I don’t know if anyone even noticed, but there’s been a distinct silence emanating from the Elliott/Mswoman keyboard over the last week. That’s because, while you lot were all gadding about enjoying the lovely summer sunshine, I was ensconced in the Brighton Centre, attending Unison’s annual Local Government and National Delegate Conferences (NDC).
On the few trips I made into the fresh air over the 7 days I was there, I could actually see the beach and smell the sea, but nerdy trade union activist that I am, the closest I managed to get to enjoying any of it was lunchtime on the last day, when me and a group of friends ventured across the road and had some al fresco sandwiches. (by had some sandwiches, in my case, I mean bought and sat them in front of me, but thanks to the hangover from hell that’s as far as things went)
Now obviously the week wasn’t all about work. Conference finished at 5pm everyday, and once the fringe meetings and regional meetings had been sat through, my evenings were mine to do with as I wished. I did think about going back to my hotel and plugging in the laptop, logging on to t’Internet and catching up with the world, but it was only a passing thought, especially when the alternative was going out eating and drinking (and ohhh, how we drank!) with friends. Naturally I chose the latter, hence the eerie calm, and the peace and quiet on the Intertubes.
But now I’m back.
I’m not going to go into any great detail about NDC: for those who are interested there’s official coverage of it here, (including a write up of a motion I had the privilege of moving on behalf of Unison’s National Women’s Conference [not National Women’s Committee as the write up suggests]) and some great unofficial coverage of it here, here, and hopefully soon if someone pulls their finger out, over here. But I will just run through a couple of what for me were some highlights of the week.
First off was Dave Prentis’s speech to conference, where he called on the union’s labour link to suspend all constituency development payments and ensure that the union only promotes and supports prospective labour candidates who are willing to stand up for the values of public service. And about bloody time too!
Another highlight for me was co-chairing the best attended women’s caucus meeting we’ve ever had at NDC, with close to a hundred women packing out the meeting room we’d booked for the Tuesday lunchtime.
And lastly was winning the vote on an issue that provoked some quite heated debate both at the women’s caucus and in and around the conference centre over the days that followed it. A vote that we hadn’t expected to win, that we’d more or less resigned ourselves to losing, and that proved that, in the words of the National Women’s Officer: “We rock!”
But it’s an issue that I don’t think is going to go away, and one I’d really welcome other people’s views on….
Basically, there was a motion to conference about domestic violence, which we (by which I mean those of us representing National Women’s Conference, the National Women’s Committee chair, and others) fully supported, but which one of the Scottish branches had submitted an amendment to that added this to a paragraph about supporting victims of dv in the workplace:
“This should include measures to assist employees who are experiencing domestic abuse/violence and protect them from being victimised by harsh sickness absence policies but must also include methods of allowing employees who are perpetrators of domestic abuse/violence time off work to address their behaviour through the appropriate agencies.”
I spoke against this amendment, arguing that it was not the union’s job, or the job of Unison activists, to be negotiating on behalf of perpetrators. I made the point that domestic violence is a crime, and that as Unison does not negotiate time off for the perpetrators of other crimes, we should not be making an exception in this case. Also what message does it give to victims, when they see their union advocating on behalf of their abusers? Zero tolerance of domestic violence should mean zero tolerance, and that includes zero tolerance towards the perpetrators of domestic violence.
As I said, we won the vote, but I understand that the men on the left of the union voted in favour of the amendment, alleging that we were using moral arguments and not dealing with things practically. I was also approached afterwards by a few people who said they were uneasy with the stance we’d taken.
On the other hand I was also approached by a male activist who told me a horrific story about the violence his wife had suffered in a previous marriage, and who said that there was no way as a union rep he’d ever be prepared to represent the kind of bastard who could treat a woman like that. I also spoke to people who said they had a near impossible task getting their employers to agree time off for victims of domestic violence, and who thought it would be wholly unfair for any emphasis to be put on negotiating time off for perpetrators.
One argument that I heard more than once and that pissed me off completely, was about how some Unison branches do negotiate time off so that people can attend programmes around drug and alcohol addiction: if they can negotiate time off for addicts, the mantra went, why shouldn’t they also negotiate time off for serial abusers?
Can someone please explain to me how that is even remotely relevant? How being addicted to alcohol (which last time I looked wasn’t actually a crime) is in any way comparable to being a wife beater?
But what do others think? Should trade unions be helping offenders address their behaviour by arranging time off during the working day so that they can attend perpetrator programmes? And do those programmes even work?
Too Much To Say For Myself 
I was at the conference as well. I voted for the amendment and against the motion when the amendment fell.
My main reason for doing this was that I felt that the motion itself referred too specifically to women as victims/survivors, and although the speakers all acknowledged that men could also come in to this category it was not explicit in the text. I also felt uncomfortable in the way that some speakers only seemed to be speaking about domestic abuse in gay male relationships rather than acknowledge that anyone anywhere on the gender spectrum can be a perpetrator.
I also didn’t feel that the motion itself addressed the forms of abuse that are non-violent, and I think that we need to be very clear with everyone that emotional and financial and other abuses are not lesser sins than sexual or physical violence.
I understand the gender bias in domestic abuse but I think that by focussing on women we often lose the support of men who feel too intimidated to stand up to us, too worried about accusations of sexism, of being apologists, of playing ostrich. I also feel that we run the risk of ignoring the valid experiences of many men who have survived abuse.
I understand the concerns about negotiating on behalf of abusers and didn’t think that the amendment really addressed this in enough detail. However, I do believe that if someone has identified a problem themselves and is seeking treatment to break the pattern before being compelled to then they should have support of some kind. I think that in that way we could be providing a service to both the perpetrator and the victim/survivor.
No it is not the role for Unions to help male perpetrators seek time off work in order to ‘work on their anger management.’ Most perpetrator programmes are focused on pseudo male anger management as though violent men commit intimate partner terrorism against their female partners because such men cannot control their anger. A few male perpetrator programmes do work with violent men but they refuse to accept the male perpetrators’ excuses, justifications, minimalisations and women-blaming. This is why such programmes do not have a huge success rate because these programmes work to challenge male privilege and pseudo belief in male ownership of women and children.
If unions promote the notion that male perpetrators should have time off work then once again the system works in favour of men and disadvantages women. Apparently any attempt by women to gain a small amount of equality is immediately met with ‘but what about the men, they too should be entitled to the same privileges.’ But of course our patriarchal system is not designed for women – it is for men and it is men who are the ones who benefit not women.
So, if male perpetrators are to be given time off work in order to attend anger management programmes, then the same issue should apply say, to men who are ‘sex addicts,’ or men who are alcoholics, etc. As Cath Elliott says, male violence against women is a crime – or at least it was a crime the last time I checked the law. Men who commit violence against women and are convicted, must expect to be held accountable for their violence not offered ‘time off’ which neatly minimalises their violence.
Yes, some men do experience violence from their female partners but overwhelmingly it is male partners who are committing this violence in a variety of ways.
Claims many men experience violence from their female partners are commonly used to deflect attention away from the women survivors and instead once again men’s lives and issues become the central issue. Furthermore, men who experience violence from their female partners do have options such as leaving the woman and they are commonly in a far better financial position than the woman.
For too long women have been expected to step aside whilst other issues are considered far more important – such as racism and homophobia but these affect both women and men and of course the ones who benefit are men because the issue then becomes one of seeking to give non-white and homosexual males the same rights as white heterosexual males. Non-white women and lesbian women are sidelined and/or ignored, since the aim is not to give all women full human rights but only men.
So, the motion was rightly passed and no women survivors are not passive victims but if we cannot name the acts men commit against women and name the fact that women are victimised by men then we cannot even begin to challenge embedded notions that man = human being = man is the centre of the universe and woman is the auxillary.
Many men do not want to speak out and challenge other men about their misogynistic attitudes and behaviour because it means the men who speak out will be labelled ‘effeminate or not a man.’ It is the power men have over other men which ensures the silent majority remain silent, even when empirical evidence consistently shows male violence against women is a huge social issue rather than just isolated incidents committed by individual men.
Male supremacy is maintained by the acts violent men commit against women. There is no need for all men to be violent because given our society is male-dominant, male-centered and male-defined, men who commit violence against women are consistently excused, justified or else their accountability is minimalised.
I was under the impression we had something called a ‘criminal justice system’ which is meant to deal with stuff like that?
Also I need to get myself in a decent union. Must. Find. New. Job.
Though my unions been ok, through my long dark night of threatening employment tribunals, they don’t have drinking.
All unions have drinking Polly, you just have to know the right people 😉
“on the gender spectrum can be a perpetrator.”
Gay isn’t a gender, because if it is equated as a gender, they can be barred from a big heap of jobs.
( in the same way as gender)
Which is why the major league gay orgs don’t want to go that ‘gender’ equivalent route.
Gregory
“If unions promote the notion that male perpetrators should have time off work then once again the system works in favour of men and disadvantages women.”
Do you want me to tell you the union that does most work for sex offender members?
The NASUWT are the biggest falsely accused society in the entire world.
Gregory
FFS.
Being a perpetrator of violence is NOT an illness.
End of matter.
Gregory gay isn’t a gender because it’s a sexual orientation. The two are completely different.
Gregory, I wasn’t saying that gay is a gender, but that the discussion was entirely based around male perpetrators, whether in gay or straight relationships. It was never acknowledged that women could also be perpetrators.
Jennifer – I am not in any way deflecting attention away from women survivors but spreading it to cover all survivors – removing the focus from gender altogether. No human being should be abused or experience violence.