'Girl' skipper shame

[MontyGlee]

I have a variety of thoughts about this, but at the moment I'm just so bloody incensed that this story starts with calling her a girl.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-navys-first-girl-skipper-3916423

I posted this on the same thread in News.

"Be interesting to know how many male commanders of a warship have "left their ships" because of inappropriate relationships: or are we to assume that none has ever breached the rules? Or is it that they simply "leave their ships" and no one ever thinks of splashing it all across the BBC and other media?

Answers on a postcard."

And as for 41 year old girl…strange isn't it how a 41 year old in charge of a ship is a girl, when 41 year olds in TV fall into the older women bracket and have reached an age when they have to be looking over their shoulders at the latest upcoming nubile young lady to play anchor alongside some greying wrinkled man.

agreed, grimble

Time for an FOI request??

My first thought when I heard this story on the radio was that sexual activity in the navy hasn't been news for oh, about 400 years or so. So pretty irritated that it now is when it concerns a senior woman.

My second thought is that she's probably been waiting for an accusation like this for the whole time she's been a commander.

The accusation may be true, may not be true. If it is true, I will indeed be disappointed that she's been so daft, as she will know that people will be scrutinising her every move. But, as someone else pointed out, HR issues with other commanders don't make headline news.

She acted like one call her it. What woman has an affair with astride man when she knows it's not allowed and she knows it will be a big deal?!

mumtoateen why don't you call her whatever name you're alluding to?

...what's an "astride man"? (Presuming it's a typo but can't imagine what for.)

I'd be fascinated to know what mumtoateen is likely to call the man involved, if indeed there is a man.

Original posits about calling her a girl she acted like a silly school girl. So she should be called a girl.

*post is

*post is

And the man involved is just as stupid, and was acting like a school boy.

Why is there all this fuss because it's a woman. Don't men do similar things. And she didn't take a vow of chastity presumably.

Really uncomfortable with the thought that this woman should be accountable to me wrt to these allegations. I really think that women get more than enough detailed scrutiny and critique by the malestream without feminists joining in.

I actually have not had any indication that people have been disappointed in Obama as a function of his ethnicity. People have been disappointed, sure, because he talked a great talk about things changing, about a positive politics, about real social change in America. I've had conversations about the ways that he disappoints in relation to those things but his ethnicity has (a) not been seen as the cause of his failures, and (b) isn't the thing he has failed in - he has failed to be a change of American politics, he hasn't failed to be what an African-American leader should be. In fact the criticism of him is about the ways that he's just like all the others, whereas the criticism here is about this person's essential difference and why it causes and disbars all women, on account of the way that difference flaws us.

To my mind, talking about her as a 'disappointment' is just another example of the ways that the malestream holds women to a different and higher level of account.

I note entirely the lack of substantiation for these claims. And I also note the way she's been selectively quoted in this context - her singleness is also a feature here. What's a disappointment in my mind is the reporting of this in this way.

Like the idea of an FOI request...

It's disappointing when any leader gets it wrong. Military commanders shouldn't have relationships with people under them. That's not in question.

Is she just a leader of those on the ship? Again it's naive and false to not acknowledge the consequences of being a role model.

Is she just a leader of those on the ship? Again it's naive and false to not acknowledge the consequences of being a role model.

Absolutely, because being in command of a ship isn't stressful enough, she also has to shoulder the responsibility of being a role model of all women, everywhere. Men in command don't. It's naive and false to suggest that she does.

She's only a Commander. She's not the Admiral of the Red.

I just don't think you get it Chaos.

Do you think ground-breaking women are role models: an inspiration to other women and a direct challenge to out-dated stereotypes?

If no, what about the women that look to them as role models?

If yes, how can that possibly be the case without additional factors?

Your position makes no sense.

So I submitted this

^Dear Royal Navy,

I wonder if you could supply statistics pertaining to:

1. the number of officers investigated for alleged breaches of the

code of social conduct where that breach is an improper personal relationship with another member of staff

1. the gender of those accused of such a breach as a proportion of

that gender in the wider organisation

1. the action taken against the senior officer in all cases where

the accusation was upheld

1. the number those making accusations moved in the six months

following the investigation from their position at the time of the accusation, irrespective of outcome

1. the number those accused moved in the six months following the

investigation from their position at the time of accusation, irrespective of outcome^

I agree that people will be looking at this woman as an example of women in general and what they are like in positions of power or positions traditionally associated with men. I just don't think it's fair or feminist to join in on that.

Monty, I do get it and my position makes perfect sense, thanks.

I think that your need to make this woman carry the burden of being your role model is ridiculous.

And what Buffy said.

I see you avoided the question because I suspect you now realise the flaw in your argument.

Are you trying to build the golden bridge of retreat Buffy? Well, bollocks.

I am completely exasperated at this attitude that says she shouldn't have to shoulder the extra burden of responsibility therefore we can deny that it exists. Yes, I agree that she shouldn't, I agree it's unfair. But it's there.

Chaos said - using my words back at me - it's naive and false to suggest she shoulders the burden of (role model) responsibility. She either is a role model (and she is) or she isn't. Being a role model means that you have an extra expectation on your shoulders. You can't contract out of that. You can't contract someone else out of it. I'm, but you don't get it at all. You have a first principle and are trying to apply it to real life. It doesn't work like that.

I think everyone sees that it is there, Monty. My real irritation about that is that you're the one putting it there. Here, on the feminist board. You're promoting, and assuming everyone else doesn't understand, a position which I would critique as part of my critique of patriarchal society. Patriarchy heaps criticism on women, holds them to higher standards, uses a single woman's actions to say all women aren't allowed to do x, y, z. And you, in my life, right now, are the main producer and defender of that position.

Why is this discussion not about: what power structures are at play? If she is in a position of power in a male dominated organisation, is she abusing that power? Or do the wider structures of power mean that this woman isn't capable of abuse of seniority in the same ways that a man is, because she isn't seen as similarly powerful? How can we create safe working environments, which are humane, for people in these kinds of extraordinary organisations? Or like a million other things.

But no, we have to go into how disappointing she is as a woman. FFS.