I just want things done

[azu]

At a meeting yesterday to discuss what is fundamentally young men sexually harrassing and assaulting young women within our setting (alternative educational setting), the discussion turned into a debate about how inclusive our terminology was. Despite not having any trans women in our setting, the focus (which was based on those reporting, that is, young women) was deemed to be not inclusive and actually transphobic as we were talking in a way that it was clear we were only talking about 'women'. But these were those that had reported and therefore prompted the meeting.
But this, according to several colleagues, was excluding trans men and trans women, as well as gay men - and we will prevent these groups reporting anything as our focus is too transphobic and homophobic. By framing what is happening in this way, we are 'perpetuating hetreonormative' views which are oppressive and violent. Yes, violent. And ultimately, we should not target any support based around 'women' being subjected to this by 'men'.

As someone who has had many disclosures from young women in our setting (as well as having experienced sexual abuse as a child (by a man); sexual assault and harrassment (by men); rape (by a man); and domestic violence (by a man)), I came away feeling both furious and despairing.

I fully acknowledge that both men and women (however defined and whatever sexuality) are at risk from sexual violence and harrassment. BUT am I wrong in thinking that:
a) women are the main 'victims' of sexual violence and
b) women are targeted by men because they are women
c) gay men are targeted by male perpetrators because they are men
d) trans women are targeted by (male?) perpetrators because they are trans women?
Because I was told I was wrong. 'Cis' women are in a privileged position and gay men and trans women are truly marginalised and should be the focus of any initiatives that we put in place.

I am so tired. I work frontline with this, whereas these other colleagues have positions/roles which allow them to not have to engage directly with the distress I have had to deal with.

Can anyone explain? I just want to address what is going on, not waste time on conceptual debates.

People really need to start reserving the word violent for when violence occurs, otherwise how do we describe violence?

@Isthatthebestyoucando

People really need to start reserving the word violent for when violence occurs, otherwise how do we describe violence?

As someone who has been on the receiving end of actual physical and sexual violence this really got to me.

@FindTheTruth

So you meet with colleagues about several women being sexually assaulted. And their response is that women are cis and privileged, that talking about it is 'heteronormative' and that focusing on women being assaulted by men is transphobic?

Were the people who said this male or female?

Male. Supported by several women. I actually felt quite intimidated.

Cis' women are in a privileged position and gay men and trans women are truly marginalised and should be the focus of any initiatives that we put in place.

I must be in a bad mood because all I think reading this is what a pile of shit assumptions is that coming from.

Even if gay men were more oppressed from some universal God-like perspective, why does that mean that they needs of other people should not also be considered?

This is the underlying idea of so much id politics. We only look at problems through the lens of these named, oppressed groups, and in any scenario we have to think of the most oppressed first.

If there was a problem in a school or workplace that straight white men were having - someone was beating them up in the toilets and stealing their wallets say - guess what. Someone needs to deal with that. It doesn't matter if they have some imaginary abstraction called privilege, they shouldn't get beat up and have their wallets stolen and the institution has a duty to protect them from that. Deal with the fucking material facts.

These people are asshats who should not be in charge of anything.

@azu ❤️yup I guessed these 2 would be male. The good news is you are not alone. You say you feel alone going to work tomorrow.? As a suggestion, you could contact Safe Schools Alliance and come up with a plan. That way there's no need to worry, just follow the steps. If she's available to help, then Tanya Carter would be superb at helping you here. You're not alone. Everything is and will be fine. Your gut is spot on. The law is on your side. To paraphrase Helen Joyce, the only response to '16-20 year old women have been sexually assaulted' should be 'Holy sh*t, tell me more, we need to put a stop to this' or 'I don't believe you' Instead these 2 males responded with what HJ would call 'terminating cliches'. They are morally bankrupt. So what you do now is get support and find the people who aren't going to do the thought terminating cliches. and that should include your safeguarding officer.

Helen Joyces's words here:
"there are maybe two things that you can say that are not morally bankrupt in response ... one is 'i don't believe you i think you're a liar but i'm afraid you might not be so i've got to find out more' and the other one is 'oh holy sh*t tell me more'. they're the two acceptable things to say so i think i would now i would say that to someone, you know you have failed. you have failed a moral test the only acceptable things to say were those and you said this we've got to try and find the people who aren't going to do the thought terminating cliches"

@NecessaryScene

This is the mentality that permitted Rotherham. Weak people unable to look the world in the eye, as it is, and deal with what is actually happening.

As much as they may wish the current reality didn't show one particular group being the victims and one particular group being the perpetrators, their job is to deal with that reality.

If they don't want to grapple with reality, then they should be sent off to a nice sealed room to do their mental exercises and replaced with someone actually willing to do the work, and not actively get in the way because they're the "wrong" sort of victims and "wrong" sort of perpetrators in their belief system.

Totally agree, Necessary.

I love your letter, @FindTheTruth. I really have come to the point where I think it's insufficient to justify and explain ourselves. We need to go on the offensive and use exactly the kind of reputational damage tools that gender ideologues try to wield against us.

Wow, there's something quite evil about the behaviour of the 2 males.

I have nothing else to add, just sending you strength for tomorrow

"I don't want to give too much away for obvious reasons but we mainly work with 16-20 year olds, and I work in a study support role, paid."

It's just my initial thought but to be honest rather than allowing anyone to de-rail the discussion, your manager/the manager should be working out a strategy to tackle this and hoping fervently hat none of these woman sues the college/school/educational establishment. But all means have discussions on inclusive language etc. But have an agenda for the meetings, stick to the agenda, have action points, and if those actions are not followed up, ask what the plan is if someone sues.

Just FYI, I work in adult education and if this were happening to our students I would be horrified - I am sorry you are going through this but any ostrich 'head in the sand' managers need to wake up!

You are so right @azu and you are a heroine for persisting!

What is happening is that the language to describe specifically what is happening and to whom, is being deliberately taken away.

98% of sexual crime is committed by men (and boys)

The majority of the victims of that sexual crime are women (and girls).

We need the simple clear words to state these empirical statistical truths. If we can't name a problem, then we can't articulate it, then we can't take steps to solve it.

You need to go direct to your safeguarding lead (hopefully that isn't your manager) and tell him/her all this.

Lots of excellent advice here. You can also report thw school directly to Ofsted if you feel peer on peer abuse is not being dealt with appropriately.

This post is from last November, just noting.

Yes, this post is from last November. But OP talked about: "...what is fundamentally young men sexually harrassing and assaulting young women within our setting (alternative educational setting)..."

I doubt whether that has changed much.

What got me was that the dominant men in the discussion turned the talk away from the immediate problem - young men harassing and assaulting young women - and focused on terminology being 'exclusive,' and as OP said: "By framing what is happening in this way, we are 'perpetuating hetreonormative' views which are oppressive and violent. Yes, violent. And ultimately, we should not target any support based around 'women' being subjected to this by 'men'."

It's all just another way, as we well know, for women and girls to be told to shut the fuck up and suck it up, really.

Women raise concerns about male violence against women and girls. Men derail into queer politics. Result - women and girls have "cis privilege", and poor, poor oppressed men.

And women and girls are still assaulted, but that's women's "cis" privilege.

Ask them what they are going to do when the Police end up becoming involved, and/or a victim sues the service. Tell them they will need a protocol for this eventuality, and they need to talk to their liability insurers in light of these reports.

Demand these comments of yours are minuted in the meeting minutes. Refuse to sign off on any meeting minutes where your comments are not included.

@azu I see this has been resurrected. I didn’t see it the first time round, it’s worrying that efforts to provide support for women in physical danger as so easily derailed. I do hope you managed to get some traction and that it did not cost you too much. Do you have an update on how things went?