Ship of Fools: A fit of morality

Thread: A fit of morality Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020349

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

'We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality'(Lord Macaulay). In the context of the current Parliamentary bout of drain-clearance, is the noble lord's comment very wide of the mark?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I don’t know, but here is the first high level resignation.

There will be more, I think.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The problem with the Macaulay quote is that in reality it tends to be the British media in a fit of moralising.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
'We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality'(Lord Macaulay). In the context of the current Parliamentary bout of drain-clearance, is the noble lord's comment very wide of the mark?

My first reaction is to wonder who (if anyone, of course) Macaulay groped.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I read something that claimed that the journo who's knee was squeezed didn't feel she was being harassed but rather propositioned. She slapped him to indicate what she thought of his proposition, and then went about her day. Please note that I read about this on my phone on the dunny, so accuracy not guaranteed.

They say harassment is in the eye of the harassed...

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Over-sexed politicians are as old as politics itself.
Nothing new under the sun, apart from some now saying 'Enough is enough!'

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Isn't a lot of this driven, as so often, not by genuine shock, horror, outrage, as by schadenfreude in the rest of us at seeing important people brought low, shown to be hypocrites, and being caught, literally as well as metaphorically, with their pants down?

And can any shipmate in all honesty put their hand on their heart and say that they are genuinely surprised and shocked at these revelations, rather than they suspected all along that a lot of this went on?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

In recent times I think many of us stopped taking these things seriously when it came out that the seemingly grey and boring mr. M. had been indulging in hot Curry while at the same time urging his Electorate to be content with basic homely fair.

Seem to remember it being brushed off, the thinking being that it takes two to Tango. It did though emerge the former Premier, when required to shake a person’s hand, employed a special double-handed soft clasp for the female of his fancy.

Does this type of targeted wooing now class as harassment by today’s standard, or is what we’re hearing about now something more dark and somehow more seedy?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Oh for fucks sake, a consensual sexual relationship is no the same as some bloke grabbing your backside when he passes you in the office. Or your boss asking you to go buy some sex toys.

What is it about the absence of consent that you do not get ?

[ 04. November 2017, 21:06: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

And can any shipmate in all honesty put their hand on their heart and say that they are genuinely surprised and shocked at these revelations, rather than they suspected all along that a lot of this went on?

Which doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't a lot of this driven, as so often, not by genuine shock, horror, outrage, as by schadenfreude in the rest of us at seeing important people brought low, shown to be hypocrites, and being caught, literally as well as metaphorically, with their pants down?

Maybe. So what?

quote:
And can any shipmate in all honesty put their hand on their heart and say that they are genuinely surprised and shocked at these revelations, rather than they suspected all along that a lot of this went on?

Who cares? If we can see a little bit of justice meted out to the perpetrators of sexual assault, who cares how long it's been part of our culture? A lot of evils have been part of our culture for a long time. We don't for that reason give them a pass.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Over-sexed politicians are as old as politics itself.
Nothing new under the sun, apart from some now saying 'Enough is enough!'

And it's about damn time!

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Oh for fucks sake, a consensual sexual relationship is no the same as some bloke grabbing your backside when he passes you in the office. Or your boss asking you to go buy some sex toys.

What is it about the absence of consent that you do not get ?

This.

And Rolyn: "Targeted wooing"???
[Projectile]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I read something that claimed that the journo who's knee was squeezed didn't feel she was being harassed but rather propositioned. She slapped him to indicate what she thought of his proposition, and then went about her day. Please note that I read about this on my phone on the dunny, so accuracy not guaranteed.

They say harassment is in the eye of the harassed...

Well, if it was "only" a proposition, he could simply have politely asked her out. Or, you know, just kept his thoughts and hands entirely to himself.
[Roll Eyes]

No one should have to deal with that kind of crap.
[Mad]

[ 05. November 2017, 03:50: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

And Rolyn: "Targeted wooing"???

Not quite sure what you are indicating with the spew smilie. Could it be to do with oxymoron?

DT, so a boss or work colleague who makes a deliberate play on another, not by doing anything crass with there hands apart from smarmy handshakes, doesn’t need to seek consent?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

And Rolyn: "Targeted wooing"???

Not quite sure what you are indicating with the spew smilie. Could it be to do with oxymoron?

DT, so a boss or work colleague who makes a deliberate play on another, not by doing anything crass with there hands apart from smarmy handshakes, doesn’t need to seek consent?

They need to understand power differentials and that it's a work environment, you don't proposition people at work.

If you ask someone at work to go for a drink after work, who is not your subordinate, you need to take no for an answer if that's what you get. It is about consent, in the sense of *free* and informed consent.

I may not be able to chuck in my job to avoid you if you ask me out every Friday afternoon, or call me sugartits. I may not feel free to turn down that drink if you're doing my performance appraisal; and I need to make a living and I know universal credit and housing allowance will lead to me popping down the food bank and defaulting on my mortgage.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Also, much as subtle can be an issue, in the course of my working life I've had to explicitly explain that addressing me as "cunt" is not acceptable and nor is putting me in an armlock and bending me over a desk. Oddly, it wasn't female colleagues who did that. Though I have had to try to let a female colleague know I'd rather she didn't hug me before meetings or comment on my backside.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Consent is key. So is abuse of power. Is it possible to 'ask nicely' if you have the power of preferment? Personally I doubt it.

In the far-off days when I worked, one of the guidelines was avoiding even the appearance of unfair preference. Husbands, wives and partners didn't work in the same part of the organisation and were not allowed to produce performance reports, or sit on selection boards, if their partners were candidates. If a relationship developed, there was a requirement to report it if it put impartiality at risk.

Abuses of privilege did take place via favouritism, and it's difficult to stop that altogether. But there was a lot of sense in the restrictions which were in place.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Some churches would say that couples should not both serve on PCCs or Diaconates, too.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Oh for fucks sake, a consensual sexual relationship is no the same as some bloke grabbing your backside when he passes you in the office.

But just how genuinely consensual can any work relationship be? If my second sister in her days as a doctor had a sexual relationship with a patient, she'd have been barred from practice by the Medical Tribunal. The same with a priest. If I'd had one (once everyone got over the laughter and surprise) I'd have been very lucky to have been suspended from practice for as little as 5 years, with a very strictly supervised return. In all of these examples, there's no genuine consent because of the power imbalance. Much the same as a sexual relationship with 15 yr old. Regardless of the exact ability of the 15 yr old, an inability properly to consent is presumed.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The same is true of teachers and students: all relationships between teachers and students are now* seen as abusive. But there are many swirling relationships between the students and it is not unknown for teacher colleagues to marry, or hospital staff to get together. Is it inappropriate for unattached colleagues to become emotionally entangled?

Did anyone see the Jo Brand clip on Have I Got News for You?. Women deal with a barrage of sexualised abuse continuously, until they become invisible, and then, if noticed, the abuse changes subtly.

* When I was at school I knew of a number of burgeoning relationships, students who subsequently married their teachers: the German and French teachers both married past sixth form students, those were relationships that had their roots in school (no-one was surprised when we heard the following academic year that the teachers were married and the wives were ex-students). Even less appropriately the music teacher was known to be having a series of relationships with the sixth form girls and there was a PE teacher who cut a swathe through the female staff and the sixth form girls.

[ 05. November 2017, 10:32: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But just how genuinely consensual can any work relationship be?

That's one of the key questions. My old work culture said they were fine provided neither partner had influence over the career development of the other. It was a catch-all for either manipulation or seduction.

For other professional relationships (e.g. doctor/patient, teacher/student) I think the only standard is a complete no-no. Counsellors talk about transference and counter-transference to explain how attraction and temptation can develop. That's a good insight. Temptation is normal, but there are very good reasons for resisting it.

[ 05. November 2017, 10:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But just how genuinely consensual can any work relationship be?

Lots of relationships form between co-workers, and these are usually fine. My employer, in common with many others, will not permit people in a relationship to be in the management chain of the other. We don't actually prevent managers from forming relationships with subordinates, but if/when a relationship forms, one of the parties will be reassigned.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Temptation is normal, but there are very good reasons for resisting it.

That would be a very fine logo to hang above the Commons bar, and every work place and institution and workplace.

These are complex issues which go to the heart of our beliefs, prejudices passions and fixed attitudes.
However on the matter of males behaving inappropriately, or in a sexually harassing way towards females, it is good that female are starting to disclose. It is also noticeable that voices dismissing groping, womanising and suchlike as 'blokishness' are becoming increasingly shrill.

There is also equality to be considered as females can do the same to males, even though long held social attitudes consider this to be less serious.

As is pointed out in CK's post, standards, and that which is now regarded as acceptable, have changed markedly within the living memory of most. I agree it is well past the eleventh hour for those purportedly running the Country to be brought up to date.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

When this started to heat up a few weeks ago I thought to myself that it was all a bit weird; I'd never seen sexual harassment all the years I was at work - why now? And that's the point: I hadn't seen it. It was probably going on in plain view and I was not registering it. That was uncomfortably close to the defence a minister in Ontario offered a few years ago for molesting a teenage boy many years earlier: he claimed that standards were different back then. The presbytery didn't buy it, and he was removed from the ministry.

Come to think of it, a bad example of open abuse was my first employer (early 1970s in the UK) who had two published pay scales, one for for men and one for women. You can guess which one was lower.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Why are there bars at the Commons? There are none at my workplace 🤔

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I see the right-wing backlash is well under way now. Expect to see lots of talk of witch-hunts against men, 'trivial' examples of harassment, and so on. I'm curious to see if the govt follow suit, but I don't think they can now. This is Peter Hitchens in full moral rearmament cry, note the use of 'squawking' to denote complaints by women:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5050887/amp/What-women-gain-squawking-sex-pests-Niqab.html

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I see the right-wing backlash is well under way now. Expect to see lots of talk of witch-hunts against men, 'trivial' examples of harassment, and so on. I'm curious to see if the govt follow suit, but I don't think they can now. This is Peter Hitchens in full moral rearmament cry, note the use of 'squawking' to denote complaints by women:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5050887/amp/What-women-gain-squawking-sex-pests-Niqab.html

Quoted from above:

"This is why many of those who said they wanted equality also sneered at restraint and manners. They claim now that they want the restraint and the manners back (though the suspicion lingers that much of the current fuss is aimed mainly at making all men look wicked and grubby).

But where are such restrained manners to come from in our liberated society? They were part of an elaborate code of courtship and respect which was learned by example in the married family, and has now completely vanished. In our post-marriage free-for-all, why should we expect either sex to be restrained? All that’s left is the police or the public pillory of Twitter."

.. ah yes, because harassment never went on in the bad old days.

Hilarious.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Oh for fucks sake, a consensual sexual relationship is no the same as some bloke grabbing your backside when he passes you in the office.
But just how genuinely consensual can any work relationship be? If my second sister in her days as a doctor had a sexual relationship with a patient, she'd have been barred from practice by the Medical Tribunal. The same with a priest. If I'd had one (once everyone got over the laughter and surprise) I'd have been very lucky to have been suspended from practice for as little as 5 years, with a very strictly supervised return. In all of these examples, there's no genuine consent because of the power imbalance. Much the same as a sexual relationship with 15 yr old. Regardless of the exact ability of the 15 yr old, an inability properly to consent is presumed.

I completely agree.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Oh for fucks sake, a consensual sexual relationship is no the same as some bloke grabbing your backside when he passes you in the office.
But just how genuinely consensual can any work relationship be? If my second sister in her days as a doctor had a sexual relationship with a patient, she'd have been barred from practice by the Medical Tribunal. The same with a priest. If I'd had one (once everyone got over the laughter and surprise) I'd have been very lucky to have been suspended from practice for as little as 5 years, with a very strictly supervised return. In all of these examples, there's no genuine consent because of the power imbalance. Much the same as a sexual relationship with 15 yr old. Regardless of the exact ability of the 15 yr old, an inability properly to consent is presumed.
I completely agree.

I don't. Not completely. A doctor/patient relationship is a bad idea because it is imbalanced. But same a adult/teen, no. And ANY work relationship is non-consensual? not completely accurate either. Whilst I think they are generally not a good idea, work relationships that are parallel represent no power/ consent issues.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

If they are parallel, yes.

I do also think Parliament needs a proper process, because situations like the following are far more likely to happen to politicians because they are famous, sometimes they attract stalkers, and some people are very gullible:

[contains explicit description of alleged sexual assault]

Part 1

Part 2

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why are there bars at the Commons? There are none at my workplace 🤔

There are at mine.

Actually thinking about it, I've never spent time in work or education in a place without a bar. Well, not since I was twelve.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I've generally worked in hospitals and shops - so not so much.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

I don't. Not completely. A doctor/patient relationship is a bad idea because it is imbalanced. But same a adult/teen, no. And ANY work relationship is non-consensual? not completely accurate either. Whilst I think they are generally not a good idea, work relationships that are parallel represent no power/ consent issues.

I thought of the sorts of limitation iat work in what others have said and inherent in your comment. The trouble is that an employer may transfer staff, there may be promotions etc which change the environment completely. What is parallel today may not be in 3 months. As for the adult/teen, I was taking of underage teens only, not those 16 or older.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Other times, other customs. In the mid 1960s I worked for a short time in a civilian office that was housed in a large police station. There was a police social club also housed in the same building which had a licensed bar in it. I was told that members, though, were only allowed to drink alcohol in it if they were off duty.

I've encountered more recently other work based social clubs that were licensed, including one that was in the same building as an ordinary canteen. The canteen itself, though, only sold soft drinks, tea and coffee.

Although I don't want my elected legislators to be drunk, bearing in mind the funny hours they work, it doesn't strike me as odd or unreasonable that Parliament should contain catering facilities.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Considering I have never much heard of, nor encountered groping pubs, not even crowded pubs where folks have had several, I’m beginning to think the fact that the Commons has a bar is a red herring.

The overriding common denominator with institutional sex abuse is, as others have already pointed to, the abuse of power.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gee D--

Just FYI:

In the US, the age of consent is 16-18, varying by state. To further complicate things, there are conflicting laws *within* some states.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks - it's 16 in my state, but I have no idea about others. It may well vary as much as between various of the US states. I do know of some places where it's normally 16, but 18 for teacher/student relationships and the like.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re equal protection for abused boys:

In something I skimmed a bit ago, possibly the link I just posted, there was mention of work to make consent laws gender-neutral.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Why can't adults just wait until a kid is of age, out of school, and not under the adult's power?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

They are in my state. I have a very vague recollection that in some jurisdictions the age of consent varies according to the activity - anal sex with a boy is illegal under 18, but other activities are legal at 16, that sort of thing.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

This, from Kathleen Parker, is interesting reading.

Like her, I worry about a lack of due process. But harassment has been a standard part of life for altogether too long. (Back in my singer days, I was targeted by several big names most people would know, but I didn't bother to report it; management would have shrugged it off.)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why are there bars at the Commons? There are none at my workplace 🤔

There are at mine [Big Grin]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why are there bars at the Commons? There are none at my workplace 🤔
There are at mine .

So long as they aren't drunk, I don't mind. There are pubs within seven minutes of Westminster (which is the notice given for a Division).

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

The Red Lion and the Horseguards Hotel have division bells, don't they? They always used to.

M.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0