|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What are we going to do about men in politics?
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
The mainstream media (including especially advertising) is indeed problematic for objectification of women and troubling behaviors. I recall that in the 1980's there was a feminist cell who went around defacing objectionable billboards in Melbourne. They didn't just graffiti them, they turned them into jokes. I can't definitively say so, but I think they reflected an international movement.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Last month, MPR was notified of the allegations which relate to Mr. Keillor's conduct while he was responsible for the production of A Prairie Home Companion (APHC). MPR President Jon McTaggart immediately informed the MPR Board Chair, and a special Board committee was appointed to provide oversight and ongoing counsel. In addition, MPR retained an outside law firm to conduct an independent investigation of the allegations.
To me it sounds like a Keillor got a lot more due process than a typical retail worker would get if they were fired after being accused of stealing their co-worker's lunches out of the break room fridge (or refusing to give the boss a blow job), but to some it seems like no process that results in the firing of a wealthy/famous white dude is ever considered "fair".
Perhaps my understanding is faulty, but I was under the impression that Keillor was unaware of the accusation and the investigation until the firing, and therefore had no opportunity to respond -- a kind of "guilty until proven innocent" approach from which any chance of proving innocence is voided. Apparently that's yet another of many rights ordinary workers surrender when they cross an employer's threshhold.
It's more like the presumption of innocence is a standard applied in legal settings for those charged with crimes, not a universal rule or "right" you should expect in all situations. If an at-will employee is fired because they've got a "bad attitude" (perfectly legal grounds for at-will employees) their employer is not obligated to listen to them going on at length about how their attitude is actually very good.
And I'd like to remind you that, as I've noted elsewhere, most of the details publicly known about Keillor's firing come from Keillor himself. He's not a disinterested party. That doesn't necessarily mean he's being dishonest, but it's a factor we have to take into account. Most of what we think we "know" about his case comes from a party with an obvious agenda.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Today's Washington Post editorial page (for Saturday December 16) has a number of depressingly relevant headlines:
The creepiest sexual-harassment story we aren’t talking about (federal judge abusing clerks, ogling lawyers, etc.)
Are we rushing to judgment too quickly on sexual harassment? (Conservative columnist defends Kentucky rep who shot himself; the comments point out how solid the evidence is against him and how he probably committed suicide to avoid jail)
Roy Moore is still in the White House (Trump is sleazier than Moore)
Paul Ryan’s recipe for a robust economy: Have more babies (women save us by lying back and thinking of America)
Trent Franks rescinded my internship when I wouldn’t come to his house (congressional intern loses job after she refuses sex with boss)
The two expat bros who terrorized women correspondents in Moscow (Popular foreign policy newsletter larded with misogyny and insults)
See them all here. No, we aren't done, and we should not be done. A lot of stinking pus is still in this wound.
[ 16. December 2017, 05:23: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To me it sounds like a Keillor got a lot more due process than a typical retail worker would get if they were fired after being accused of stealing their co-worker's lunches out of the break room fridge (or refusing to give the boss a blow job), but to some it seems like no process that results in the firing of a wealthy/famous white dude is ever considered.
<snip>
Keillor's firing come from Keillor himself. He's not a disinterested party. That doesn't necessarily mean he's being dishonest, but it's a factor we have to take into account. Most of what we think we "know" about his case comes from a party with an obvious agenda.
All of what we "know" about the accusations come from the woman herself, she has an agenda, too. Any person's self-defense against an accusation "has an agenda" and of course it is not disinterested.
Comparing getting fired from stealing a sandwich from a refrigerator, with public disgrace on a national level doesn't compute with me. It's not getting fired that's the problem here, it's an entire career and total reputation that matters. People don't kill themselves because they got fired, they do because they have become despised pariahs and have no way to defend against what is someone else's word when there were no witnesses.
The fact that someone is white or famous has no bearing on all this, other than "famous" makes the disgrace worse. Your office person can get another job and his friends and neighbors wont know anything about it. The famous person can no longer show his face anywhere in the country.
In cases like Matt Lauer, I'm glad women have spoken up and witnesses have collaborated their words. I'm just sorry he wasn't fired long before he started making 25 million a year. But this idea that it's perfectly okay to publically humiliate and disgrace any person on the unsubstantiated words of one accuser seems very dangerous to me.
How would you like it if someone who didn't like you told the boss you had attacked her and he fired you without letting you say a word in your defense? What if the incident was published in the news, and everyone you knew was assuming you were a predator?
I saw a cartoon once where an old lady, sitting on a jury, looked at the judge and said "Where there's smoke there's fire," I thought it was funny then, but apparently there actually are lots of people who think an accusation is the same as truth.
Or is it that it's okay to condemn innocent people to public disgrace in the interests of a sea change? I understand the desire for that change, but do not believe the end justifies the means.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
All of what we "know" about the accusations come from the woman herself, she has an agenda, too.
Typically, the "agenda" for an accuser is to make known the abuse. Historically, abuse victims have suffered when they step forward and not inconsequentially.
quote:
People don't kill themselves because they got fired, they do because they have become despised pariahs and have no way to defend against what is someone else's word when there were no witnesses.
Again with Johnson. He killed himself before he could become a pariah. From what we know, fear of prosecution is as likely a reason as fear of persecution.
quote:
other than "famous" makes the disgrace worse.
Really?
quote:
The famous person can no longer show his face anywhere in the country.
France is a different country, so sometimes.
quote:
But this idea that it's perfectly okay to publically humiliate and disgrace any person on the unsubstantiated words of one accuser seems very dangerous to me.
One accuser was what it took to bring down Weinstein and Lauer and Spacey. Without the first, there would have been no others.
quote:
Or is it that it's okay to condemn innocent people to public disgrace in the interests of a sea change? I understand the desire for that change, but do not believe the end justifies the means.
No one has said it is OK. No one has advocated that it is OK for the innocent to suffer that the guilty might be punished. It is inevitable that some will, but the alternative is that no guilty are ever punished for anything. The goal should be to minimise collateral damage. Eliminating it is impossible.
And again, point to the cases where it is happening. Keillor is in limbo, not disgrace and Geoffrey Rush just got nominated for a Golden Globe. Thus far, we don't have a lot of evidence for false accusation being a big thing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Garrison Keillor's statement on his own page.
From this and what I heard on the news, I think his position is that whatever he did was misunderstood, but he's just done with the whole thing.
Am watching ABC's "World News Now". The news crawl at the bottom of the screen says that Keillor was fired due to "dozens" of accusations.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Is misogyny (at best, abuse at worst) OK if it's for charity?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Before men are men, they are boys. We need a thoughtful look at how we bring men up, the role models we supply them with, and the fact that, developmentally, boys tend to be raised by women and seem to spend a good deal of psychic energy on differentiating themselves from femininity as they individuate.
Yes! All of this!
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Before men are men, they are boys. We need a thoughtful look at how we bring men up, the role models we supply them with, and the fact that, developmentally, boys tend to be raised by women and seem to spend a good deal of psychic energy on differentiating themselves from femininity as they individuate.
Yes! All of this!
There is quite a traditional view now, that boys have too much mothering, therefore build up both a need to differentiate, and a resentment.
I think the point about differentiation sounds OK, but it doesn't follow that men feel hostility towards women.
Well, it's a bit like saying that gays become gays because of distant fathers - no evidence. In fact, a distant mother may well evoke hostility, as much as a cloying one.
I think some men have problems with their need for women, but I don't know where this starts.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Is misogyny (at best, abuse at worst) OK if it's for charity?
Nope.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Before men are men, they are boys. We need a thoughtful look at how we bring men up, the role models we supply them with, and the fact that, developmentally, boys tend to be raised by women and seem to spend a good deal of psychic energy on differentiating themselves from femininity as they individuate.
Yes! All of this!
I don't know. I think much of the problem stems to gender expectations, rather than how boys are raised. The conflict comes when males are supposed to be MEN! If that expectation is not there, then there is no conflict.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here's a summary of the case against Keillor, from NPR. He seems to have run a thoroughly unpleasant workplace, not a place I would like to be employed in.
What I read was mixed about the workplace, though more negative for women. I thought the article was well balanced and shows a man who did wrong, but isn't a one-sided caricature. Not offering any excuse, but he is an example of being and doing bad concurrent with being and doing good.
(The link clicked me straight to MPR.)
quote:
From this same main National Public Radio page, a congressman says it was okay to hit on a staffer because she was his soul mate. The feeling was decidedly one-way. She filed a complaint, got a large cash settlement, which the taxpayer paid for.
Creepy and adultery despite no sexual contact.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The common elements in these two cases may supply the answer to the discussion about raising boys. People don't have to be feminists. They just have to behave like professionals in the work place. This is not an unreasonable or difficult demand. If you can learn to wear shoes and socks when you go to the office you can learn not to make lewd comments to people (of any gender) or to annoy your co-workers with romantic overtures. If she really is your soul mate, she'll be your soul mate after hours. (But count on your wife to have a couple of home truths for you.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If she really is your soul mate, she'll be your soul mate after hours. (But count on your wife to have a couple of home truths for you.)
All too much sexual harassment happens in the normal 9 to 5 workday, but in many jobs, the definition of what is after hours is pretty blurry, with lunches, dinners, cocktail hours, parties, and all other kinds of social activities being considered either a key part of the job or an important part of building and maintaining professional relationships essential to one's career and the success of one's organization - along with phone, email, and messaging contact with fellow employees at all times of the day. I think that a ban on hitting on fellow employees - especially anyone whose career you have influence over - should be apply at all times and contexts so as to avoid any ambiguity.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
Why do so many Women go to Hen Parties and enjoy abusing the Male Stripper ? I have a Male Stripper Friend who strips for these Parties and is often fondled by the Women which he enjoys. Being Paid and enjoying himself is a Win/Win he says. PS He programs Computers during the Day.
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
If he is enjoying himself, and they are enjoying themselves, where exactly is the abuse?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that a ban on hitting on fellow employees - especially anyone whose career you have influence over - should be apply at all times and contexts so as to avoid any ambiguity.
16% of people these days meet their partner at work. The only category higher is 'through friends'.
So, no.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
At the very least, however, you could invite the person of your interest to meet you after work. You can avoid these Keillor-esque comments and groping while actually at the office. Even if 'after work' might include after-hours socializing, etc., it would be at least =not at the office=. A fig leaf is better than no leaf at all.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that a ban on hitting on fellow employees - especially anyone whose career you have influence over - should be apply at all times and contexts so as to avoid any ambiguity.
16% of people these days meet their partner at work. The only category higher is 'through friends'.
So, no.
60% of the marriages in the world are arraigned. Does that mean it’s an inherently good thing?
People are going to hook up at work because they spend a significant chunk of their waking life working.
Power differential, how much one’s job directly affects one’s coworker, the relationship/influence that person has with the other’s superiors; all recipes for disaster. Even with all those avoided, dating within a workplace is problematic.
Will it happen regardless? Yes. Should it be subject to guidelines? Hell yes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
60% of the marriages in the world are arraigned.
That seems a bit Freudian. Not sure what it indicates, though.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Is misogyny (at best, abuse at worst) OK if it's for charity?
Nope.
It seems to me that a lot of the commentary on this news story is solely focused on whether the women at the event were being exploited/abused (hence the commentators criticising "lefties" for "infantilising women" instead of treating them as consenting adult). The bigger question is whether events like this damage society as a whole - in my view they do.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
My feeling about that event is, at root, that it should not be necessary for men to do good through going to an expensive shindig in an expensive venue, with expensive prizes, which would siphon off some of the "donations", instead of writing a simple cheque and sticking it quietly in the post.
That it descended into Bullingdonesque bullying behaviour makes it much worse, of course. I wonder what their wives would think. Especially the one presented with the prize of cosmetic surgery.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Hand the certificate back with the comment, "You need it more than I do"?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
My feeling about that event is, at root, that it should not be necessary for men to do good through going to an expensive shindig in an expensive venue, with expensive prizes, which would siphon off some of the "donations", instead of writing a simple cheque and sticking it quietly in the post.
Virtue signalling for a group of tax avoiders. Just your pay taxes and GOSH could be funded properly.
[ 25. January 2018, 14:13: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Exactly. The idea that hospitals need cheques from rich fat cats is itself fucking disgraceful. Well, I'm talking about the UK of course, where they should be funded via NHS, not at the whim of some rich twat.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Is misogyny (at best, abuse at worst) OK if it's for charity?
Nope.
It seems to me that a lot of the commentary on this news story is solely focused on whether the women at the event were being exploited/abused (hence the commentators criticising "lefties" for "infantilising women" instead of treating them as consenting adult). The bigger question is whether events like this damage society as a whole - in my view they do.
Never. Read. The. Comments.
Though I've had this discussion with rational people and it is a difficult one. The question isn't the agency of women, but the acceptability of the behaviour.
Part of the problem is that we tend to think in Zero-Sum terms. Life just isn't.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I half heard today someone from a charity explaining that over a year they received far more from the numbers of coffee mornings, bazaars and such like held by ordingary folks than they did from the one off fundraisers of this sort. Figures were mentioned, but, as I said, I only half heard, being half asleep at the time.
And it occurs to me that the fund raisers at those events are probably women rather than captains of industry.
[ 25. January 2018, 18:23: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I half heard today someone from a charity explaining that over a year they received far more from the numbers of coffee mornings, bazaars and such like held by ordingary folks than they did from the one off fundraisers of this sort. Figures were mentioned, but, as I said, I only half heard, being half asleep at the time.
As a data point the amount said to be raised from this particular event was 2M
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It seems to me that a lot of the commentary on this news story is solely focused on whether the women at the event were being exploited/abused (hence the commentators criticising "lefties" for "infantilising women" instead of treating them as consenting adult).
Which seems a bit of a daft comment (I know it's not your view). Even if one takes the line that these women had knowingly signed up to be sex workers, I'm pretty sure that harassing a sex worker is still harassment.
AIUI, these women were contracted to wear skimpy clothing, but nothing else. If one believes that sex work is a legitimate line of employment, then non-consent is quite easy to establish: if you haven't paid for it and/or it's not in the contract of employment, then they haven't consented, the same as in any other workplace. Which would be the case here, ergo sexual abuse.
If one does not believe that sex work is a legitimate line of employment then these pillars of the Establishment had no business being at such an event.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I half heard today someone from a charity explaining that over a year they received far more from the numbers of coffee mornings, bazaars and such like held by ordingary folks than they did from the one off fundraisers of this sort. Figures were mentioned, but, as I said, I only half heard, being half asleep at the time.
As a data point the amount said to be raised from this particular event was 2M
Having been involved in various sorts of fundraising over the years, the $150-$250 plate dinners were good for bringing in $75k-$100k, but there was an incredible amount of work involved-- charity leaders several times told me that they really really loved automatic-payment monthly donations as they could get the same amount of money and focus their efforts on the job at hand, rather than fundraising.
Most of the dinner events at which I worked at a fairly hefty presence of paying women guests (and really depended on woman volunteer organizers) so the "laddish" component of entertainment was nil.
Guests always expected more than their dinner for their money (and the tax receipt, of course), but they tended to be satisfied with an entertaining speech or two, and the all-important element of participating at a feel-good event with people like themselves. They all patted each other on the back and some good was done.
In Canada, scone & tea events, like youth-oriented events, are really for publicity and consciousness-raising and building team spirit than for scads of money. And small events do add up-- I know of a series of Lutheran bunfights in southwestern Ontario which funded a midwife-nurse in Ethiopia.
However, I know people who hostessed at private-sector invitational events-- usually students or actors and other cultural types, needing a few hundred and a meal-- and they have all told me that they could count on propositions from guests who seemed to think that they were on offer as well (the going tariff for happiness from a hostess seems to be in the $2k range). One friend suggested that this might be a way of raising funds for the Syrian refugee project with which I was helping out, but I assumed that this was a jest on her part.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wild haggis
Shipmate
# 15555
|
Posted
The whole point of this event was that the girls were told what to wear skimpy clothing and high heels. Why? Why not allow black evening dresses? Would working men like to be told what colour of underwear to wear when working at an event or to wear skimpy clothing? And why anyway? You are there to serve wine and see that the men have their food and are comfortable - not show off your underwear! They were there as hostesses (although why they were needed is a big question) not sex workers.
They were asked to sign a disclosure without having time to read what it said (that is illegal). Then if they complained at being touched up or propositioned, the disclosure was waved in front of them - so they were powerless.
Many of these girls live in London, which is prohibitally expensive (my son does!), work in entertainment/theatre industry which is not continuous employment (as my son does). How do you live? You take waitress-ing jobs, hostessing jobs etc. to tide you over. But you expect to be treated fairly and without harassment.
If you are a stripper or work in a sleazy nightclub that is your choice. But this event was at the Dorchester and billed as a high level fundraising dinner for businessmen.
I find it strange that the Presidents Club or whatever it was called, didn't have men hosts. Why? Because it was pandering to sleazy businessmen who wanted a bit on the side. Apparently there were prostitutes engaged later in the evening/morning - if reports are correct.
Why did they auction plastic surgery with the comments about their wives? This is not normal polite and equitable behaviour. This is men demanding what they want and to hell with the women.
Touching up people in their private areas, whether male or female without their permission is abuse. Accidentally bumping into people isn't but this was intentional on the part of these men.
Too many males, and particularly wealthy and powerful ones (although not all) think they own the world, including other people's bodies.
Yes, if they really cared about GOSH and other charities they would pay their taxes and donate freely without this kind of sleezey do.
Hen parties aren't the same. The strippers working expect to take off their clothes and get comments thrown at them. As do stag parties booking a stripper. There is usually a no-touching policy anyway. Girls serving as hostesses where they are told they are just there to serve wine etc is not comparable.
Why do we have to have slim young women scantily dressed anyway at events, whether it is car launches (one of the worst), darts, men only dinner etc. There is no reason except many men can't control themselves. They are like babies that need every whim pandered to. They have never grown up.
It's about time that men learned manners and respect. Yes, there are some women who are just as bad. But to be honest, I could count them on the fingers of one hand, but I have come across many, many men who think they can do what they want, say what they want to whoever they feel like with impunity, whether it is in business, the media or politics.
This needs to be cleaned up. Women aren't objects they are people!
The sad thing is that any women who retaliates by slapping a hand away etc will be the one charged with an offense, not the man.
Women need to start shouting and making a fuss, not putting up with infantile, selfish and abusive behaviour. We have suffered too long.
--------------------
wild haggis
Posts: 166 | From: Cardiff | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
The event's assumptive underpinnings are pretty insulting to men, too. The notion that a man can be manipulated and bedazzled into generosity simply by surrounding him with attractive women comes straight out of 1950s sitcoms. Why do I imagine that there's no male attendees under sixty at such events?
The entities benefiting from this event would do well to band together and demand change, because they don't want their own images tarnished by the irresponsible behavior associated with this "charitable giving."
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Why do I imagine that there's no male attendees under sixty at such events?
There were a number of people under 60 at the event, including a minor minister from the Department of Education who originally claimed to have left early.
The paradox was that various commentators have said that the women knew what they were getting in to, even as all the male attendees claim to have not known what was happening.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Why do I imagine that there's no male attendees under sixty at such events?
There were a number of people under 60 at the event, including a minor minister from the Department of Education who originally claimed to have left early.
The paradox was that various commentators have said that the women knew what they were getting in to, even as all the male attendees claim to have not known what was happening.
As the article claimed this event has a 30-year history (granted there will have been turnover among attendees) it seems unlikely that the men involved had no idea about the program.
As to the women, when someone specifies that you must wear black underwear to an event, what brand of thick must you be not to suspect that the underwear is going to play a role at some point?
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
As to the women, when someone specifies that you must wear black underwear to an event, what brand of thick must you be not to suspect that the underwear is going to play a role at some point?
You could think that the underwear was to match the dress so that it would be less apparent.
One would know that the outfit would be short, even potentially enticing, but still not think that propositioning and touching would be expected.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The question isn't the agency of women, but the acceptability of the behaviour.
Setting to one side the question of what exactly the women signed up for and whether they knew that they were going to be groped by a collection of lecherous men, this question stands.
Let's assume for a moment that the women were all hired explicitly for sex work, and told to expect to be fondled and propositioned by any or all of the attendees at any time.
The kind of people who would enjoy this event are also the kind of people who would take business guests to a strip club.
Either practice is, I would say, inherently unethical. It discriminates by excluding women and men who are unwilling to ogle strippers from these networking and business contact opportunities.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
As the article claimed this event has a 30-year history (granted there will have been turnover among attendees) it seems unlikely that the men involved had no idea about the program.
Yes. It was a somewhat sarcastic comment on the different expectations placed on the two sets of participants.
quote:
As to the women, when someone specifies that you must wear black underwear to an event, what brand of thick must you be not to suspect that the underwear is going to play a role at some point?
As lilbuddha said above - one could assume that the you may be expected to wear something revealing. Which is different to the expectation that you'd be groped and propositioned.
Plus I can understand someone who was quite eager for work due to a precarious financial situation pushing any misgivings to the back of their mind - after all, it is the Dorchester and these are captains of industry.
[ 29. January 2018, 09:18: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]The kind of people who would enjoy this event are also the kind of people who would take business guests to a strip club.
Only a strip club? Taking colleagues or business clients to an all paid trip to the local brothel or massage parlour is not unknown.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
As to the women, when someone specifies that you must wear black underwear to an event, what brand of thick must you be not to suspect that the underwear is going to play a role at some point?
You could think that the underwear was to match the dress so that it would be less apparent.
One would know that the outfit would be short, even potentially enticing, but still not think that propositioning and touching would be expected.
Indeed - and even if one does think it's implied, the fact that it's not specified in the terms and conditions of employment is, to my mind, a tacit acknowledgement that all parties think it's wrong.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
It's depressing that some people's first reaction to the situation of the hired hostesses is still to say: what did the women expect, having been asked to dress skimpily?
Journalist, Rachel Johnson (Boris's sister, no less!) was on 'The Third Leg' the other night, and this was the first thing she said. 'What did the women think was going to happen? They were told to wear short dresses, high heels etc?'
In other words, how stupid must they have been NOT to think that regardless of what they had been hired to do, implicitly they were clearly being employed to receive and encourage sexual advances.
I thought about places like Playboy clubs and Stringfellows. Do all workers in such places willingly accept sexual harrassement in the workplace because of what they're wearing?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It's depressing that some people's first reaction to the situation of the hired hostesses is still to say: what did the women expect, having been asked to dress skimpily?
Journalist, Rachel Johnson (Boris's sister, no less!) was on 'The Third Leg' the other night, and this was the first thing she said. 'What did the women think was going to happen? They were told to wear short dresses, high heels etc?'
In other words, how stupid must they have been NOT to think that regardless of what they had been hired to do, implicitly they were clearly being employed to receive and encourage sexual advances.
I thought about places like Playboy clubs and Stringfellows. Do all workers in such places willingly accept sexual harrassement in the workplace because of what they're wearing?
Strip clubs give workers more agency that that fund-raiser did.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Consider actresses. (Many of the women hired were young actresses.) Actresses are told what they have to wear for whatever the show it is; you don't get to dictate your costume. You might get to wear, say, your own shoes, because shoes are expensive, but the costume designer will tell you to wear black ones with a heel because of the look of the show.
Just because the actress is told to wear certain garments does not mean that she consents to sexual assault.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's victim blaming, isn't it? As soon as people start saying, 'what did the women expect?', or the like, you are in that territory.
Every time a sexual assault or harassment against women is reported, eventually someone will start victim blaming. It's not as crude as 'why did you wear a short skirt?', or 'had you been drinking?', or 'had you had sex recently?', but it's getting close.
As the old saying has it, it's making women responsible for others' behaviour.
[ 30. January 2018, 17:57: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
Look, nobody has a right to touch you without your consent. We all get that.
But when a job requires, up front, skimpy outfits and specific kinds of underwear, one might reasonably inquire further into the usual working conditions at said job before accepting it and deciding, on the basis of that information, whether one is willing to deal with said conditions. One could, for example, ask to speak to someone who does the job (or has done it previously).
Nearly every job, long or short term, likely involves some activity or other (not necessarily sexual in nature) which, given the option, some workers would prefer to avoid. Whatever happened to using one's agency to try discovering this in advance rather than being rudely surprised after the fact?
Likewise, nobody has a right to assault college women at frat parties, either. But when a college woman then gets blotto at one, or leaves her drink unattended, or goes off alone with a near-total stranger into an isolated setting, surely she must recognize that her chances of unwelcome attention head upward. This doesn't make her responsible for some creep's felonious behavior. It does make her responsible for being reasonably alert to cues, reasonably aware of possible risks, and reasonably self-protective. We all have the right to walk alone through high-crime neighborhoods at 2 a.m. wearing expensive attire, carrying wads of cash, and sporting valuable jewelry. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.
That's one of the things agency is for, after all: assessing possible outcomes of our actions -- enjoyable, risky, unknown -- before taking them.
Of course, some of us will guess wrong at some point. Creeps are creeps and are sometimes expert at getting under our radar. We're not responsible for what they do. We are responsible for knowing ourselves, what we will and will not put up with, and exercising such judgment as we've been afforded on that basis.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the signs of victim-blaming is the but. You will often get the denunciation of men who assault women, but then, wait for it, but ...
But women should not drink too much, should not wear revealing clothing, should not go to dodgy places - because after all, they are partly responsible for being attacked.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Of course, some of us will guess wrong at some point. Creeps are creeps and are sometimes expert at getting under our radar. We're not responsible for what they do. We are responsible for knowing ourselves, what we will and will not put up with, and exercising such judgment as we've been afforded on that basis.
They're also good at keeping up with Approved Victims Lists, like the one you've helpfully provided. If you start making lists of behaviors or actions that make it easier to blame a woman for her own assault, "creeps" will start proactively looking for those things since they know any woman they assault will be less sympathetic to others.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm with Croesos and quetzcoatl. The woman tempted me and I did sin was lame about an apple. It's a lot more offensive over sexual assault. Men are responsible for their own self control.
The well known jibe by the late Robin Williams about men having two brains probably contains an element of truth. It may well feel that 'penis brain' took over. But that's just a cop out from personal responsibility. However strong the stimulus or erotic desire, we don't lose the responsibility for managing those to avoid harm to others.
I don't want men who are still learning self-control to have a single advance excuse for just letting penis brain take over. Particularly 'the woman tempted me'.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I always find these top tips help me to have a rape-free life.
That's very good, as one expects a series of tips for women, if one is following the standard victim-blaming stance.
It's striking how some older women are coming out with blaming statements, e.g. Bardot. The most surprising has been Susan Brownmiller, author of the influential 'Against Our Will', in the 70s, who seems to be making various blaming statements. For example, she seems to have said, that if you're naked standing next the bed, it's too late to say no.
Of course, it isn't. That is the whole point of consent, that it's not binding.
I suppose an older generation still see women as somehow guardians of male lust.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/111936-6-myths-about-sexual-assault-highlighted-by-susan-brownmillers-comments-on-the-problem -of-consent
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
We all have the right to walk alone through high-crime neighborhoods at 2 a.m. wearing expensive attire, carrying wads of cash, and sporting valuable jewelry. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.
Hilariously*, the "common sense" argument is now being used to counter the idea that every accused person should be assumed innocent until proven guilty not only in a court of law, but in every forum: social media, workplace, politics, etc. Quote from
this article:
quote:
Would the aforementioned columnists feel comfortable if their kid's teacher, for example, was accused by multiple students of sexual assault, but kept teaching until proven guilty?
*possibly only for my sense of humour. YMMV
[ 31. January 2018, 17:46: Message edited by: Leaf ]
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
