What’s in (another) name?

By David S. Prescott, LICSW

In the early 2000s, I was fortunate to become friends with Jan Hindman, who had taken part in many of the original professional activities that led to the establishment of ATSA. In her inimitable style, when interviewed on her role in the history of ATSA, she referred to herself as having been “the first vagina on the board.” Jan was friendly, loving, funny, and above all never turned her focus away from the suffering of those who had been abused. She used to wonder aloud what people who have survived abuse would make of our field. She often said the words, “Victims are watching.” It was a reference to the importance of carrying out our work in a manner that is sensitive to the experiences of vulnerable people and not passing them by as we seek ever-more-accurate diagnoses and assessment tools.

Of course, given the rates of victimization in the histories of those who have abused, it’s safe to say that practitioners are not strangers to working with people who have endured extreme adversity and caused harm. However, those who split their practice between those who perpetrate and those who have been harmed often describe how challenging the work can be.  Bearing witness to suffering is hard work, and so is shifting one’s focus from perpetration in some clients to anguish in others and then back again.

Fast forward a few years and in the title of a now classic article, Gwenda Willis asked, “Why call them by what we don’t want them to be?” Her article focuses on the ethics of labeling people rather than their actions. Likewise, Willis and Letourneau (2014) wrote on the importance of accurate and respectful language. These articles played a direct role in policy shifts in multiple areas.  ATSA’s journal, Sexual Abuse, suggests that authors use person-first language. This has been the subject of other blogs and articles, and the practice of person-first language has been commonplace in the adolescent arena of practice for many years. It needs no further substantive review here, except to note that many professionals have asked whether there isn’t a new term to describe those who sexually abuse others. Unfortunately, replacing one term with another simply ends up with further reductions in accuracy, as noted above.

Inside our field and even more so outside of it, person-first language is becoming more commonplace. Interestingly, we have not seen this same focus on accuracy and respect actively applied to those who have been harmed. While many of us have tried to develop new writing skills and habits, it is still very common to hear the term “victim” used, although the APA has recently offered guidance on inclusive language.

We are not the first to notice that people who have been sexually abused frequently do not like being called “victims.” A common objection is “I don’t want to be defined by the worst thing that ever happened to me.” Many prefer the term “survivor,” while many don’t. Worse, professionals working with individuals who have committed egregious crimes are aware that not everyone who is abused actually does survive. Discussions of terminology can be highly contentious and rightfully so; we’re discussing deeply personal matters and people rarely agree on everything.

Language, of course, is constantly evolving. In the current era, it can be common to hear people using the term “victim” in pejorative ways (accusing others of “playing the victim,” or of contributing to a “culture of victimhood,” etc.). In a discussion in the development of this post, co-blogger Kasia Uzieblo observed that the Dutch word for victim is “slachtoffer.” A client described how she and others hate this word because of its linguistic origins (slacht-offer translates as slaughter-sacrifice). If there is any comfort in this, it’s that all languages seem to struggle with these issues.

Nevertheless, it seems only respectful to extend the same courtesy of using person-first language to everybody and to ask whether there is particular language that they prefer. At a time in society when respect and accuracy often go missing from discourse, this can be a good place to start.

A call for compassionate leadership.

By Kieran McCartan, PhD, Kasia Uzieblo, PhD, & David Prescott, LICSW

There is a crisis in leadership! This seems like a sweeping statement, but unfortunately, it’s not. In fact, it seems to be getting worse. Over the last few weeks, we have seen very poor leadership being demonstrated on the international and national stages, which has led us to worry about the lack of insight and compassion present in these people as well as in the system. Some examples include:

The repeated failures in the leadership of the Metropolitan police (the police force of Greater London), where there has been more evidence mounting of misogyny, racism, bulling, rape culture, and a lack of respect for victims and their families. This has been compounded by the fallout from the Sarah Everard murder, which was perpetrated during lockdown by a serving police officer. Further, Cressida Dick, the lead police officer, did not take action to remedy matters or even, some would say, recognise the need for change. Overnight, Cressida Dick has resigned as head of the Met Police, but she stated that this was because the mayor of London has lost confidence in her and not because she failed to do her job effectively or recognize the scale of the issues and her ability to respond to them.

-        A recent statement by Boris Johnson, the embattled UK Prime Minister, that Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition, was responsible for not prosecuting Jimmy Savile when he was director of Public Prosecutions. This was proven not to be the case; Starmer was not directly responsible. However, Starmer was mobbed and harassed outside of Parliament as a result of Johnson’s statement. This situation, in turn, has led to calls for Johnson to apologize and retract the statement, which he has done only in part. The anger raised by Johnson’s statement has led to members of his team resigning and condemnation from his own party as well as victims’ charities. Johnson’s statement has been seen a political move that has backfired.

All of these are examples of poor, tone-deaf leadership. They show that we need to have a more rounded, inclusive, and compassionate approach to the issue of sexual abuse and sexual violence, and that this change needs to come from leadership. The idea of compassionate leadership is not a new one, but it feels like a more salient and pressing one now. It:

“…begins with self-compassion so that by attending to yourself, understanding the challenges you face in your own work (and life more generally), empathising or caring for yourself, and then taking wise action to help yourself, you are able to stay close to the core values that give our lives  and work meaning – compassion, wisdom, courage, justice – we are able to have deeper, more authentic and more effective interactions with all those we work with and offer care for” (Professor Michael West)

Compassion leadership is about taking a trauma-informed approach to management across all levels of an organisation so that staff, service users, and partners see that leadership recognises the legacies and impact of trauma, especially when working with complex and nuanced groups. Compassionate leadership embodies the need to lead from a place of understanding, reflection, and adaption; one where all parts of the organisation are open, and able, to adapt their practice from the good of their staff and service users’ wellbeing. Compassionate leadership embodies the principles of trauma-informed practice and involves leaders demonstrating the skills, attitudes, and behaviours that they want from their organisations. It means that leaders need to hold a mirror up to themselves, and their organisations, so that they can be held accountable and change. The examples provided above do not embody compassionate leadership. Instead, they demonstrate that the two leaders, Cassandra Dick and Boris Johnson, are not understanding what their actions and organisations have caused. They are not reflecting upon these and changing in a caring as well as considerate way. They are demonstrating that the status quo matters more, and that current practice needs to be maintained. The public would be better off if they reflected on their behaviour, their leadership, and the challenges within the organisation that allows bad practice to continue. Further, they need to develop a rounded, insightful approach that allows change to happen. The first step for any compassionate leader is to recognise the issue, their role in it, and reflect as well as apologise. If our leaders cannot be reflective and compassionate, how can we expect the organisations that they are?

In contrast and returning for a moment to last week's blog on transgressive behaviour at the University of Brussels: For a while there was radio silence from the leadership, while in the media there was a huge storm and witch hunts for professors who had crossed boundaries. We even began to wonder if this silence was disturbing or if it was a good thing. Just today we - as employers - have received a message from our rector in which she accepts responsibility, but also makes clear what lessons were learned and what steps they will take in the future to pay more attention to the needs of victims and improve their communication to victims. It can be done; leaders are able to switch to thinking slow and take thoughtful actions in the right direction.

 

How we all too easily slip into public attacks and evade the real challenges.

 By Kasia Uzieblo*, Maaike Blok*, David Prescott, & Kieran McCartan 

*Board members of NL-ATSA, the Dutch Affiliation of ATSA

On 20 January 2022, a YouTube program called “BOOS” (Dutch word for angry) was aired in which several contestants of the Dutch talent show “The Voice of Holland” testified about sexual misconduct when participating in the show.  The hit TV show “The Voice of Holland” turned out not only to be a popular talent show but was suddenly also depicted as a cesspool of sexually transgressive behaviour.  An overview: two reports of rape, two reports of sexual assault (one of which involved a minor) and 34 reports of sexually transgressive behaviour, including groping, unwanted sexual comments and indecent pictures sent. The alleged suspects are coaches, a bandleader, and a director. Following these allegations, the bandleader has confessed to sexually transgressive behavior; at the time of our writing the others deny the allegations made against them. Although no accusation has yet been substantiated by police investigations, the many signs of transgressive behaviour are worrying.

On 27 January 2022, it was Belgium’s turn to discover that also a university is not free from (sexually) transgressive behaviour. The Vrije Universiteit Brussel (University of Brussels), the university to which the first author is affiliated, fired a professor after "several reports of, inter alia, transgressive behaviour", including sexually transgressive behaviours and abuse of power. In the course of 2020, the reports came in and an internal, thorough investigation was started. After the procedure, the person in question was fired at the end of 2021.

The two events mentioned above caused quite a stir in Belgium and the Netherlands. NL-ATSA wanted to respond to these events, so we wrote a blog in Dutch. But a bad feeling came over us when we were writing the blog. It seemed that once again, we were making the same comments and recommendations. Again, we had to point out that it does not help to describe perpetrators of sexually transgressive behaviour as monsters, and we had to fight against victim-blaming tendencies on social media and other venues. In other words, we were writing a blog that we have written several times before, with only the occasion as the big difference. This awareness led to frustration among the authors of the blog: Why do we always seem to have to press that repeat button? Does it matter what we say at all? Will it ever change? What can we still add to the debate? A writer’s block was imminent. But we did not give up and decided to reflect on the questions: What does this case teach us? And are we focusing on the right questions in the social debate?

The cases show that no institution or structure is immune from transgressive behaviour and that eliminating such behaviour altogether is a very difficult task, and perhaps even an unachievable goal. This is especially true if we continue to focus only on the individuals and do not include the broader context in the societal debate and our prevention policies that continues to make the abuse and culture of silence possible. Or as the rector of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel put it: “it is a collective responsibility. In that respect, too, we must move from MeToo to WeToo.” But no matter how tempting it is now to start promoting the hashtag #metoo or #wetoo, adding an emblem to our Facebook profile, or fulminating on social media, this is not going to solve the problem. By contrast, thinking critically about how you as an individual and as an institution can contribute to the prevention of violence, and acting effectively on it, can help to move a mountain.

What will not help is shaming people who were working on these issues internally or who are expected to help prevent such behaviours from ever happening again, taking into account that we as outsiders have only a partial view of what has been said and done by these individuals. The reactions of the men/women at charge very quickly became the focus of the social debate, with both being pilloried for their reaction or lack of reaction. John de Mol, the creator of the format of “The Voice” and the big boss of the Dutch series until the end of 2019, was attacked for saying among others: "We have to get women to sound the alarm immediately" and “I hope that it doesn’t have a big impact on the rest of these people’s lives, that they can give it a place. And that they should be an example to others in the future. If it ever happens to them again, that hopefully they have learned to raise the alarm immediately, to report it immediately, so that the culprits can be dealt with sooner and so that they can no longer do this to others.” John de Mol was immediately criticized for putting the full responsibility on the women and for victim blaming. The rector of the university, Caroline Pauwels, was criticized because she wanted to handle the case discreetly and avoid excessive media attention and public pillories, and thus – according to her – protect the victims and the perpetrator as well as their immediate surroundings. She also stipulated that “We are a university, not a judiciary. And even in a state of law, people get a second chance.” Caroline Pauwels was reproached for not making it clear enough (mainly on the public platform) that sexual abuse did not belong at the university and for having concluded a settlement agreement with the perpetrator.

Have both then (re)acted correctly? Probably not (entirely). Could they have reacted differently? Probably. Surely. At least, that’s our assessment in hindsight. The Voice case shows that some people are still ignorant about abuse of power and sexual abuse, and lack a  proper understanding of the underlying mechanisms and victims’ behaviour. But apart from that, these cases show that we keep on struggling with such phenomena, and that it is not easy to respond appropriately. It shows that finding the right words and the right tone is difficult. It also shows that finding the right course of action is difficult. Discretion is quickly seen as an attempt to cover things up. Complete transparency is demanded very quickly and uncritically. A lack of quick reaction is quickly labelled as evidence of a conspiracy. In other words, we are very quick to judge how others should have reacted in such situations. In doing so, we often overlook the complex decision-making processes, ignore the fact that it is always easy to judge afterwards, and related to that, we easily forget that we all exhibit the tendency to overestimate our ability to have predicted a certain outcome.

Are we not allowed to take a critical view of these reactions? Of course we are. More than that, we must remain critical and attentive. But shouting and ranting in the (social) media, accusing, and nailing all those involved, directly or indirectly, to public scaffolds is not the solution. We must strive for a constructive, and above all, solution-oriented debate to see what has gone well AND what can be improved. And indeed, there are points for improvement. For instance, facilitating help-seeking behaviour in victims (and in perpetrators) clearly requires much more than setting up various hotlines. We also need to see how we can be more responsive to victims, whose needs may also vary throughout the disclosure and investigation process (e.g., from a need for mere recognition to a need for punishment and rectification). In order to prevent such cases, we also need to explore more in depth how we can teach people to recognize their own abuses of power and transgressive behaviours and how we can urge them to react appropriately when they come to that realization. Also, despite all the programs, trainings, and campaigns, it remains difficult to bystanders to pick up signals of abuse and to know how and when to react. How can we solve all these (and other) issues? These are the conversations we need to have, in the media, in institutions, in living rooms, in practice, and in research. And not the mere finger pointing. For this too is a way of evading your own responsibility in this debate and in this collective search for a solution against (sexual) violence.

Employment, Desistence, and Proactive Risk Management.

 By Kieran McCartan, Ph.D., Kasia Uzieblo, Ph.D., & David Prescott, LICSW

Recently one of the authors participated in an online seminar discussing the assessment, treatment, and management of people accused or convicted of a sexual offence. The seminar was based in the UK with professionals, criminal justice, and charities, that work with people convicted of a sexual offence in institutions as well as in the community. Although the aim of the seminar was to discuss the recent Council of Europe recommendations, but it also addressed prevention, harm reduction, and community integration. In the question and answers session the topic of employment and people convicted of a sexual offense came up, including the challenge how we can “safely” employ and manage their risk of people who have caused sexual harm. The challenge comes in finding the balance between community integration, harm reduction, strengths-based approaches to desistence, and protecting the public. However, the biggest challenge from an employer’s perspective, is managing their own reputation and the optics of employing people convicted of a sexual offense.

Research and practice suggest that the majority of people convicted of sexual offenses do not reoffend and are low risk.  This means that we have a body of people returning to the community that could be engaged in gainful employment. However, the public and political perception of people convicted of sexual offenses is that they are all high risk and cannot meaningfully return to the community. Therefore, we do not have the same conversations about employing them as we regularly do with respect to people convicted of other kinds of offenses. The result is a cross section of people who cannot return to meaningful employment. In some cases, this may be legitimate because of their offending behavior and risk. For instance, an individual may not be able to return to teaching if they were convicted of child sexual offenses.  In many cases, it will impact their rehabilitation and reintegration.  On the other hand, people convicted of sexual offenses may also have wide skill sets, can be educated, or have held a range of positions before their convictions.  Cutting off their return to employment potentially means that we are rejecting a skilled population that can contribute to society. It is important to acknowledge that some people were able to offend via their job, their skill set, and the access that their employment offered. For that reason, it's essential that any conversation about a return to employment is facilitated in a safe, secure, and controlled fashion.

During the online seminar probation, police, charities, and employers asked what could be done in this arena, as they recognise that meaningful employment is a central feature of strength-based approaches to desistance. Some key considerations around this area include:

-  Employers need support and education in risk management from a multi-disciplinary team before as well as during the employment of people convicted of sexual offenses.

-  Employers need to be supported in order to develop several safe working practices for all their employees and customers, whether this be in the form of risk containment through HR processes or in conjunction with state or related services that manage risk in the community.

-  Employers may need help to develop public relations narratives about employing people convicted of sexual offenses so that they are prepared for any criticism or backlash towards.

-  Employing people convicted of sexual offenses is an important part of their rehabilitation, risk management, and that it contributes to community safety. However, it must be recognised that some roles are off limits to this population.  While this may be appropriate, it’s important to recognise  what the limitations  are and where they end.

-  It is important to point out, too, that putting people back to work is not simply about keeping them occupied but also about keeping them out of debt, which is may not always be obvious, but can introduce a whole new set of problems.

-  Realising that employing people convicted of sexual offenses is not anti-victim, nor does it diminish victims’ experience or narrative.

In discussing the challenges inherent in employing people convicted of sexual offenses there are no easy answers. Clearly, employers need support in doing this. Sexual abuse is a community issue, which needs a community response that allows people to return to being productive members of the community.

Unfortunately, It’s the Same Old Story, the Same Old Song and Dance: Challenges to the Credibility of People Who Have Been Victimized.

 By Kieran McCartan, Ph.D., Kasia Uzieblo, Ph.D., and David S. Prescott, LISCW

The recent Jeffery Epstein legacy trials, those of Ghislaine Maxwell and the (formerly titled) Prince Andrew, have highlighted that society still does not trust victims of sexual abuse, their narratives, or their motivations.

In the Maxwell case, it turned out that one of the jurors disclosed that they were a victim of sexual abuse to corroborate the victims’ narratives and indicate that there are legitimate reasons for the complexity and seeming contradictions. However, this was seen as derailing the legal processes, mainly by the defence counsel, and the case is on track to appeal. The agreement is that this juror was a disgruntled victim looking to dispute the agenda with a personal crusade that looked to make Maxwell the unwarranted target of their fury.

In the Duke of York case, the victim-blaming narratives were two-fold. The first was that she was only looking for money and not justice (disclosing how much the victim received in an earlier settlement may also have been seen as a way to portray her as a money-grabber). This has since been countered by the prosecution, who have stated that their client will not want to settle out of court. The second victim-blaming narrative is that the woman was suffering from false memories and that the allegations are not true. The false memories argument reinforces a lot of the claims made by Andrew (i.e., that he never met her, he was elsewhere at the time, that the photo was faked, that he doesn’t sweat, etc.). The argument highlights that it’s the victim that is untrustworthy, in a way that suggests that she is confused, unreliable, and vulnerable. The false memory argument seems to suggest that the victim’s vulnerabilities have resulted in the duke becoming the target of her ire as he is a public figure, but not the actual culprit. The core of the duke’s argument is that she is targeting him because of his personal wealth and that she is out for what she can get from him. This is reinforced by the fact that she is pursuing a civil case rather than a criminal case without recognizing that there are very real and legitimate reasons for why this decision was made. These reasons include the threshold of evidence needed, the fact that the duke is not an American citizen and that the case is playing out in an American court, and the geographic location where the abuse took place. What the duke’s defence has done is paint a picture of a damaged, angry individual who is seeking money, not justice.

These examples continue to damage public perception of victims, their credibility, and their ability to seek – and receive – justice. We have seen this play out in the media and social media message boards with people claiming that “She went along with it!,” “No one forced her,” “She is getting something out of it,” “Well, the story does not make sense so it must be untrue,” and “Why has she waited this long to seek justice.” The result is that in the court of public opinion victims’ stories are undermined over and over again and that people often have good reasons for not coming forward to disclose abuse. In addition, these perceptions, victim-blaming tendencies, and cognitive distortions cannot be ruled out among professionals (police, judges, etc.), which can lead to inadequate treatment of (alleged) victims.

Therefore, what lessons can we learn from these cases, from the evidence, that we can use in moving forward? To start:

-  The help-seeking process is complex, consists of different phases, is different for everyone, and requires a great deal of insight, courage, and skills on the part of the victim.

-  Victims often take a long time to come forward and disclose their experiences of abuse as it takes time for them to process as well as understand it.

-  Sexual abuse is complex with victims often being groomed and manipulated by the person that is abusing them, quite often to the point that they don’t see the abuse.

-  The narratives of those who have been victimized can be complex and contradictory, which is a product of the abuse and human memory processes and not a sign of unreliability or manipulation.

-  Those who have been victimized often want different forms of “justice” and that can appear different to all. Therefore, its unrealistic to expect everyone to want the same brand and type of justice.

-  We need to recognize that false memories can and do exist (see for an interesting review, see O’Donohue et al., 2018), but it is in the minority of cases and hence must not be seen as the go-to explanation for complex victim narratives.

-  We need to realize, as professionals and certainly as a (online) community, that responding adequately to disclosures is essential to the well-being of the victim, will facilitate help-seeking behaviour in the future of that victim, and will facilitate help-seeking behaviour of other victims.

As a society we need to start recognising that the narratives of those who have been victimized are not black and white, and that this means that we need to understand how to best support them as well as the Criminal Justice System in processing these cases.

What’s OK: A new prevention resource reaching youth with concerns.

 By Joan Tabachnick and Jenny Coleman

ATSA brings a unique perspective to sexual violence prevention with its focus on preventing the perpetration of sexual harm.  Few organizations or resources echo this important focus more cleanly than Stop It Now! USA, its international affiliations, and its newest program/website, What’s OK (www.whatsok.org).  What’s OK is a new FREE resource that every ATSA members should know about and has been receiving rave reviews from many non-profit organizations, public agencies, colleges and universities who work directly with children and teens! 

Released at the end of last year, Stop It Now! USA has created a new website to bring this laser focus on perpetration prevention to adolescents and young adults (aged 14-22).  The website and resources address questions about whether not a teen or young adult may have crossed the line, or have concerns about their sexual behaviors or interests. This new resource is a safe and confidential place for youth to reach out for help if they are concerned that they are causing harm and have no one they can easily ask these heart wrenching questions. 

What’s OK was developed (with support from the World Childhood Foundation) because Stop It Now! saw an urgent need for resources for young people questioning their sexual interests and behaviors, both on their helpline and through discussions with other professionals.  The idea was to create a compassionate, accessible, practical, and helpful pathway for young people to get information and to support them to ask for help or when there is a concern about someone else’s behaviors. 

In 2021, 21% of total Helpline contacts were self-help (concerned about their own interests/behaviors) and 4%  were from children and youth asking for help with their sexual feelings and behaviors towards younger children. An example is this email from a youth at risk to abuse:

“I have noticed that I have an attraction to prepubescent girls (and) feel that their safety around me is quickly dwindling, and it has become exponentially harder for me to resist. I have told my mother, but she doesn’t know what do and is as depressed about it as I am. I’m not entirely sure what to do, but I do know that there is no cure, so what I’m asking for is ways to prevent the provocation, if it is possible. It would really help if I can receive fast help.”

In 2021, after an extensive review of the literature, conversations with young people about what they might want, including a newly established youth council, and many meetings with experts from around the country, the NOW! staff used these insights to create a website, facts sheets, texting as a new communication vehicle, social media ads and other resources for a campaign to target youth ages 14-22. 

A social media/digital marketing campaign was launched and piloted in the fall with the goals of increasing youth awareness of the helpline and What’s OK resources as well as increasing youth use of the helpline.  The following ads were launched on TicTok, Snapchat, and Instagram.  Here are the links to four different approaches:

·  Addicted (Stock): https://youtu.be/PtzomrjQmUQ

·  Addicted (Emoji): https://youtu.be/3pdSwFv80dU

·  Harm: https://youtu.be/IRM7f_jBTPA

·  Am I OK?: https://youtu.be/_7NWwRYIy_A

In just the first month, the pilot far exceeded its initial goal of 50K and reached nearly 175,000 young people.  These generated nearly 3,000 clicks/swipes and nearly 500 shared the posting with a friend.  And young people have responded.  From a 16-year-old who found this resource through Instagram and contacted Now! with concerns about frequent masturbation: 

thank you it's been really helpful to talk to someone about this and it has let some steam off my chest.

 

And from a recently turned 15-year-old who chatted in that they were reaching out because,

 

“I’ve been having sexual thoughts and feelings towards children (ages 7-12 ), but not in real life, I found videos and photos but only those, I never want to harm a child and sometimes I can’t even control my thoughts and I’m scared.”

 

At the end of the consult the caller said, “Thank you so much! I appreciate you making the time to speak with me! I’ll definitely take your advice” and the caller said they planned on speaking with their therapist about setting helpful and clear boundaries.

Given the success of this initial pilot, Stop It Now! received funding for a second year to further develop the materials on the website and expand this digital marketing campaign.  Stay tuned! 

For further information, contact Jenny Coleman, Director, Stop It Now! at JColeman@stopitnow.org. 

New Year, New you? Or New Year, New Us?

 By Kieran McCartan, PhD, Kasia Uzieblo, PhD, & David S. Prescott, LICSW

The new year is often a time of reflection where we consider our thoughts, actions, and behaviours. The tradition is that people make new year’s resolutions (usually based around changing problematic or unhealthy behaviours) or start new behaviours and activities. As we all know, these resolutions often diminish over the course of the year either because life gets in the way or because we stumble on the way. Change is hard and change takes time. We see this with the client group that we work with and – as we are often reminded – the psychology of behaviour change is similar across all people. The major difference in terms of success is often engagement and motivation – both are individual factors embedded in a social context that may obstruct or facilitate these changes. In thinking about behaviour change and new year’s resolutions, it is important to note that the vast majority of these are individual and personal, but the question must be asked: what if they were community-based or societal in their motivation?

Sexual abuse is as much a communal and social issue as it is a personal issue. However, the level of change needed to improve narratives and behaviours at a community or societal level are vastly different compared to those involved in changing personal attitudes and behaviours. Sometimes it feels too vast, too challenging, and ultimately unsolvable. Is there a way to navigate this in a different way? Simply saying that we must change community and social beliefs surrounding sexual abuse and expecting it to happen overnight is unrealistic. So, what is realistic? Behaviour change involves negotiating the steps and goals along our path. Why does this not work with the community and social change? Well, it does, but it looks different. It’s more complex and more difficult to evidence. What should be done? We need to set realistic goals and set them with respect to the social, political, and cultural context that we find ourselves. What does this look like?

-  Make the resolution that you will think differently about sexual abuse and be open to different conversations about it.

-  Read, view, consider and inform yourself about the issues central to sexual abuse as well as what some of the barriers and challenges are.

-  Consider how you might have an informed, proactive and considering conversation around it – especially with community members, and peers, that may disagree with you.

-  Set realistic and achievable goals, which may just be “I will be more considered” or “I will strive to challenge problematic beliefs and attitudes when it’s safe to do so”.

-  Recognise that you are not going to invoke large scale social change overnight while recognising that the more conversations that you have the more that you ebb away at problematic beliefs and attitudes.

-  Realise that changing social values and norms is a team effort and that you need to work in partnership with other community members, all of whom move at different paces, and therefore we should realise that engagement and participation look different for different people. Therefore, it’s important be understanding and inclusive.

 As we move into 2022 with the world going through major social, political, health, and cultural changes, it’s important to be realistic and the place to start is that we should keep trying to do better and recognise the journey that we need to make and the distance we have already travelled.