[Football] Touching-up v Snowflakes

[Thunder Bolt]

Oh fer cryin' out loud, can you really get into a foment about a hostess holding hands with a crusty old so and so at a 'gentlemens' do'?
This wasn't a run of the mill corporate event, was it. The hostesses knew the kind of occasion it was and were told( if they really needed to be) that the attendees might be 'annoying'.

So, they were asking for itt, were they?

The men are not to blame in any way shape or form?

 

[Brighton Mod]

I disagree with so much of this that it's difficult to know how to present a counter-argument that would make the slightest difference. I think that when opinions are so far apart the chances of changing someone's mind through a public debate on an internet forum are minimal, and they usually degenerate into name-calling anyway.

The only bit I don't disagree with is your last paragraph - your Dad was perfectly entitled to turn down the anti-racist sticker and the reason he gave is entirely rational, and I could imagine doing the same (for the same reasons if I put money into a charity bucket for Macmillan or whatever, I don't take the sticker that goes with it, and if I give money to the Royal British Legion collectors I don't wear the "virtue signalling' poppy). But I honestly don't see what any of that has got to do with sleazy businessmen groping waitresses. Neither do I see what any of it has to do with chants I might hear at the Amex (incidentally, if they were racist or homophobic chants, which I very rarely hear at the Amex these days, and if they were directed at an individual, I would challenge the person making them, and have done so in the past). And I don't understand your juxtaposition of "equal rights" with feminism - what is feminism about if it's not about equal rights for women? And from what evidence base do you assert that none of this is relevant to "99.999% of people in this country"?

Anyway, I'm happy to accept that your views are a million miles away from mine, and you're welcome to them, but I'd guess that mine are actually shared by rather more than the 0.001% of people that you imply. Actually, given that you say that "Peoples [sic] values are all over the place in todays world", I suspect that you concede that a lot of people do actually have the values that you clearly despise.

It's an empirical question, but I think the tide is indeed beginning to turn and that the kind of views you espouse in your post are, on balance, on the way out, and certainly from the evidence of people I know at least, they seem to be much less common amongst the younger (and better-educated) generation than among my generation (I'm in my early 60s), which for me is a cause for optimism. And despite what you say, I think the response to the FT piece supports that interpretation.

WE'll have to se what the longevity of the article is, i'm surprised that you think feminism is about equal rights when feminist groups ban speakers and clearly do not represent the views of many women. As for your honourable stance against racist chanting and abuse at the Amex which you claimnot to hear, I find selective, i'm not sure where you sit, but you need to open your ears. The regarding my father stresses the arguement that if you don't stand up, you must be in the other camp, thus by definition many are forced to comply for fear of being labelled, much against their wishes.
In terms of journalist content, the article was not a great piece and not news, it will be out of date by the end of the week and everyone will have moved on. The article was written not for its news content, but for the benefit of the writer.

 

[Hamilton]

Agree with this

Things are changing but as always it takes a generation or two for this to feed through into what becomes 'normal' or 'acceptable' behaviour perhaps for the unenlightened. Some of the things I've seen/events I've been to (not a million miles away from what appears to have happened here) simply don't go on any more as it's rightly unacceptable.

-when I was a kid in the 70s, it was entirely normal to see blokes openly slapping women on the arse etc. It usually resulted in either a cheeky smile, a 'get orf you dirty old sod' comment, or a slap across the face. I could still tell you now which of my dad's mates, or other blokes in the village, had 'reputations'. Women went out of their way to avoid them. It''s similar to the way we used to call the one black kid in our school unpleasant names.

-I've been to a few (not recently though) 'gentleman's dinners or 'sportsman's dinners' as they were sometimes laughably called, almost always charitable events. Some had hired entertainment of a very adult nature - the entertainers would obviously have known exactly what they were doing, but even then anything like touching would have resulted in a bouncer chucking you through a window (if you were lucky it would have been open). I don't see this kind of event being organised these days (or maybe I just don't get invited any more ) - used to be normal for Round Table-type groups to set them up. Groping waitresses at an event like this would have still been out of order.

This event doesn't seem to have known what it was supposed to be (or is in denial now they've been called out). It's very obviously set itself up with grubby old (rich) pissed-up men surrounded by tall, pretty, deliberately provocatively dressed girls, so they would have been able to completely predict what was going to happen (and arguably encouraged it). Doesn't make it acceptable of course, but in some ways the old farts need protecting from themselves.

Agree with your post dazzer.

Just one thing to note though. Do you see how we are all now characterising the attendees as 'old farts' and 'crusty men' like they are characters of little influence. We're unintentionally creating a false narrative where this is a dying breed of man. In fact, they were the heads of banks (Barclays for example); head of advertising agencies etc. They were men in sharp suits with money and influence. The old farts don't need saving from themselves, we need saving from the men of influence.

 

[dazzer6666]

Agree with your post dazzer.

Just one thing to note though. Do you see how we are all now characterising the attendees as 'old farts' and 'crusty men' like they are characters of little influence. We're unintentionally creating a false narrative where this is a dying breed of man. In fact, they were the heads of banks (Barclays for example); head of advertising agencies etc. They were men in sharp suits with money and influence. The old farts don't need saving from themselves, we need saving from the men of influence.

Good point actually.......................trouble is they still think behaviour like this is OK in certain environments, and the organisers created that environment (whether deliberately or not). All of them know if they did anything like that in the office they'd get fired - but at this event they thought they were 'off the leash' so to speak. Glad I left Barclays though

 

[BadFish]

Reread your post, if you are a consistent person and your post reflects your views you would have to be against hen nights too.

Unless you overdid the outrage at the expense of nuance and detail, which is my who point.

Unless you overdid the outrage and the

I usually enjoy your posts and find them thought provoking DD but in this case I am afraid you are way of the mark. I am sure you can see the difference between a hen night and what occurred at this event. If not perhaps you need to reread the FT article and consider your argument.

At present you seem to me to be falling into a trap of buzzword filled apology for the behaviour of grubby seedy rich and powerful men.

Can you honestly, hand on heart say that given all the evidence presented you think that what went on in that room was okay?

I guess the answer is yes, which is weird because even the organisers, the club and many of the men in the room seem, by their actions since, to disagree with you.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Agree with your post dazzer.

Just one thing to note though. Do you see how we are all now characterising the attendees as 'old farts' and 'crusty men' like they are characters of little influence. We're unintentionally creating a false narrative where this is a dying breed of man. In fact, they were the heads of banks (Barclays for example); head of advertising agencies etc. They were men in sharp suits with money and influence. The old farts don't need saving from themselves, we need saving from the men of influence.

Hurray! Well called out.

Read back through the thread, and the women were pimping themselves, knew what they were doing (despite some being described as students) but the men were just old farts and enjoying themselves.

Dual standards indeed.

 

[BadFish]

Agree with your post dazzer.

Just one thing to note though. Do you see how we are all now characterising the attendees as 'old farts' and 'crusty men' like they are characters of little influence. We're unintentionally creating a false narrative where this is a dying breed of man. In fact, they were the heads of banks (Barclays for example); head of advertising agencies etc. They were men in sharp suits with money and influence. The old farts don't need saving from themselves, we need saving from the men of influence.

Good point!

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[sant andreu]

I am not getting at anything, Of course thats the ideal, but why apply for a job which specifies which underwear you must wear. It's wrong, and that should ring alarm bells. You cant change how people behave immediately, but come on, you really think that the girls may have thought oh it's for charity that alright then? No I daresay they were thinking of the tips and job offers, Pimping themselves. Sorry, thats how I see it. It's not like they were on the minimum wage which many 'hostesses'/waitrons are. As I said willy waving and hands up skirts is (I didnt say this bit harassment) not ok of course. But really a hand round the waist or a hand touch whilst you are getting paid a good chunk at a men only event, only being dumb or seriously niaive or an undercover "reporter" would be "shocked"

It's all a load of nonsense. Any job that specifys your underwear? I mean come on whats that all about Youre not stupid

The most likely reason they were asked to wear black underwear is that white or other coloured underwear could have clashed with the dress (think bra straps, revealing bits on the sides, etc.)

Or do you have some other theory about why this instruction was made? Why exactly should it have been a tell-tale signal that they'd have to put up with unwanted touching?

 

[BLOCK F]

So, they were asking for itt, were they?

The men are not to blame in any way shape or form?

Thunder, read my post again. In particular 'foment' and 'hand holding'
I have not mentioned hands up skirts or willy exposure!

 

[dingodan]

I usually enjoy your posts and find them thought provoking DD but in this case I am afraid you are way of the mark. I am sure you can see the difference between a hen night and what occurred at this event. If not perhaps you need to reread the FT article and consider your argument.

At present you seem to me to be falling into a trap of buzzword filled apology for the behaviour of grubby seedy rich and powerful men.

Can you honestly, hand on heart say that given all the evidence presented you think that what went on in that room was okay?

I guess the answer is yes, which is weird because even the organisers, the club and many of the men in the room seem, by their actions since, to disagree with you.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I've not said it was Ok, I've said, many times, I don't condone or approve of their behavior. I just also don't agree with you and others that these men were being anything more than drunk and flirtatious or that these women were "abused" or "assaulted" because they were touched on the hip, or even the bum. Perhaps you can point to one or two examples where it was more than that, but this article isn't about those one or two incidents, it's been made just as much about a hand on the hip, or "lower back", and I think that's stupid, and I think a lot of this story is patronizing to women.

If the story had been about the women who had a hand put up her skirt, or the guy who got is c*ck out, I would have had no objections, but conflating hand holding and hands on hip and hands on lower backs with those things is wrong.

I also believe that most women are not traumatized by a hand being placed on their lower back, and that most women are also perfectly capable of dealing with a man who steps out of line.

 

[soistes]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Thunder, read my post again. In particular 'foment' and 'hand holding'
I have not mentioned hands up skirts or willy exposure!

That was the whole point of the article. If you only saw the early evening tv news, it was sanitized for family viewing.

The intereview I saw with the journalist stated the whole range of assaults, suggestions and harassment. The FT article also does that.

Why are you trying to demean an article by trivialising the extent of it?

 

[dingodan]

That was the whole point of the article. If you only saw the early evening tv news, it was sanitized for family viewing.

The intereview I saw with the journalist stated the whole range of assaults, suggestions and harassment. The FT article also does that.

Why are you trying to demean an article by trivialising the extent of it?

They don't sanitize the news for family viewing, I frequently choke on my dinner at some of the stuff which gets reported on the early evening news. The only behaviors which were common threads throughout the evening, which multiple women experienced at the hands of multiple guests, were hand holding, hip touching and lower back touching, maybe also touching of bums, touching of bums was certainly the worst of the behaviors reported as happening more than once, from what I have heard and read.

What is the "whole range of assaults"?

I've heard the journalist say that that one anonymous woman claims that she saw another woman have a hand put up her skirt. A guest also apparently exposed himself. Both totally unacceptable things to do, but were there any others than these two incidents?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I've not said it was Ok, I've said, many times, I don't condone or approve of their behavior. I just also don't agree with you and others that these men were being anything more than drunk and flirtatious or that these women were "abused" or "assaulted" because they were touched on the hip, or even the bum. Perhaps you can point to one or two examples where it was more than that, but this article isn't about those one or two incidents, it's been made just as much about a hand on the hip, or "lower back", and I think that's stupid, and I think a lot of this story is patronizing to women.

If the story had been about the women who had a hand put up her skirt, or the guy who got is c*ck out, I would have had no objections, but conflating hand holding and hands on hip and hands on lower backs with those things is wrong.

I also believe that most women are not traumatized by a hand being placed on their lower back, and that most women are also perfectly capable of dealing with a man who steps out of line.

Read the FT article, in full, not what you want to read.

Number 10 is already investigating gagging clauses as some businessmen are trying to cover their tracks.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...raucous-presidents-club-charity-a3748261.html

Here's one of the women talking anonymously

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/presidents-club-guest-list-men-11911195

https://www.theguardian.com/society...n-presidents-club-donations-harassment-claims

 

[dazzer6666]

They don't sanitize the news for family viewing, I frequently choke on my dinner at some of the stuff which gets reported on the early evening news. The only behaviors which were common threads throughout the evening, which multiple women experienced at the hands of multiple guests, were hand holding, hip touching and lower back touching, maybe also touching of bums, touching of bums was certainly the worst of the behaviors reported as happening more than once, from what I have heard and read.

Have you actually read the FT article ? One quote below:

'Hostesses reported men repeatedly putting hands up their skirts; one said an attendee had exposed his penis to her during the evening'

 

[BLOCK F]

That was the whole point of the article. If you only saw the early evening tv news, it was sanitized for family viewing.

The intereview I saw with the journalist stated the whole range of assaults, suggestions and harassment. The FT article also does that.

Why are you trying to demean an article by trivialising the extent of it?

Thunder, I am not trying to do anything of the sort. We appear to be misunderstanding each other.
Without trawling back through the relevant posts, I was specifically talking about crusties and hand holding as someone had mentioned that. I cannot reconcile hand holding, being in the same category as willy exposure or hands up skirts!
That is all!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

They don't sanitize the news for family viewing, I frequently choke on my dinner at some of the stuff which gets reported on the early evening news. The only behaviors which were common threads throughout the evening, which multiple women experienced at the hands of multiple guests, were hand holding, hip touching and lower back touching, maybe also touching of bums, touching of bums was certainly the worst of the behaviors reported as happening more than once, from what I have heard and read.

I saw both items and the early evening news item was a lot shorter. You are defending the indefensible.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Some charming attitudes on here, par for the course these days though. Imagine if this event had been an association of Muslim businessmen doing the leching, bet this thread would have taken a different tack then!

Indeed.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Thunder, I am not trying to do anything of the sort. We appear to be misunderstanding each other.
Without trawling back through the relevant posts, I was specifically talking about crusties and hand holding as someone had mentioned that. I cannot reconcile hand holding, being in the same category as willy exposure or hands up skirts!
That is all!

There's only you and dingodan who keep repeating it was only holding hands and hands on the back.
He is even trying to say the women called that sexual harassment.

 

[dingodan]

Here is a woman willing to go on record, whose worked at this dinner before, and similar events, for both men's nights, and women's nights.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/shelagh-fogarty/i-worked-at-presidents-club-dinner-caller/