Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Munroe - Childline 's first LGBT+ campaigner.

999 replies

HandsOffMyRights · 06/06/2019 08:25

Words fail me today

OP posts:
Thread gallery
62
SunsetBeetch · 12/06/2019 12:22

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

NeurotrashWarrior · 12/06/2019 12:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SunsetBeetch · 12/06/2019 12:26

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SunsetBeetch · 12/06/2019 12:26

Sorry - Mumsnet is acting glitchy for me

LangCleg · 12/06/2019 12:31

R0wantrees I'm glad you are posting Lisa's videos here. She has been in my mind a lot over the last week or so.

And mine.

LangCleg · 12/06/2019 12:35

So the Fireside Chat video featuring the guy has been taken down.

Question:

If all this is fine and dandy - Move along, nothing to see here! What are you on about? Who are you, Mary Whitehouse? - why does a bit of sunlight result in blogs being locked down and videos deleted?

Problem? What problem?

NotBadConsidering · 12/06/2019 12:40

That picture. Worst Batman ever.

Goosefoot · 12/06/2019 12:47

The abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was/is huge and more lessons should have been learnt for other charities/organisations. There is nothing that makes the Catholic Church uniquely vulnerable to this.

It was rarely presented that way however, it was consistently linked to very specific aspects of the Catholic Church, especially a celibate priesthood. If you tried to link to that scandal for these people I suspect they would not see it, as they see themselves as sex positive and transparent.

As it was seen so specifically as a Catholic problem lessons that ought to have been learned were ignored.

JackyHolyoake · 12/06/2019 12:49

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

R0wantrees · 12/06/2019 12:55

Third Sector article, NSPCC will need to demonstrate commitment to its CEO's words on Safeguarding:

"Peter Wanless: The building blocks of safeguarding must be in place
23 February 2018
(extract)
"Recent allegations against Oxfam show the importance of having proper safeguarding policies in place, says the chief executive of the NSPCC

Keeping children safe from sexual abuse is one of our key missions at the NSPCC. But preventing sexual abuse is not just a job for our charity – it is the responsibility of absolutely everyone.

Allegations of abuse at Oxfam, overseas and in its UK shops, demonstrate how vital this is to the protection of children and public confidence in an organisation. This is another moment for every charity, organisation or business where adults are in a position of trust over children to reflect and to get this right.

The building blocks of safeguarding must be in place. There must be proper vetting. That means taking proper references and carrying out Disclosure and Barring Service checks. If someone has been sacked from their role because of child protection concerns, they cannot be allowed to jump from job to job and repeat their harmful behaviour. A culture of zero tolerance of sexual abuse must be embedded in the organisation, led from the top at executive and trustee level.

The fundamental importance of safeguarding must be communicated clearly to all staff from the outset. Staff and children need to know how to recognise abuse and who they can go to with concerns or reports. Comprehensive training should be in place and the systems must be there to back that up. Where concerning behaviour is reported, it must always be followed up so that employees and victims feel listened to and confident that appropriate action will be taken.

It is unacceptable for whistleblowers to be undermined or face losing their jobs, and there need to be consequences if there’s evidence that this has happened.

And beyond each individual and each organisation, there is more the government can do. At present, only adults working in education, care and youth justice are deemed by the law to be in positions of trust.

That is clearly not good enough.

Whether children are volunteering in charity shops, playing sports or are part of a local religious group, the NSPCC’s Trust to Lead campaign is calling for them to be protected in law from adults in positions of trust over them.

Government has promised to make progress in this area, but it has yet to materialise.

As a society we now have a culture that is slowly moving towards a place where victims feel able to speak out about what they have experienced, instead of suffering in silence. But if sexual abuse is swept under the carpet by organisations – or individuals within those organisations – putting their reputation first, we fail those victims and risk setting child protection back by decades." (continues)
www.thirdsector.co.uk/peter-wanless-building-blocks-safeguarding-place/management/article/1457898

Ht OH

endofthelinefinally · 12/06/2019 13:03

And the BBC is deliberately making it all about Trans.

RedToothBrush · 12/06/2019 13:06

The church has been replaced as a guardian of morality by secularism in the form of charities. I think this in itself presents problems because you have political ideologies which we are not familiar with all competing for this certain human need to 'have meaning' or purpose. It's almost a power vacuum into which the charitable sector falls. It will naturally attract similar types of people veying for that power.

Being 'woke' / identity politics in general is in many respects a quasi-religious thing.

The church has in turn been demonised and its morality labelled as out dated and bigoted. Which is unfair in many ways too.

Charities seek to stress a sense of reason, rationality and purpose. In reality what is driving the motivations of those in them is too often ideology, dogma and belief rather than robust protocol and genuine understanding of the nature of an issue. Its often more about feelings and perceptions of a privileged group not providing the best solutions to a problem from the ground up considering all factors and effects on all vested interest parties.

LangCleg · 12/06/2019 13:09

Let's be very clear about boundaries being as important online as offline. It's as important to build up children's boundaries online as offline. Adults who break down boundaries online - even when they mean well - are not suited to any role connected to child protection.

Why? According to the National Crime Agency, 80,000 people in the UK present some form of sexual threat to children online. That's 80,000. And even the NCA admits this is likely a conservative estimate.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhaff/515/51508.htm

Boundaries matter in child protection. It's safeguarding 101.

It is a matter of urgent national significance if the UK's leading child protection charity - and the only one with statutory power - is not placing this understanding front and centre with all its activities, all its employees, and all its celebrity endorsement. All.

nettie434 · 12/06/2019 13:10

I thought this thread was about the NSPCC having poor judgment over how they recruit staff and representatives which bring the robustness of their safeguarding policy into question.

Me too Redtoothbrush. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the NSPCC to recruit celebrities who use their own public profile to promote the charity. That should also include transgender people. The question here is how an organisation reliant upon grants, donations & contracts to run services could have selected someone whose past record for speaking in a measured way showed she is unlikely to represent the NSPCC in a positive way and who was not asked to undertake safeguarding training to ensure her values and the NSPCC's did not diverge. If Greenpeace recruited Donald Trump to be their supporter I would feel the same way

RedToothBrush · 12/06/2019 13:10

And the BBC is deliberately making it all about Trans.

The words BBC, celebrity and safeguarding all in the same sentence don't have a good history.

BeUpStanding · 12/06/2019 13:14

Excellent post RTB, I hadn't considered that angle at all but think you make a very valid point

RedToothBrush · 12/06/2019 13:28

BeUpstanding, it's hard to criticise charities like Oxfam and Amnesty because they have the blanket of moral purpose. "If they aren't there what happens to all the people they help" mentality. The assumption being that 'doing something' is preferable to 'doing nothing' therefore you should not question the work done.

This, of course, is rot. It's quasi religious because it puts charities, and charity workers on a pedestal. How you go about these tasks matters and it's possible you might do more harm than good if you are not very careful and there isn't proper oversight. Exploitation thrives in chaos that's the entire point.

My concern over Oxfam is that its just got a bit of a slap on the wrists. There is no meaningful sanction, and I wonder if the charities commission really does have the clout to do any thing in practice. Politically there would be a shit storm if Oxfam lost its status (people left without desperately needed things) or got taken to court (all those donations going on a court case not those in need).

And there is no discernable chain of command for prosecuting the very very well paid CEOs of these charities either.

It's too easy, for them to ride out the storm, lie low until the next wave of scandal.

There isn't really any proper accountability.

Just a cloak of untouchable status and religious ferver that charities are inheritely moral good and those who work for them are all morally good.

That's just not how the world works sadly.

Goosefoot · 12/06/2019 13:41

I think this in itself presents problems because you have political ideologies which we are not familiar with all competing for this certain human need to 'have meaning' or purpose.

This is always an issue with secular bodies , as they tend to be obscure about the basis of their ideology. But there always is an ideology underlying actions like helping people or being politically active.

I've come to appreciate bodies that are very clear about the basis of their ideology and action, whatever it is. At least then I can look at it and see the degree to which it fits or doesn't fit in with my views.

ferntwist · 12/06/2019 13:43

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

RedToothBrush · 12/06/2019 13:56

It's fascinating how Stonewall is at serious risk of being a political lobby group rather than a charity which is concerned with LGBT rights only. I think it was the withdrawal of political funding to the Labour Party from Lord Sainsbury to 'other interests' which has made me prick up my ears a lot. There is trojan horsing going on.

Technically speaking a law was brought in which was supposed to stop the third sector doing this. In reality the law appears to be a farce, handicapping charities who play by the book (in particular in areas like safeguarding because criticism can be viewed as bipartisan), whilst others seem to be circumnavigating this without thought.

My mind boogles at it.

There are too many conflicts of interest, not enough accountability and transparency and way too much politics which isn't about the people these charities are supposed to serve.

In terms of centring purpose in principle and what these charities are doing in practice there is a massive gulf.

RedToothBrush · 12/06/2019 14:08

Oh the on topic / off topic nature of wokeism and charity celebritism, this just popped up on twitter.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/david-lammy-comic-relief-stacey-dooley-row-white-saviour-twitter-richard-curtis-a8955306.html?amp&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true
DAVID LAMMY PRAISES COMIC RELIEF’S DECISION TO CUT BACK ON CELEBRITY APPEALS
The charity came under fire in February for promoting 'white saviour' tropes

On Tuesday, Comic Relief’s co-founder, screenwriter Richard Curtis, told MPs that he suspects future fundraising initiatives “will not be based on celebrities going abroad”, describing the issue as “really complicated”.

“We feel this desperate passionate need to raise as much money as we can,” the Notting Hill writer said while giving evidence in front of the International Development Committee, adding: “but if we’re doing harm as well then that won’t do”.

In February, the MP for Tottenham criticised Comic Relief for sending Dooley to Uganda because it presented a “distorted image of Africa which perpetuates an old idea from the colonial era”.

And

The filmmaker added: “On TV, I think it will be heading in the direction of not using [celebrities], and particularly being very careful to give voices to people abroad.”

We absolutely SHOULD be encouraging a charity sector which informs and educates the public about the issues without the use of celebrities, and instead uses the voices of those directly effected, instead of those who ride the charity cash cow for their own media profile and claim to speak for others. Identity politics has no place in charity. It should be about central and core problems.

Outanabout · 12/06/2019 14:12

Accusations of 'kink shaming' on Twitter... "are you saying he shouldnt work with a children's charity because he's into rubber?" 🙄🙄🙄

RedToothBrush · 12/06/2019 14:14

"are you saying he shouldnt work with a children's charity because he's into rubber?"

It's like wilful stupidity isn't it?

101 ways in which to miss the point.

R0wantrees · 12/06/2019 14:22

It's fascinating how Stonewall is at serious risk of being a political lobby group rather than a charity which is concerned with LGBT rights only

Lobbying & Networking within businesses.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3488261-The-Financial-Juggernaut-that-is-Stonewall

R0wantrees · 12/06/2019 14:37

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Swipe left for the next trending thread