Putting a Red Flag on Red Flagging

When I started writing this article we were in the middle of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Based Violence (GBV) and Child Abuse campaign. This is a global campaign where the focus is on increasing GBV and Child Abuse awareness and education, in the hopes of reducing numbers of incidents. As a result of such campaigns more people are openly sharing their views on abuse and the debate is quite robust because the views can be rather divergent at times. It has taken me this long to finish writing because, dealing with the complexities of abuse can be difficult for me as a survivor. But I feel I need to highlight a concern I have as it seems to be worsening.

I would like to focus one of the terms that is prominent during such discussions, especially in relation to abuse occurring in situations where the abuser was known, such as domestic or romantic relationships. This is the term ‘red flags’. This term is said to originate from the times of war, where a literal red flag would be raised to warn people of an imminent attack. The use of actual red flags as warning signs has since expanded to other areas such as at the beach when there are dangerous water conditions or in forests when there are wild fires. So basically when one sees a red flag then they must know they are potentially in danger and must react accordingly.

I have become increasingly uncomfortable with this term being used when discussing GBV. In GBV related conversations this term represents potential warning signs in relation to the abuse. People tend to question whether the abuse victim did not see the ‘red flags’ before the abuse happened. People may even retrospectively identify the red flags which the victim either missed or overlooked.

The main reason for my discomfort is that once the question of red flags gets raised the conversation usually shifts from the wrongness of the abuse to the blindness or naivety of the one abused. There is an element of this which assigns blame to the abuse victim, in that if they had reacted to the red flags then they would not be in that situation. Granted sometimes there may be some truth to that statement. However, theorising about red flags post the event does not help the victim, instead it can make them feel stupid on top of everything else they are already feeling.

There is also something about being a third party identifying red flags that someone else ‘should have seen’ that makes the person ‘seeing’ the red flags seem superior, as if the abuse would not have happened to them because they would have seen the red flags and reacted to them.

People identifying these red flags fail to take into consideration that these so-called red flags are not universal. If for example one grew up in a family where people screamed and shouted at each other, they may not see it as a red flag if a partner does the same. Now, for you not raised in such an environment this may be an ‘obvious’ red flag. This, however, does make it right to accuse the other person for not having perceived this seemingly ‘obvious’ red flag as one.

Which begs the question, what is a red flag? Is the red flag micro abuse or is it an act which might open the door to abuse? At what point is an action or behaviour a red flag? Is it the first time it happens? Is it if it happens repeatedly? Remember, people are not robots, their behaviours are not so linear and so predictable. Just because someone does something does not mean they are definitely going to repeat it or even escalate the behaviour. For example, someone raising their voice does not mean worse (e.g. swearing, pushing, hitting etc) automatically follows. So, as much as raising one’s voice may be a ‘red flag’ in some situations, is it necessarily a red flag in all situations? Also, who defines the red flags? Is it by the individual affected or is it defined by society? You see, the same incident can be perceived as innocent by one person, a red flag by another and actual abuse by someone else.

Let’s say one does identify certain action as a red flag, there is also no universal way of reacting to an identified red flag by those being abused. One person may decide to call it out, whilst someone else may ignore it. One person may tell someone else about it whilst another may keep quiet. One person may fight back whilst another may try modify their own behaviour. So, just because you would have reacted a particular way does not make that reaction the standard for similar situations.

Please hear me well, I am not saying red flags do not exist. I am saying the conversation around them is not so simple. I am challenging the notion that there is always an obvious indication of abuse to come and questioning whether abuse victim should not be excused for not having seen an incident as a red flag.

Now, I know we are usually informed by general statistics and the laws of averages when identifying these red flags. It is understandable that we draw conclusions that on average when something like yelling happens, chances are high that it may escalate to swearing, pushing or hitting.

What we forget though is that to the victim of abuse, they are not dealing with societal average. To them it is a particular individual for whom they have a variety of emotions. They are not seeing themselves as part of some statistics. For them, the average they are likely working with is their own moments of no-abuse. And so, when they look at the abuse events they are likely to see them more as moments of exception because ‘on average’ the abuser is good to them.

What we need to keep in mind as well is that abusers are generally highly deceptive and actively hide their deceptive nature. They are also skilled at identifying people who are likely to treat them more with kindness than with suspicion. The truth is that people tend to act with more compassion and empathy when in a relationship. One cannot build a healthy relationship if one part of them is constantly suspicious, investigating and on the lookout for red flags. Relationships requires taking a risk on someone and seeing the best in them. Yes, the risk does not always work out … but sometimes it does.

So stop accusing abuse victims of not seeing or ignoring the signs. Sometimes there just are no visible signs or the signs are so subtle that the average person can easily miss them. Stop punishing people for the mistakes they make. Everyone is trying their best. Instead of criticising someone that the risk they took did not work out, how about helping them get up from that situation. The last thing one needs when they have fallen is to be made to feel irresponsible for not having 'looked where they were going'. It happened, it's in the past, and chances are one is already having harsh conversations with themselves about it. What people need is compassion, not judgement.

I believe the best time to have a conversation about potential abuse red flags is as a preventative measure, before any incident occurs. This conversation should be about creating awareness, educating those potentially at risk to know what to do when they see certain behaviours. I believe that the conversation should be carried with sensitivity and not judgement, you never know what people are already going through. The conversation should focus on the complete wrongness of any abuse, not the lack of investigation skills of the abused.

Whilst the conversation should be used to empower, it should also let people know that it is possible to still miss the red flags even with all the knowledge in the world. And that if someone has experienced abuse they need to be kind to themselves and not blame themselves unnecessarily.

I really wish such campaigns could be effective in not just reducing the number of incidents of abuse but in changing the attitude of abusers and potential abusers towards abuse, that they may not just fear getting caught but may realise the wrongness of any type of abuse towards another.