand up for their rights. These are the women and children who should be getting wrap-around, caring support but who experience exactly the opposite. And what makes it worse is no-one, but no-one, is seeing things from their perspective and making a no-holes-barred, informed stand for them-never mind about having the unique informed, lived-experience, insider view of a social worker as well as a user. But Lisa does and is wilfully discounted and ignored, as her views take no account of wokeness or of social standing. Her sole focus is advocating for mothers and children against exploiters – ranging from sexual to financial to reputational predators who use the marginalised for their own ends.

Lisa pulls no punches in her condemnation of the wilful blindness of all the people who have enabled this – whether from academics, politicians, professionals, media, service deliverers or the like – she takes no prisoners in her advocating for fit-for-purpose safeguarding. Like many other brave women, her speaking out against abuse has made her a target of many – including those whose professional, personal and ethical competence she questions. Lisa, like all of us, is not perfect. Maybe her delivery could do with some refinement. Irrespective, she wears her heart and her outrage on her sleeve. She has neither backup nor family “bank” to support her. Any income she gets has to be declared and taxed and adversely affects her below poverty line welfare subsistence. She has a child to care for and protect as well as try to find income. She has been harassed from a decade's long stalker, who operates outside of the law. Why the disparity between her treatment and that of those able to evade taxation, afford PR, “finishing” coaching plus bring lawyers in to invoke the misnamed justice system?

I find it especially distressing and angry-making that women who have the public platform to speak out about these effects on mothers and children choose to stay silent. One wonders why. Is it for the sake of their woke reputations, confining their support only in so much as it bolsters their “good person” image, protecting their own reputation by supporting the wilfully blind line of whatever party or body they align with? All sides of politics, academia, media and service deliverers have been complicit in a gross failure of care for vulnerable women and children, most of whom are there through no fault of their own, but from the unacknowledged, covert guerrilla warfare of the hostile forces mentioned above. These women and children need the support of the herd and particularly of other women.

Why do so many people, including women, with a public platform to do so, choose not to condemn austerity, all of those complicit in it plus its dire adverse effects on mothers and children? Why do so many, including women, choose not to speak out about the safeguarding frameworks undermined by austerity that anti-women forces seek to exploit? Why do people, including women, attack Lisa publicly, knowing her back is to the wall, instead of seeking mediation if they have a gripe? That’s the elephant in the room.

I stand with Lisa.

Please ignore any personal attacks of Lisa that may occur in the thread (past behaviour of a few being a good predictor of future action), in order to keep the conversation going about austerity, the ongoing wall of silence and lack of advocates. Otherwise, it will be derailed and the important conversation about the complicity from all sides deflected. Please play the ball, not the person. If someone has a personal gripe with Lisa, they can take up elsewhere with her.

Ah RO you always seem to know what to link to that further deepens the discourse - how do you do it!

The difference in communication styles is a very, very interesting line of thought to pursue. I sometimes think of myself as blunt and direct, but not as concise as I aspire to be;). I hate it when people hold the floor and waffle about nothing - I think "get to the fucking point or get off and give the time to someone else". That's why I empathise with those on the WPUK thread at disliking being talked to rather than working with.

And then Lang's bloody insightful comment re moderation on here rang a huge bell for me - call a person a predator because I immediately recognise them as having predator behaviour based on my own experience and it gets deleted; talk about their behaviour in terms of quoting from a published "expert" or article plus obfuscate the word predator and it stands. So fucking infuriating having my speech policed...

“We shout and swear and take the mick out of [tease] each other. We speak a different language. One that is often mistaken for aggression. We’re not [politically correct] because most of us have never really believed that politics is anything more then a rich man’s game to get richer. But we’re not unintelligent — we’re just not academic.”

Paradoxically I am not at ease with very overt, gobby people if that behaviour feels aggressive thus I relate to this comment but substitute camaraderie for aggression i.e. no raging at others

We don’t talk about our struggles because that places us at greater harm.”

I so relate to this - I still can't talk openly because I am always concerned that if I do, my hostile ex, true to form, will take it out on our daughter. He'll do that til he dies. Same for the bloody cyberstalker who targeted me because I was too open about DV and perpetrators - he tracked me online and found out my real name so I have to take care as he will know where I like to hang out - btw he works for big tech - I know where. So just like my ex, I know where he is but he's virtually untouchable. I'm not the only woman both are abusing.

The whole point about predators is they are like hyenas in that they join together and mob to bring down their prey. So when I'm open, it's devastating if I'm belittled or censored, as it's already taken a lot of courage and ducking and weaving to open up in the first place. Worse still is an aggressive attack as it mirrors the tactics of those who hunt me unrelentingly, which is what I imagine Lisa has experienced recently.

Do people really not understand what it's like to be relentlessly pursued through no fault of one's own by those whose intent is malign as they are predators? Is this an education or an empathy gap?

That reality is suddenly of great interest to those who wish to coopt (or “parasitize,” if you will…) the struggles of oppressed groups as a means to gain social, cultural, or political leverage.

This is what I was describing - when the chips are down and /or working-class women aren't deferential or compliant enough, and dare to stand up for their rights to those using them for their own good, they are ditched/exiled/silenced/shamed/mobbed - by middle-class socially climbing plus upper-class do-gooding women, as well as men.

There was no ‘helping the poor’ — we are all poor and ran the project together.

This. All in the same boat with peer to peer support. Women all know what they need and it's not always handouts and hand me downs - so why don't others listen - one size doesn't fit all and top-down solutions don't benefit anybody except those wanting to feel and look good by "helping". Many also profit from the "helping" professions, at the expense of others.

Listening and advocation is in very short supply

I’ve been reading the blog and have been wondering why it’s left me feeling a little uneasy.
The communication styles discussion on here, hit the nail on the head. I’ve spent years adopting an acceptable communication style (took me a few years to figure it out and the non verbal cues were a mine field!)
When I express myself naturally I am considered to be aggressive and sarcastic which I used to find perplexing. Lisa’s writing style takes me back to who I actually am. Time to reflect for me and kudos to Lisa for not changing who she is.

Ah RO you always seem to know what to link to that further deepens the discourse - how do you do it!

I have time to read & reflect (which most people don't) and post when I see possible dots might be joined.
There's so much within FWR threads.
The links on this thread are just as they've cropped up.
Other's provide the analysis much better than me!

Ro thank you I'm in awe.

Lang so well put. So much truth. I can play the game as well as anyone, but then, there comes a point when listening to the pretentiousness and the endless judgement that I feel i need to call it out. I have to confess I've found it very amusing, (some reactions are priceless) but I've found good friends that appreciate honesty and reality.

As for the women that never outgrew the high school "mean girls" phase I could not give a flying eff about their opinion of me.

It's been a hard road to get to this point, I've struggled with social anxiety as well as the ever present voice whispering "you don't belong here" "you're not good enough". I guess we reach a certain point/age where - and not really sure what it is - either stop worrying about what others think or just feel comfortable to express our own opinion.

Its all (as always) about power.

Yes it is all about power and taken advantage of other's vulnerabilities ...irrespective of labels

I came across this profile in another thread about voting for a statute of a woman in Wales. Where have all the women like her gone from the Labour party??

woman The profile of Elizabeth Andrews is fascinating and inspiring. Thank you for sharing it.

These are the stories that need to told:

"One of 11 children born into a poor mining family, Elizabeth dreamed of being a teacher but was forced to leave school at 13 to help her parents make ends meet.

This Welsh-speaking dressmaker brought the needs of working-class women into the political arena because she shared their lives and voiced their hopes and fears.

Moving to the Rhondda at the age of 26 proved the catalyst for Elizabeth’s political awakening as she saw the social problems suffered by her community.

As the first Labour Party Women’s Organiser for Wales, she set up women’s sections, describing them as “working women’s universities.” One of her earliest tasks was translating leaflets from English to Welsh to urge women to use their newly-won vote. She also became one of Britain’s first female magistrates.

She put the needs of women and children at the heart of her campaigns. Giving evidence in the House of Lords to a Royal Commission on the mining industry in 1919, she spoke powerfully about the impact of the pits on family life.

As a miner’s wife she knew how dangerous the industry was for the men but she stressed that women’s lives were at risk too as they coped with overcrowded houses, poor sanitation and the high death rates among their children.

She became a leading figure in the campaign for pit head baths, arguing they could help transform women’s lives by removing the relentless dirt brought in by the colliers and the significant danger of lugging heavy tin baths of boiling water from the home.

The strain of such heavy lifting had a serious impact on women’s health -particularly during their frequent pregnancies - while many children were scalded by the boiling water. Drying clothes in cramped kitchens also played havoc with children’s health.

Elizabeth spoke alongside two English miners’ wives in the House of Lords. The sight of working class women in these rarefied surroundings caught the attention of the media, as she recalled in her memoir A Woman’s Work is Never Done:

“When we arrived in London we were besieged by the Press at the hotel and during the time we were giving evidence we were photographed and a minute description given of our dresses. Many of the personal remarks amused us greatly. They expected us to be overawed at being in the King's Robing Room in the House of Lords where the Commission was held. They also expressed surprise at our calmness when giving evidence. But why would they think we would be daunted? We had something very important and serious to tell them about women suffering and dying and how the baths would take away the arduous toil they were engaged in.”

Very important indeed. And Elizabeth’s campaign made an impact. Pit head baths were made compulsory in 1924."

I stand with Lisa and reading what she has written on her blog is so sad. What she has spoken out about is so important, but it seems clear that voicing an opinion if you're on benefits / poor / working class / a single mother is not a safe thing to do for yourself or your children. That is chilling. Not surprising most people in this position don't speak out.

As someone who has not experienced poverty I've found reading her accounts of the safeguarding gaps and impacts of austerity very uncomfortable reading but so, so important. Because if we're willing to admit it, most of us could end up there if things go wrong in our lives.

cyberwanderlust
Would you please ask for your post to be deleted?
The thread is specifically about Lisa Muggeridge's work.

I do feel that Lisa Muggeridge by speaking truth to power about austerity and the working class and class divides did p* off the 'wrong people', which now has severe rampifications regarding any career she might have built. I would not have believed this ten years ago, but from all I have seen since, there is a strong policing of thought going on if you want to get ahead (particularly in politics, journalism) and one thing that must not be mentioned is class divides. Even while the working class and policy impacts on said class are utterly dismissed or ridiculed or made out to be 'their fault'.

I would not have believed this ten years ago, but from all I have seen since, there is a strong policing of thought going on if you want to get ahead (particularly in politics, journalism) and one thing that must not be mentioned is class divides.

Agree. It's the great unspoken but it permeates absolutely everything. It's structural & deep-rooted. Lisa's always been spot-on in her analysis of it. Some of what is currently passing for social justice and "being left wing" (and so-called "feminism" too) for example is really just an identity people are wearing to mark themselves out as The Good Side. But without understanding underlying power structures it's meaningless.

hellandhairnets yes, it is meaningless, because without any core values it becomes arbitrary. And this is how we end up in a situation, where ‚the Left‘ will define itself via ‚opposing Trump‘, who is himself erratic in his policies, because he has no core values. But that is no policy, it is just empty posturing, and they often end up in absurd positions as a result and totally detached from the base and their material realities.

The neoconservatives did a superb job in making class structure and analysis verboten- because they spoke to aspiration and reinforced the myth that anyone can make it, that your own life and choices are in your own hands and you can leave your past behind. Hence class and sex and disadvantage became dirty words and were disappeared.

To acknowledge their existence and the historical shitty subjugation of many women seems to cause such cognitive dissonance in Gen x, y et al, who hold court on social media and across the board in different sectors, ie those mostly unaffected by it, that it causes a vitriolic, narcissistic raging and denial of varying intensities, that collectively amount to a toxic tide targeted at anyone who whistleblows and shakes ethical foundations.

This is because it strikes at the heart of their personal brand which is not built but on what’s best for the whole as it was post-war and throughout most of history. but upon what’s best for them personally. The left, who historically have been the advocates for those with less access to power and resources, have moved that Overton Window off the political playing field, such that the disadvantaged are now considered an anthema and a stumbling block to societal and individual progress.

Some of what is currently passing for social justice and "being left wing" (and so-called "feminism" too) for example is really just an identity people are wearing to mark themselves out as The Good Side. But without understanding underlying power structures it's meaningless.

Arriving here due to another gem of a link made by R0 - this bit really made me think. Much of the modern 'social justice' actually boils down to 'if we don't allow people to talk about it then it doesn't exist'. The addressing of it is as superficial as denying people the language. Women are not supposed to talk about sexism and are constantly told it's unkind/over. We're discouraged from talking about classism - it's old hat, it doesn't exist any more. There are things we're not supposed to say when a terrorist attack happens, people say 'you can't say that!'. We're definitely not allowed to talk about biology, sex or to say that there is a negative impact on women from denying them - even pointing out facts is painted as 'hate speech' that must be stopped. Any uncomfortable subject is closed down, made taboo.

This has come from the liberal left, who stopped making arguments or being represented by real people living real lives, and began to rely on ignoring, name calling and dismissing anyone not on message. It does not work to address problems or change them or do anything except drive the people living with them out of sight and under ground while fostering huge anger, resentment and disenfranchisement.

Brexit and Trump are two examples of what happens as a result.

So picking up on Hairnet 's point: yes. We have a generation trained in the language, trained in the 'right' things to say and the 'right' things to think, but with no understanding of what they are talking about, and no grasp on that reality.

And it is the property of the highly educated and privileged with the time on their hands to dabble in it. Who have the power to make themselves heard and are now forming policy, advising government etc, with no awareness of their impact at reality level for others.

A lot of what passes as Sjw stuff is an opportunity for those involved to excercise aggressive control over others.

The level of aggression and associated social media pile on thatvhappens for some very innocuous things shows this. I’m thinking of the girl who wore a cheongsam dress to her prom, for example. Or if any of you are knitters, the current ‘discussion’ on racism ‘in the community.’ This hasnt been done as a ‘how can we make this a really open thing that everyone can access (which would be good) and feel welcome’ it’s been done by ‘call outs’ of very innocuous blog posts as racist followed by a huge pile on and public shaming.

Witch hunts.

A lot of what passes as Sjw stuff is an opportunity for those involved to excercise aggressive control over others.

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3483567-IMPORTANT-Chris-Ashton-It-seem-twitter-have-shadow-banned-FreedomProgramm-because-women-don-t-have-penises-Ensuring-women-cannot-access-the-support-they-need-in-crisis

This has come from the liberal left, who stopped making arguments or being represented by real people living real lives, and began to rely on ignoring, name calling and dismissing anyone not on message. It does not work to address problems or change them

Exactly. It simply refuses to recognise them. It also fails to recognise or address obvious conflicts. It then starts generating false narratives to paper over any discomfiting discrepancies ("benefit scroungers/undeserving poor so all their own fault." "thick working class people" "Cologne exaggerated & the women had phones anyway so pfft" "women who talk about safeguarding are bigots") and then when that stops working, silencing and control attempts. All to "maintain the identity".

It's why we are now in a situation where our current political system is being shown to be e completely unfit for purpose. And - to go back to Lisa's analysis - all of our remaining systems and infrastructure are currently at the point of being exposed and tested.

Exactly. It simply refuses to recognise them. It also fails to recognise or address obvious conflicts. It then starts generating false narratives to paper over any discomfiting discrepancies ("benefit scroungers/undeserving poor so all their own fault." "thick working class people" "Cologne exaggerated & the women had phones anyway so pfft" "women who talk about safeguarding are bigots") and then when that stops working, silencing and control attempts. All to "maintain the identity".

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3483242-Womens-March-London-says-trans-voices-should-be-elevated-over-womens-voices

What hellandhairnets said!

And of course, the irony is that the increasingly frenzied and vicious attempts to shout down this critique, evidence this critique.

Good post hellandhairnets.
I agree this problem started from the liberal left Knickknack, but it has now taken over fractions that seem to self ID as hard left. In Germany there are now yellow vests protesting the disconnect of politics and the people, criticizing pensions that leave people poor while politicians stuff their pocket (similar to the gas tax initially protested in france, which hits small incomes disproportionally.) And the Antifa tries to hinder their protests and shouts them down as Nazis. (Or am I missing something? Do the yellow vests have a Right Wing message?)

Equally, NATO critical antiwar protests in Germany are smeared as right wing by the Antifa.

Not sure what the Antifa believes it stands for, but in effect, it sometimes seems to act as the prolonged arm of the (neoliberal) government to beat popular sentiment down.

Do the yellow vests have a Right Wing message?

I think the problem is because the Left has removed the disadvantaged from their advocacy, that they/we don't have a political voice at all anymore - however small and marginalised. So we women along with the vulnerable have been demonised and disappeared. Nature abhors a vacuum. The bullies always use vulnerabilities for their own ends - maybe the far right is trying to harness the discontent, as the Leave gang did. I don't know enough about the Yellow Vest movement other than the ones in London talking over Anna Soubry recently were right wing thugs.

The Labour Party and the Left have literally pulled a fast one in front of our eyes by sending off the working class they used to represent from the political playing field and have substituted Pink/LBGT+/Woke in their place on the pitch. It's all being driven by those who profit from creating a new class to sell to, represent, service etc - reference my recent post about the size of the Pink consumer sector - hence there's a huge financial and status gain to be exploited by the unthinking plus unscrupulous by pandering to that segment and creating needs and the needy(sic).

So the real-life needy and vulnerable can't be acknowledged as it would expose the shame of the artificially created consumer class of Woke Pink.

I'm going to self promote the recent post I put up re the market size of that faux-class - there's a lot riding on them as a consumer group. Bear with me as I am building up a picture that is a logical extension of that described in the :

The business and political worlds use psychological techniques to read, create and fulfill the desires of the public, and to make their products and speeches as pleasing as possible to consumers and voters. Curtis questions the intentions and origins of this relatively new approach to engaging the public.

So the business and political worlds have literally created a faux-class for their own ends, that is little rooted in ethics and morals. And they somehow have been brainwashed into believe this faux-class is real and has "disadvantages" that are comparable in their eyes to the actual disadvantaged class, formally known as the working class, who have now been sent to Gulag Austerity out of the way as punishment for their failure to thrive and be good consumers in neocon world.

Extract from the report from FullFact re impact of austerity on women:

The House of Commons Library estimates that, looking at all changes to taxes and benefits from 2010-2017, 86% of the reduction in government spending is in spending on women. This is based on which person in a household receives a benefit or is taxed, so doesn’t factor in the “indirect” impact on partners and household budgets....

The EHRC also shows that the relative impact on men and women varies according to income level. By dividing the country into ten income “deciles” (with 1 being the lowest 10% of earners, and 10 being the highest-earning 10%), the smallest difference in impact is among the lowest 10% of earners (an average loss of just over £800 per year for men and around £1,000 for women).

The biggest gap is in decile 7 (a loss of around £220 for men, and around £740 for women). Men toward the top end in deciles 8 and 9 are typically no worse off, and men in decile 10 have gained an average of just under £200 a year. Women in deciles 8 and 9 are an average of £400 worse off, and typically £500 worse off in decile 10.

The report argues that “the result that women experience larger losses than men is mainly driven by the fact that women receive a much larger proportion of benefits and tax credits than men” and that since 2010 “the largest negative impact on incomes is as a result of cuts to benefits”....

The report also picks out a number of other groups, beyond women, who are particularly affected by tax and benefit changes. Ethnic minority households, households containing someone with a disability, lone-parent families, and families with three or more children are all picked out as “significantly adversely impacted”.

So in summary, austerity makes the rich healthy men richer and the sick poverty-stricken, many of whom are lone parent mums/carers and disabled, even poorer.....

Disabled women are far more adversely affected than disabled men:

Employment and Pay

● 35% of disabled women (and 30% of disabled men) are paid below the National Living Wage in the UK.
● Disabled men face a pay gap of 11%, while disabled women faced a gap twice as large at 22%.
● Despite qualifications, disabled women have lower participation rates in higher skilled jobs and work fewer hours than both non-disabled women and disabled men.
● 27% of disabled women are economically inactive compared with 16% disabled men.
● Lone parenthood reduces female employment generally by 15%. However, disabled female lone parents are more than half as likely to work than non-disabled female lone parents^.

disabled women had the lowest median hourly earnings.

Disabled Lone mothers lose out the most from tax and benefit changes since 2010:

● by 2021 they will lose 21% of their net income if they do not have a disabled child and 32 % if they do. A third of this loss is due to shift to UC.

● Disabled people experience domestic violence at twice the rate as non-disabled people. One in two disabled women experience domestic violence in their lifetime and they face additional barriers in seeking help and support.

The UN Independent Expert on Foreign Debt and Human Rights is calling for contributions from NGOs, civil servants, academia and other stakeholders on the impact of austerity on women’s human rights.

The evidence that cuts to benefits and public spending have hit women and the poor hardest and the UK government’s refusal to conduct equality impact assessments, along with parallel tax cuts that have benefited higher earners and men the most, means UK fiscal policy has exacerbated the inequality between men and women’s economic and social rights. The WBG have submitted a contribution highlighting this point, focusing particularly on how women, and in particular BME women, have borne the brunt of economic austerity since 2010.

So I havent read the thread, I am very sorry but I did want to say something. All that happened to me was some people acted out of reflex and those reflexes, plus shame at behaviour during austerity in facilitating it, plus elite social closure, plus social media means that will happen to every woman like me. EVERY one. Reliably, and repeatedly and the same silence will meet it. That is how this was done. Watch for those women and watch them being savagely thrown under a bus each tie. I didnt need to stand with these women and I havent learned anything I did not already know, in fact the demonstration so soon turns out to have been a blessing. But this will happen to every woman, they will not be consciously thinking about it, a reflex to protect identity amd it will hit the same women. The women who just did that to did no more for you than demonstrate how that marginalisation has always occureed. Something doesnt happen consistently for forty years and then stop happening overnight. It takes women standing up to it and you have seen what happens and how power relations reproduce. I dont regret showing solidarity, I was naiive to think there was capacity for change. The demonstration I ogt was as useful. Really. No woman under a bus. Someone has to stand by that and those wishing to make their names from identifying as speaking for women wil not. i note there was a march about austerity and the same women used it the same way, to pretend they were not the women who made sure that happened in silence and to make a top table for themselves to hear applause. I dont like the trope that history wont look kindly but it wont. And that is as it should be. No point asing the women who did that to me to feel shame, not one has the capacity but for all the others who looked away, there are lessons in there. Not lessons I plan on relearnin. What was done to me was nothing more than an attempt to silence me and end my career and as I am just in that class, where thse women are concerned, its no great shakes.