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.

Well... I don't know what to make of this thread, but I do know that I welcome Posie's latest endeavour.

I'm not the only one who has been attempting to find out which VAWG sector organisations continue to offer a female-only therapeutic environment.

But here is what I've found: it seems impossible in the current climate.

The attempt to receive an answer to the question "do you offer a women-only service?" was an exercise in futility.

1. I have received a firm, adamant, almost outraged "yes, of course we are women-only" from an organisation whose management accepts that a male person who has made no changes whatsoever to their appearance, name, or body is a woman on the basis of no more than a verbal declaration of identity. (I asked to clarify and yes, a male person visually indistinguishable from any other man is accepted as a woman on the basis of saying "I identify as a woman", both for the purposes of using the service or working there.) What their staff do in practice where management doesn't see I cannot know.

1. I have attempted to get this information in a wholly non-confrontational meeting with the head of another VAWG sector organisation. Someone who does mean a service is indeed female-only when they say women-only but who cannot and will not publicly state this because of the conditions of their funding.

1. I asked a trusted person in another VAWG sector organisation whether they would consider posting a simple statement of offering a female-only therapeutic environment for those female victims of male violence who need it alongside their trans-inclusive statement. I got no answer. (This was a face-to-face meeting.)

1. VAWG sector organisations never know now whether someone asking this question is asking in good faith, or planning to attack them as transphobes if they say they offer their provisions on a female-only basis or if they are going to be attacked as misogynists if they say they are trans-inclusive.

1. The unknown questioner cannot know whether someone saying yes to being women-only actually means female-only. Repeated questions are highly unlikely to elicit a better response, because the respondent cannot know the real motivation behind the question (see 4).

This also means I could not rely on written statements offering "women-only" services on their websites indicating that they offered female-only ones. Not unless they specifically listed supporting female victims and male victims and LGBT victims according to their needs. And even that is a best guess.

1. The unknown questioner cannot know whether someone saying no to being women-only means there is no female-only provision offered at all without further probing, after which they may be fobbed off as a potentially malicious caller. Which again runs into the issue at number 4.

1. Many staff, but mostly management, for many VAWG sector organisations have stressed publicly that they are trans-inclusive and have been for more than a decade without ever encountering any problems at all. Without exception they have done this without confirming that female victims of male violence who need a female-only therapeutic environment or refuge will still be offered such provision. But many women who know they need a female-only therapeutic environment are worried to request this now for fear of rejection or condemnation.

Female victims seeking support don't tell this to frontline workers or management precisely because there is such a lack of provision that they cannot risk losing the space if they are offered one. Which means they either self-exclude after being confronted with a mixed-sex environment and being unable to cope or self-exclude from the outset.

Yes, it's madness that this is the state of play, but it is what it is. Dreaming of what I'd like to happen or raging about how things got so bad aren't going to bring sanity back.

So, what do I think Posie's latest endeavour can do to change any of the above?

At best, she'll increase provision by offering new female-only spaces or providing additional funding to an existing female-only service.

At worst, she'll upset VAWG organisations with her claim that they are failing female victims by not openly offering female-only provisions and spur them into a public criticism of Posie's claim and an affirmation that actually they do provide female-only services.

Or a very public rejection of female-only provision which will shine a light on the issue, make the public aware and lead to an open debate that does not depend on vulnerable victims having to beg for their needs to be met.

Or both.

And in my view the defunding of specialist services and outsourcing of provision to organisations outside of the women's sector is a direct result of the ideological reasoning, embraced by almost all executives of VAWG sector and women's rights organisations, that also underpins the doctrine of gender identity. It is logical that de-emphasising sex weakens arguments for specialist female-only provision and obscures the issue of predominantly male violence being inflicted predominately on female victims. We barely convinced (just) enough people of that argument in the first place, it has never been uncontested since the first refuges and rape crisis centres were set up, so advocating for trans-inclusive and/or gender-neutral services gives opponents of female-only provisions the upper hand.

When funders such as councils then look at who to award contracts to, specialist knowledge seems far less important than cost. Especially right now.

And why would councils continue to fund a specialist women's sector organisation when those very orgs have been telling everyone that they have been operating on a mixed-sex basis for a decade without any problems?

So let's bring that issue to the fore with this fundraiser. Thrash this out in public. Remind VAWG sector workers that the women who need their services face so many barriers to access already that adding one more in publicly emphasising how inclusive they are of male people (whether victims or staff) leads to vulnerable women being excluded even if they still offer female-only provisions on the quiet.

We are not mind readers after all and cannot know what they may or may not offer in secret until after we have risked rejection or condemnation by expressing our need for a female-only therapeutic environment. And I can tell you from my own experience that when you are in crisis expressing that need in the current climate can become an insurmountable hurdle.

Ah. I see.

And yes now you mention it. It's the purity thing again. In group out group.

Like I say for me it's what you say and do that matters not what you look like.

I know that is not universal though.

And yes I have seen that actually, IRL. A look, a way of dressing etc.

Like I say my views are my own. And they're very much deeply held and long term. People talk about identity- even without the word feminism is and always has been at my core. Not this type or that type. My views are my own.

I have witnessed so much fighting, schism. In the groups I was invited to a few years back. It was very interesting. And there was the inflexibility. The polarisation. Wrong/ right. It was awful. The left seem hopeless at pulling together imo.

And this feels like that.

One woman who no one has to like or support essentially being character assassinated because... Not even sure why.

In the end is it because she's not 'one of us'.

Well she's 100x braver than me. She's done more for getting publicity then I ever would. She has her face out there, she has children. Can you imagine the threats?

And as for her politics in general. Does any of what she has said or its been reported she's said make any women on here think she is an actual threat to women? That she's somehow going to get a load of power and I dunno. Persecute people or something?

Seriously?

This is about a few women bunging her s few quid, yes?

Is she still working with Julia? If so, is she a baddie too?

Lol. Had been thinking about 'The Producers' recently

mobile.twitter.com/TimBarnsley1/status/1398609835701194753

Apologises, wrong thread

And for that too

Sorry I forgot who my last essay was in response to!

IMO. What this is about. Is getting media attention as to why she felt the need to do this. That's what she's good at.

Whether in the end the money will go to existing services or something new I don't know.

PP giving interviews about why she is fundraising for female only shelters can only be a good thing.

CharleyParley excellent post. I hope the people on here criticising Posie read and take note, you have articulated fully everything that is wrong with the current state of affairs.

To all those saying trust the current providers they know what they are doing read what CharleyParley says and remember on whose watch women only refuges became mixed sex.

This is not about Posie this is about women who have nowhere to go and is highlighting one of the major reasons why they have nowhere to go and why they don't have enough trust and faith in the current system. All I am seeing from those tearing lumps out of Posie is an unwillingness to admit to what's happened and why and a refusal to do anything about it, a very defensive stance has been taken and that helps no-one least of all the women these refuges were set up to help in the first place. The issue has been brought to the fore and needs action taken now, if current providers refuse to do so then it is not Posie who will suffer it is the women those providers should be helping who will and that's on their conscience.

There's no criticism surely for existing providers.

The model began became bid for funding to deliver the service.

No one could have anticipated this.

And the other point is that the public in general is lacking in knowledge and somewhat apathetic about stuff for women generally.

My view.

Women's/ girls issues/ feminism have been vocal for a few decades now. Yes stuff happened before but the 60s+ stuff.

It's never been popular.

The backlash started mid to late 90s. Serious backlash.

There is a perception that 'the government' provide all these things. DV shelters for women. It's all in place.

There's the general perception particularly by certain groups that other groups get all this 'stuff' and it's not fair and disadvantaging them. Women's prizes. More women's sport on the telly. More women presenting, being interviewed etc. They're everywhere!

So on the one hand there's an assumption that issues for women are all sorted.
On the other hand there's resentment about women only stuff.

So the existing providers who lose funding, can they make it up through donations? In the current climate?

The vast majority have become single gender and councils seem to be pushing for mixed sex.

I don't see how funding can be raised to save the existing services that want to stay single sex when the public are where they're at tbh.

The whole situation for women and girls is a disaster tbh and there's handwringing but society in general does not get angry.

The narrative needs changing somehow.

I've worked in the third sector.

The women running current services have done zero wrong. The system has screwed them. In s way they couldn't have seen coming.

We need to not fight and pull together. There is room for everyone here.

Trust me, the infighting etc is a massive turn off. It happens all the time. Always has. But it is entirely counter productive.

Great post CharleyParley

Feminist is as feminist does. I don't care how women 'identify'.

I agree NiceGerbil.

To me a feminist position is one that benefits women, it doesn’t matter whether the person espousing that position ‘identifies’ as a feminist or not. I consider myself a radical feminist, but many women who don’t consider themselves to be any kind of feminist also agree that genderism, prostitution and porn are harmful to women. I think that women who agree on an issue can work together to achieve an agreed on goal, it can mean parking other differences, but it can be done, whether some call themselves feminists or not is immaterial.

Between the women there were disagreements. But this sort of character assassination/ saying well you might as well be aligning with xyz.

I think the main reason Posie gets the onslaught she does is because she has been tarred as ‘right wing’ (whether she actually is or not is immaterial), then anyone who agrees with any of her practical actions are also tarred as ‘right wing’, even if they are as far from that as they could possibly be, and disagree with her on many other things. It causes a significant number of women who consider themselves left wing to not want to be associated with her. Since it often works we get this constant stream of people who say ‘she is like Katie whatsit, if you give any support to her actions you are a bad person, what is wrong with you?’ etc. It’s basically a way to get women to reject and distance themselves from anything she does, and the positions she holds, despite many other well regarded feminists like Julia Long also sharing her position. I think the smearing is to stop people adopting the position, rather than about Posie herself to be honest, and I think it originates from the TRAs.

@NiceGerbil

Ah. I see.

And yes now you mention it. It's the purity thing again. In group out group.

Like I say for me it's what you say and do that matters not what you look like.

I know that is not universal though.

And yes I have seen that actually, IRL. A look, a way of dressing etc.

Like I say my views are my own. And they're very much deeply held and long term. People talk about identity- even without the word feminism is and always has been at my core. Not this type or that type. My views are my own.

I have witnessed so much fighting, schism. In the groups I was invited to a few years back. It was very interesting. And there was the inflexibility. The polarisation. Wrong/ right. It was awful. The left seem hopeless at pulling together imo.

And this feels like that.

One woman who no one has to like or support essentially being character assassinated because... Not even sure why.

In the end is it because she's not 'one of us'.

Well she's 100x braver than me. She's done more for getting publicity then I ever would. She has her face out there, she has children. Can you imagine the threats?

And as for her politics in general. Does any of what she has said or its been reported she's said make any women on here think she is an actual threat to women? That she's somehow going to get a load of power and I dunno. Persecute people or something?

Seriously?

This is about a few women bunging her s few quid, yes?

Is she still working with Julia? If so, is she a baddie too?

So well put as usual. This isn’t a time for discord on small potatoes, isn’t the general move in the right direction, like a big wave, more important?

Agree.

The mistake is that saying 'ohh she's a baddy she's right wing!' will wash with grown up women.

I'm a dyed in the wool leftie.

However.

I'd rather have 50/50 male female Tories than 100% lefty men.

Women on the right generally care about children, DV, Street harassment etc in a way that men rarely do. Because men don't think oh she looks right wing I won't attack her...

All that stuff for men is not even in their thoughts. 100% of any men will mean that issues for women girls and children won't be anywhere near the table.

Unpopular view probably.

I just find this polarisation so tedious.

I’ve just discovered that one of the very few existing services that posters on this thread were quite incensed that we weren’t donating to instead of Posie, nia, does not provide refuge to ordinary sufferers of domestic abuse.

Nia is a specialised service, and a very laudable one at that. They provide refuge space to women with alcohol- and drug-abuse issues, those who are exiting prostitution and women who may be violent and disruptive because of these issues. Those women are usually exclyded from other refuges, and nia is providing a much needed service.

I fully salute those working for nia who provide this. However, nia does not provide a refuge service to women without these issues, so to claim Posie’s fundraiser has anything whatsoever to do with nia is disingenuous. It makes me wonder about the other providers we are told provide female only services. Do they provide services for all abused women, or are they managing to still get funding, in spite of being single sex, by providing highly specialised services too?
I have nothing against specialised services, on the contrary I think they are sorely needed, but I do think when women on this thread are being remonstrated with, with reference to these services, we are being lied to.

Posie is talking about refuge for any ordinary woman who needs to flee a violent partner and her claim that the majority of these women cannot currently access single sex services is true. She acknowledges nia is single sex, but I am not even sure she knows that nia does not cater to ordinary women.

Specialised services are really vital.

Thing is like I said.

Getting financial support from the public is hard. Very hard.

Funding from councils etc comes with strings attached.

Why are stonewall and other well funded well supported charities not focusing on research into the needs of the groups they advocate for. Around DV and refuge'. And setting up what they need? They are in a brilliant position to do that.

Ditto help for men.

Why is it all about opening up existing services for women- which will not serve anyone well?

The issues, barriers to leaving and risks are different. One size does not fit all.

The fact that the people and groups pushing are not doing this says to me personally that it's not actually about helping those groups. It's just. Let them in.

Anyway.

It is absolutely not the fault of existing providers that they have been financially coerced into the position they are in.

I imagine a lot of those involved for years feel like throwing in the towel.

And it's all being corporatised anyway.

Starting again is the only thing to do, surely? Supporting those who are holding the line. And thinking well what else can we do.

NiceGerbil I'm a leftie too, it makes no difference though, those with an agenda just ignore that. I used to frequent another site for woman some years ago, and expressed views about genderism, several there started calling me a Trump supporter, and accused me of being in league with the ‘alt right’, it is ridiculous. I now consider myself pro women rather than left/right to be honest.

I agree that women on the right often care more about women’s and children’s issues than men do, we only have to look at the Baroness to see evidence of this.

I think even though men make a song and dance about it, they actually care far less about left/right politics, than they do about what benefits them as men. I honestly think it would be better for women if we gave our loyalty to what benefits women as a group, rather than left/right politics. I am not suggesting women shouldn’t discuss things and disagree with each other, just that ultimately it is better for women to prioritise women’s needs than left/right politics, because if we don’t no one will. That’s my view though certainly not a popular one either.

100% agree.

I'd still not vote Tory though

'
several there started calling me a Trump supporter, and accused me of being in league with the ‘alt right’, it is ridiculous.'

This sort of stuff is so tedious.

I'm not American. Ooh you're in bed with the extremist religious right wing. Who are they then? We don't really do religion in England. It's a nonsense thing to say. Where are their brains?

Ditto trump. He's not the president any more. And I'm not American!!!

What about the fact that loads of women who are pushing back are life long lefties, many activists, and lots of long term activists for LGB rights? They've suddenly turned evil? I mean. Really???

It's a fascinating display of how women are still viewed in society, and how extremism manifests.

Telling women who are demonstrably pro socialist principles and have actively fought for minorities for years, and are often members of various oppressed groups. That they are right wing religious fundamentalists. That they want people to die. Etc etc. It's bizarre.

Telling women who are demonstrably pro socialist principles and have actively fought for minorities for years, and are often members of various oppressed groups. That they are right wing religious fundamentalists. That they want people to die. Etc etc. It's bizarre.

If anything, it’s the so-called left who have forgotten socialist principles. We, the socialist women, are as socialist as we ever were, while the “left” e.g the labour party, have turned into a random mess of jumbled up identity politics. A genuinely socialist stance would understand structural oppression and that women are oppressed as a class.

NiceGerbil Well in the Police and crime Commissioners election I could vote for the Labour candidate as they were on the list of candidates that Sarah Phillimore recommended on her website. So I was happy about that.

I did try to explain that it is not applicable here in the UK but it just falls on deaf ears. The thing is I think some do actually believe the things they say (younger people mostly), they also convince themselves the majority of people agree with them, then they are shocked when the public reject their views. I also noticed a trend of referring to people they disagreed with as ‘it’ in order to dehumanise them. I think this calling people right wing also functions to dehumanise women, so it becomes acceptable to treat them as badly as possible, like the ‘punch a nazi’ slogan is now accompanied by the ‘punch a ter*’ slogan and Stonewall has now gone on record as saying gender critical beliefs are akin to anti-semitism. It is just a way to make it socially acceptable to shutdown women’s criticism of genderism.

If anything, it’s the so-called left who have forgotten socialist principles. We, the socialist women, are as socialist as we ever were, while the “left” e.g the labour party, have turned into a random mess of jumbled up identity politics. A genuinely socialist stance would understand structural oppression and that women are oppressed as a class.

Totally agree Fallingirl

Getting financial support from the public is hard. Very hard.

Well, now we know that whoever is collecting has to be personally running the establishment as well. Just them, on their own. Next time anyone is collecting for anything there can be a few questions on whether they (singlehandedly, mark you) have all the expertise and all the experience necessary to keep the place going on their own.

Also, how on earth they will keep it going next year if they are collecting for this year. The mere fact they are asking for donations will only to serve they hadn't enough already and how dare they even try provide this service.

It seems nobody should start anything at all if they ask the public for donations. It seems some, for whatever reason, think they should be stopped. Or is that just women who centre women (and women alone) who should be stopped?

Only serve to highlight

So Ms Parker, you have made a public appeal for funding to set up a women’s refuge. I am a big advocate of single sex refuges and I like your idea a lot but before I donate, please can you share your ideas for keeping males out of female spaces?

https://vimeo.com/557072739

Ah great idea! Which female toilets in particular did you have in mind Posie?

https://vimeo.com/557073645

Yes, she is pointing out how illogical it is that some males access women's spaces and not other males. She is pointing out how any male whatsoever can identify as a woman and gain access to women's and girls' spaces.

If it is all mixed sex now. May as well point out that rather than the sublime 'privilege' of special males, it is really the ridiculous reality that it allows any male who wishes to insert themselves in women's and girl's spaces.