Women warning women about dangerous men

[ArabellaScott]

www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/10/13/women-have-always-tried-to-warn-each-other-about-dangerous-men-we-have-to/

'This kind of informal attempt to protect one another isn’t new — and neither is the attempt to thwart it by a culture whose distrust of women is downright pathological.'

An interesting article.

Women have always known they have to look out for predators and dangerous men. How many times have you given or heeded these warnings?

Clare's law is an attempt to help women warn each other:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30977759

What happens when women aren't allowed to do what they have always done? What happens when we are warned that we must not express our worries, our concerns, must not 'weaponise' previous trauma, must not ask questions, or say the wrong thing, and must always #bekind?

Wow the Clares Law service is going to save many women from misery - 3,760 applications under the law so far - resulting in the 1,335 disclosures. and save lives. horrific stories in that bbc article.

Does it mean disclosures about 1,335 violent men? or 1,335 acts? where one man have committed more than one.

I presume disclosures are number of men who've been reported on?

Note that bbc article is from 2015, I'm sure the number is far higher, now. Be interesting to see how the scheme is working.

From Wiki:

'Effectiveness and reactions

It is not clear whether Clare's Law reduces the rate of homicide due to intimate partner violence,[44] or whether disclosures that are made pursuant to Clare's Law induce their recipients to seek further assistance.[45]

Fitz-Gibbon and Walklate note that Clare Wood, in particular, appears to have been 'acutely aware' that Appleton was violent.[46] Thus, they point out, the problem Wood faced may not have been a lack of information, but rather a lack of 'support' from others around her, and a lack of effective police operations in the domestic violence context.[47] Walklate has noted elsewhere that women may not want to know information about their partners' past, or may choose to remain in a relationship despite receiving such information.[48]

Carline and Dehaghani observe that, by effectively deputizing women to remove themselves from abusive relationships, Clare's Law 'responsibilizes' women for dealing with abuse and, accordingly, may divert attention and resources from state-funded support mechanisms.[49]

Refuge has spoken against Clare's Law on several occasions, suggesting that it does not address the root problems associated with intimate partner violence.[1][50] '

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare%27s_Law

I'm interested in the wider point, though, that women have always needed to and have always tried to warn other women when there are issues to do with danger and safeguarding.

Lately, I see these warnings being treated as 'problematic', and it is making me wonder what the effect will be if we can no longer name a problem and say 'this makes me uncomfortable'.

Sounds as though one in three queries exposes previous problems. That seems quite high- many women don't ask, and many men haven't been previously reported, so I'd say a significant number of women who spot red flags are justifiably concerned.

Women absolutely do informally share concerns and absolutely must be able to continue to, particularly given the appalling rates of successful prosecution.

I'm interested in the wider point, though, that women have always needed to and have always tried to warn other women when there are issues to do with danger and safeguarding.

wish these men could be tracked and a big warning sign appear whenever a woman gets near them

Like the coronavirus app.

OP I am a bit confused

Who is calling the warnings "problematic"?

This reminds me of the unofficial warning system when I was at university years and years ago when the walls of the ladies toilet cubicles in the university library were filled with graffiti of men’s names and faculty with warnings if they were ‘handsy’ in taxis or worse. I don’t think it dissuaded any girl from giving such men a chance in case the info was wrong, but they were on warning to proceed with extreme caution.

Luna, sorry, I was a bit thinking out loud with this post. I should have phrased it better and maybe waited til I'd formed the whole thought properly!

It seems to me that women are unable to openly discuss their worries/concerns/fears at the moment - a post earlier today in this board was about lesbian groups, and males joining them.

The post was deleted, as 'not being in the spirit', and I am concerned that women are being censored or self-censoring. There is, as described in the WSJ and by Evelyn's toilet cubicle story above, a long history of women discussing safety, threats, boundaries and warnings. But today it felt that we are stopped from discussing this if the males involved identify as women - it felt we're not allowed to raise the subject, discuss it, name the issues.

Evelyn, that's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of.

Oh I agree with that

But we are not stopped from telling each other and we do have Clare's Law which is grand.

Lately, I see these warnings being treated as 'problematic', and it is making me wonder what the effect will be if we can no longer name a problem and say 'this makes me uncomfortable'.

Puts me in mind of a particularly preachy episode of Sorkin's Newsroom -

In a classic “Newsroom” setup, she wasn’t simply a victim denied justice. Instead, the woman was another of Sorkin’s endless stream of slippery digital femme fatales; she created a Web site where men could be accused, anonymously, of rape. …

“The kind of rape you’re talking about is difficult or impossible to prove,” Don tells her. It’s not a “kind of rape,” the woman responds sharply. She argues that her site isn’t about getting revenge, that it’s “a public service”: “Do not go on a date with these guys, do not go to a party with these guys.” Don cuts her off: "Do not give these guys a job, ever." He argues that she’s making it easier for men to be falsely accused, but the woman says that she's weighed that cost and decided that it’s more important that women be warned.…”

Finally, he reveals his real agenda. He’s heard two stories: one from "a very credible woman” and the other from a sketchy guy with every reason to lie. And he’s obligated, Don tells her, to believe the sketchy guy’s story. She's stunned. “This isn’t a courtroom,” she points out, echoing the thoughts of any sane person. “You’re not legally obligated to presume innocence.” “I believe I’m morally obligated," Don says…Yes, that's correct: Don, the show’s voice of reason… argues that a person has a moral obligation to believe a man accused of rape over the woman who said he’d raped her, as long as he hasn't been found guilty of rape.

www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-newsroom-crazy-making-campus-rape-episode

Wow. That is so depressing.
Her site still exists though? Or was she forced to shut it down?.

wish these men could be tracked and a big warning sign appear whenever a woman gets near them

If women had been allowed to write and enforce all the laws for millennia we would have websites that tracked their location at all times. So women could get their phones out in the pub and get background info on the blokes who approached them.

I'd never really thought about it, but yeah I've both warned women and been warned.

It's quite nerve racking to do - as you never know if you'll be made into a trouble maker! But we still make the warnings. Good for us all. 🦸‍♀️❤

Very interesting thread OP.

Interesting premise, Embarrassing! Yes, that has close parallels.

I'm thinking of when you were a kid, and 'everyone knew the local creeps', too. There was always a network of kids telling each other who to avoid, or places to avoid. This type of sharing, I think, maybe has more chance of false accusations and urban myths, but it's perhaps because children are still learning how to identify and avoid danger.

Where is the 'toilet door', now we all live online? How do women share their fears, what are the implications? Are we allowed to do so? Can we say 'this guy is a creep'? If it's on a lesbian site and someone is self identified as a lesbian but it creeps lesbians out, is that allowed?

Where is the 'toilet door', now we all live online? How do women share their fears, what are the implications? Are we allowed to do so? Can we say 'this guy is a creep'? If it's on a lesbian site and someone is self identified as a lesbian but it creeps lesbians out, is that allowed?

We have largely lost the right to even do it informally. At the moment, it is “only” a hate incident, but it may actually become a crime. It looks like it will be in Scotland.

It is theBewilderness’ 13th rule of misogyny; a woman talking about a man being creepy is worse than the man doing the creepy thing.

And every creep in town will have noticed that this is the get out of jail free card.

I'm feeling really down about it tonight.

I always think it would be good if the police could have an amnesty and women could go in and report stuff, especially if they knew who it was.

The police could then look for men who had multiple reports and follow up- they'd presumably have a stronger case if it's a load of women who don't know each other. Also I think women would be more likely to give evidence if they knew they were one of 5 or 10 others etc.

Of course this will never happen but it seems so obvious.

You'd get some really awful repeat offenders off the streets for sure.

At the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe. Ime if there is sufficient financial incentive for people not to listen to warnings, even serious Claire’s law disclosures will be ignored. Everybody has a price, it’s that simple. A man accused of violence towards a partner in a past relationship always be able to find a new partner so long as he has a massive house/ sports car/ cash in the bank. It may bot be you or I, but for plenty of women the "psycho ex" story is enough.
Women with children are scared of reporting violent men through Claire’s law or otherwise because they live in fear that in reporting, they become the subject of social services involvement themselves. It’s very rare that a man is banned from seeing his own children. So a woman chooses to report, she’s told the man MUST go or she’s deemed a bad mother. The man goes and the woman is forced to hand her children over to a dangerous man and potentially his new partner (who thinks what he did in the past is ok) for contact. It can be overnight, the accommodation is not vetted, he may be irresponsible or emotionally abusive. The new partner is suddenly allowed to drive the kids about, babysit them, despite having no experience of looking after small children/ babies even.
Who loses?
And people on these threads advise time and time and time again.... LTB! Report him! Etc etc yadadadada.

@NiceGerbil

I always think it would be good if the police could have an amnesty and women could go in and report stuff, especially if they knew who it was.

The police could then look for men who had multiple reports and follow up- they'd presumably have a stronger case if it's a load of women who don't know each other. Also I think women would be more likely to give evidence if they knew they were one of 5 or 10 others etc.

Of course this will never happen but it seems so obvious.

You'd get some really awful repeat offenders off the streets for sure.

Yes. Whistle blowing in any context needs to be easy. So does giving evidence in safety. Technology is the obvious start, but the details in the evidence would still, in most cases, make identity clear to an offender. Whatever the verdict, in most situations one would avoid feeling a need to look over one's shoulder for life, in fear of revenge.

(I have heard of professional witnesses and of course recordings being used in anti-social council house neighbour cases)

My two pennyworth is to wonder if in some cases technology would be the solution to many kinds of evidence gathering, too? After all, if Alexa is recording you in case you ask her to do something, maybe she has heard someone under your roof threatening you? Or if you are a negligent surgeon or abusive carer, shouldn't c.c.t.v. be the evidence?