Brooks Newmark "Entrapment"

[FloraFox]

There doesn't seem to be any suggestion "she" asked him to send her the photo, is there?

So simply being an attractive young woman and complimenting national politicians on twitter is "entrapping" men into sending photos of their genitals?

Does the issue of inappropriate sexual advances in a professional context impact more on women than men? Yes? Then it's a feminist issue.

(The crux of the BN case here being the level of inappropriateness)

Would we discuss a specific case of sexual assault/rape with a male victim on FWR? Unlikely, I think I would post on "In the news" or similar. So no QEDery about what if BN had liaised with a man required.

"Yonic, it's not bollocks. Not a single person looked at that situation in the context of a person in a position of power engaging in sexual activity with a junior member in a shared workspace. Not one person."

If you look at the part of your post that I quoted and said was bollocks, it wasn't that part.

As Empire says, the threads were more about media coverage and SW as a representative of womankind, not about the situation itself. For the record, of course SW should have properly considered the power dynamic.

To take a current reversy case, there is a 23 year old female teacher who has rightly been lifetime banned from teaching for flirting and sexting a 17 year old male sixth former. - the additional law is in place there exactly because of power dynamics.

The sheer variety of reasons why BN not being the initiator can be ignored is impressive. My whole problem with this thread is that I find ignoring this dishonest. The opening question stated 'there's seems to be no suggestion she asked him to send the photo'. This is wrong and yet just about every perspective on this case steps over that as if it's a triviality. I am perplexed at why people are doing that. I am angry that believing that has relevance is akin to turning away from Jimmy Saville. It seems to me that the hypothetical is more important than the reality and that what people represent in terms of their class is more important than what they actually do as individuals. The only way I can explain this is by thinking that the motivation here is to discuss a pre-determined narrative and fit events to that as they can be found. This seems the most likely explanation is to why matters that don't fit are cast aside as unimportant.

I found the Sarah West thread by searching "let women down"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2143560-AIBU-to-think-commander-Sarah-West-has-spoilt-this-for-all-women-now

CagedBird, were you on that or another SW thread talking about the power dynamics?

Flora has acknowledged that her initial post didn't have all the info - surely now we are talking about what we currently know of the case, as well as more generally on the issues?

I don't think anyone is stepping over the initiator thing - people have different views as to the extent this reduces how inappropriately he behaved (baseline being some level of inappropriateness, as acknowledged by BN himself in resigning)

"I don't want to get into epistemological discussions"

Yeah, ya do

We're all nerds in our own areas

The opening question stated 'there's seems to be no suggestion she asked him to send the photo'. This is wrong

This has not actually been shown in any of the published accounts. For someone who seems to think this situation can only be discussed based on the precise facts of who did what first etc., you haven't been able to back this up.

Buffy What we disagree on is the extent to which his failure to meet the ethical standards society expects of senior people in positions of power crosses that line into actual abuse of that power.

What do you think makes this not an actual abuse of power? As I've said above, there's the issue of abuse of this individual but also the abuse of the power of his office to get sex generally. Do you think that is problematic from a feminist perspective?

Ok Buffy. As I've said before, I was out and happy to have added my thoughts and have FF prefer her red-top version. I only came back when I read the Saville bit. Can we agree then that thinking the entrapment muddies the waters IS NOT equivalent to excusing child abuse?

Not one single piece of commentary has questioned whether Brooks Newmark has spoilt anything for all men. Funny that.

Can I just say FF that that is what's so infuriating? When I ask you a question, like 'so sending him a bikini shot is irrelevant' you shift target. You've consistently squirmed out of acknowledging the facts were not as you first thought they were.

Why do you not have the moral integrity to acknowledge that your interpretation was based on a complicit tabloid's version of events?

Buffy Yes. Although the 'situations like this' causes an issue because the 'situation like this' is one where the victim wasn't a victim at all. That is why I don't agree that we should look at it in those terms. I don't think those terms apply precisely because the journalist'a actions have precluded us from drawing an equivalence with victim/abuser.

To clarify, if Sophie really had been Sophie then I think this would be perfectly valid. But Sophie wasn't. However, the thread has continued as if she were - as if she wasn't a journalist deliberately targeting someone and encouraging them.