Posie putting her money where her mouth is. Lets do this.

[Fallingirl]

Posie is planning to re-build the women’s sector, starting with crowd funding for a women-only refuge.

Oh wait RISE isn't women only is it? Are all the others or should I check? I'm not going to donate to any shelter for women that allows men in.

So, we want to make sure women aren't kept away from services they need because of fear of being put in a refuge with men, right?

But if Posie uses her platform to - incorrectly - spread the idea that there are no women-only spaces left, she risks inadvertently doing just that.

If women are put off approaching local specialist services because they've heard they're going to be put in with men, and it's not true in their location, that's putting the very people at risk this venture claims to be helping. Posie's place won't have room for them all, not by a long shot.

There are a lot of holes in the system. Reports like this paint a stark picture of chronic underfunding and the sector working with odds stacked against them. The level provision is nowhere near what's needed.

However, the sector is still there and even if you are not aware of them, as Shonagh Dillon and others who know what they're talking about have said, services run by women for women do still exist (even if not in every area).

When Posie crashes into this arena without doing her research, and paints a picture of the sector that isn't accurate, but suits her narrative, and encourages fear and division by painting the whole women's sector as the enemy (you can see that message being amplified on this thread), that has real potential to harm the very women she's supposed to be supporting.

One extra refuge would be great in theory, but once it fills up (which would happen instantly if women knew how to find it) then what? It's a drop in the ocean. This plan is surely about raising publicity, but if Posie is starting from a position that's not true, stirs up animosity to the women working for women in the sector, and puts the women she wants to help at risk, then publicity may not be such a good thing in this instance.

Posie is great at PR. Her interview with Harrop is a thing of beauty. But at the heart of this are a group of very vulnerable women who deserve specialist support from women who know what they're doing. Fucking up the messaging on this may have very real consequences for women, and the more people handwave away criticism, the more it worries me.

@SapphosRock

If, like Women's Place UK, you reject Posie's stated views on race and religion and feel uncomfortable about Posie's generalizations and misrepresentations of Muslim women then Women's Place UK is an excellent organisation to donate to.

They work with experts on the ground in the women's services sector such as Karen Ingala Smith and have run some fantastic seminars to raise awareness.

womansplaceuk.org

I don't think I've ever seen that. Where there is a crowd funder here for women victims of male violence, and someone comes along, attacks the character of the crowdfunder owner and says don't donate to that donate to this.

@OhHolyJesus

Oh wait RISE isn't women only is it? Are all the others or should I check? I'm not going to donate to any shelter for women that allows men in.

Rise is in Brighton and has pioneered LGBT services there. There are a lot of LGB and T people in Brighton, it's appropriate for the local DV services to cater to the local population.

However their website states they provide specialist services for mothers and children. It is possible to provide both.

If WPUK recommend them, then I trust their recommendation.

@howtocomplain

So, we want to make sure women aren't kept away from services they need because of fear of being put in a refuge with men, right?

But if Posie uses her platform to - incorrectly - spread the idea that there are no women-only spaces left, she risks inadvertently doing just that.

If women are put off approaching local specialist services because they've heard they're going to be put in with men, and it's not true in their location, that's putting the very people at risk this venture claims to be helping. Posie's place won't have room for them all, not by a long shot.

There are a lot of holes in the system. Reports like this paint a stark picture of chronic underfunding and the sector working with odds stacked against them. The level provision is nowhere near what's needed.

However, the sector is still there and even if you are not aware of them, as Shonagh Dillon and others who know what they're talking about have said, services run by women for women do still exist (even if not in every area).

When Posie crashes into this arena without doing her research, and paints a picture of the sector that isn't accurate, but suits her narrative, and encourages fear and division by painting the whole women's sector as the enemy (you can see that message being amplified on this thread), that has real potential to harm the very women she's supposed to be supporting.

One extra refuge would be great in theory, but once it fills up (which would happen instantly if women knew how to find it) then what? It's a drop in the ocean. This plan is surely about raising publicity, but if Posie is starting from a position that's not true, stirs up animosity to the women working for women in the sector, and puts the women she wants to help at risk, then publicity may not be such a good thing in this instance.

Posie is great at PR. Her interview with Harrop is a thing of beauty. But at the heart of this are a group of very vulnerable women who deserve specialist support from women who know what they're doing. Fucking up the messaging on this may have very real consequences for women, and the more people handwave away criticism, the more it worries me.

But Shonagh herself said that those running refuges are too scared to confirm that they're women only. So how are women supposed to know their local refuge excludes men?

I understand that if there are women only refugees, then women victims need to know, but if they're too scared to say so, then for those women victims, it's a toss up anyway.

How do you know it's going to be an all female environment, if some won't say so?

How do you know it's going to be an all female environment, if some won't say so?

I don't know how DV services that are women only communicate to services users that they are single sex but I can think of lots of ways they can do this, largely through the private conversations they have with the service users.

There is a huge difference between putting out a public statement about being single sex and what you communicate to women who come to you for help.

If these expert services have to rely on secret signals because they daren't state in public that they're women only then that is not normal and not acceptable. It is fucked up.

I wonder if people here have any idea of the scale of the sector?

Stats from Women's Aid. Just looking at England, for example:

In May 2019, there were 220 providers running 368 local services throughout England. These local services between them run 269 refuge services and 213 dedicated services for children and young people.

WA go on to estimate that just under 11.5K women used a refuge that year. Given many more women are turned away due to space, the demand is significantly higher than that.

WA also estimate there are just over 156k using community services provided by the women's sector.

I'd expect it's likely the majority of these women never came across a transwomen in refuge - even for places that do say TWAW as the number of TW needing DV services is small. I'm not saying that's anywhere near ideal, but neither is scaring women away from services that would have helped them.

@Floisme

If these expert services have to rely on secret signals because they daren't state in public that they're women only then that is not normal and not acceptable. It is fucked up.

Yes, it absolutely is fucked up! That's why women in the sector have been working to try to get others to speak up. And some have been.

You can see how the councils etc have them over a barrel as the vast majority of the managers of these services are there because they want to help the service users. But they know if they speak out, their service may be targeted or defunded and worry about how it will affect the service users.

But, there is work being done here.

Yes, something needs to be done. But painting the entire sector as the enemy is really not helpful, or true.

If for every ten refuges, only one is for women, how do you identify which one that is. Then even made to feel bad by some providers for even asking. You're a heretic, no recognition of biological sex allowed. That is not good enough.

I have no problem with supporting this drive because it will make waves. It will serve women in some shape or form. Also, I was thinking about all the tax money that is collected. You'd have thought it was going to women's needs for safety. No, they've decided that men's wants trump that.

Or charity collections. You think you're giving to a women's refuge. No, men's wants p*ss on that too.

There is a huge difference between putting out a public statement about being single sex and what you communicate to women who come to you for help.

Assuming those women approach you in the first place, yes.

There are a lot of LGB and T people in Brighton, it's appropriate for the local DV services to cater to the local population.

Sure, but if they believe in gender identity they won't be applying single sex exemptions.

However their website states they provide specialist services for mothers and children. It is possible to provide both.

In applying gender ideology it's feasible that they think a mother can be a man, so it is possible to provide both, but not necessarily desperate to each other and separation might be what the women seeking their services are looking for.

If WPUK recommend them, then I trust their recommendation.

That's fine of course, it's also fine if I don't trust their recommendations. I now have to go and check for myself to see if their recommendations know what a woman is. This is time consuming and puts me off sending my money to them because I have to research them first. I don't. Want to call them and take up time on their phone lines when they could be providing much needed support to someone who needs it.

For me to donate to Posie, it's easy. She knows what a woman is. It's also why I donate to Lumos. JKR knows what a woman is. There is a useful short hand here.

Some allocation of tax, not all tax. HMRC and Council tax.

I think taxpayers in the US can use conscience to withhold tax that goes on military (could be wrong). We could with hold tax that is supposed to provide appropriate services for women (according to our needs) and we could give that instead to women's services that are indeed for women.

For me to donate to Posie, it's easy. She knows what a woman is

I get your point. It looks like we need a more public way to donate to those services that are working for women, without putting them at risk of being targeted. (A sorry state of affairs!)

Personally, I'm 100% confident that Rise are much better placed to help women that Posie - she doesn't know anything about providing services for women who've suffered abuse and trauma. Rise have 26 years experience in the field.

I know who my money's on for helping women who need specialist support.

I get your point. It looks like we need a more public way to donate to those services that are working for women, without putting them at risk of being targeted. (A sorry state of affairs!)

And I get yours, it's about perceptions I suppose. Places that are safe need to show they are safe and if they are single sex they need to say so publicly, very clearly. And I know why that's hard. And it is a very sorry state of affairs.

This half way house approach isn't helping anyone - inc those who do want to donate and help in the way they can, without experience and knowledge, but they want to be able to trust that their money is going to women.

I won't be donating to Rise.

'A sorry state of affairs?'
I'm starting to wonder whether people immersed in the sector realise how it looks to those of us on the outside. No we don't know as much about it, but we do know abusive batshittery when we see it, which is why these calls to leave it to the experts are not convincing me at all.

Several years ago, I listened to two women on radio four who I believe were from Women's Aid regarding the prospect of making refuges mixed sex.

It was a horrible, painful listen. They both clearly thought it was an appalling idea, but couldn't out right say so. Their hesitant speech, walking on eggshells language, fear and frustration was obvious. And they were angry.

These are women whose jobs are to understand what it's like to be intimidated into silence.

It can't go on.

which is why these calls to leave it to the experts are not convincing me at all.

Yes. As if they are the only experts. The unpleasant comments about Posie fundraising for a woman only service in order to discredit her, makes it apparent that she is clearly doing something right.

If women are put off approaching local specialist services because they've heard they're going to be put in with men, and it's not true in their location, that's putting the very people at risk this venture claims to be helping. Posie's place won't have room for them all, not by a long shot.

I think this is largely irrelevant. Women fleeing for their lives are rarely accommodated in their local refuge because a) they need to leave the area in order to be safe and b) the space issue - women will go to any refuge that has an appropriate space on the day and that can be anywhere in the country.

Currently, there aren't enough refuge spaces to accommodate all the women and children at the time they need them. If this project gets off the ground and ten more spaces are added to the already dwindling number then that's a good thing, surely?

If this project gets off the ground and ten more spaces are added to the already dwindling number then that's a good thing, surely?

It really is.

Currently, there aren't enough refuge spaces to accommodate all the women and children at the time they need them. If this project gets off the ground and ten more spaces are added to the already dwindling number then that's a good thing, surely?

You'd think so.

@Floisme

'A sorry state of affairs?' I'm starting to wonder whether people immersed in the sector realise how it looks to those of us on the outside. No we don't know as much about it, but we do know abusive batshittery when we see it, which is why these calls to leave it to the experts are not convincing me at all.

This. I work in another part of the voluntary sector and it’s really easy to not see ourselves as the world sees us because we very much live in an echo chamber where we all talk to each other and reinforce our beliefs.

If we can’t even do a simple mapping exercise to show which organisations running refuges apply the single sex criteria and which do not because those working in the sector are scared of being found out as single sex because of issues with funders and/or being targeted by activists then that is an appalling state of affairs

I think this is largely irrelevant. Women fleeing for their lives are rarely accommodated in their local refuge because a) they need to leave the area in order to be safe and b) the space issue - women will go to any refuge that has an appropriate space on the day and that can be anywhere in the country.

Yes you're right about location, sorry my post was badly worded.

But my point is, if women get the false impression that all refuges have men in them from this campaign and that puts them off getting help, that's not a good thing, is it?

But my point is, if women get the false impression that all refuges have men in them from this campaign and that puts them off getting help, that's not a good thing, is it?

So you think it's better to keep it quiet so women aren't aware that men might be in those spaces, rather than set up a campaign to make a difference?

No.

@howtocomplain

I think this is largely irrelevant. Women fleeing for their lives are rarely accommodated in their local refuge because a) they need to leave the area in order to be safe and b) the space issue - women will go to any refuge that has an appropriate space on the day and that can be anywhere in the country.

Yes you're right about location, sorry my post was badly worded.

But my point is, if women get the false impression that all refuges have men in them from this campaign and that puts them off getting help, that's not a good thing, is it?

That doesn't make sense howto.

You can't continue to not highlight a problem, because you are worried about the fallout. It will never get better in that case.

It has to stop. Refuges have to feel confident that they can say no men.

@howtocomplain

I think this is largely irrelevant. Women fleeing for their lives are rarely accommodated in their local refuge because a) they need to leave the area in order to be safe and b) the space issue - women will go to any refuge that has an appropriate space on the day and that can be anywhere in the country.

Yes you're right about location, sorry my post was badly worded.

But my point is, if women get the false impression that all refuges have men in them from this campaign and that puts them off getting help, that's not a good thing, is it?

So many posts howtocomplain seeking ways to criticis Posie yet so few of them offering solutions to why men are being centred by so many women's resources. Why?

I'm sorry to say it comes over as very personal, mirroring the Stonewall approach of attacking another woman rather than addressing the real issues.