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?

Flora

I continue to be astonished at the outrage on display about this sting.

Then you would probably also be surprised to learn that there are certain communities and groups in this country that have a very deep distrust of entrapment, as a result of it being used against them by the police and authorities.

Empire you seem unable to accept that I don't agree with you without ascribing it to some lack of good faith on my part. FWR regulars don't usually do that and I find it offensive.

The problem of hostile environment is a very serious one. We get people on here all the time who minimise behaviour by abusive men and turn a harsh spotlight on women's behaviour. I take this very seriously and I do usually respond like this when I see it. My posts in this thread are pretty consistent with what I normally say on this issue.

You and I disagree on the particulars of this case. I would expect an FWR regular on someone else's thread to make their point but not to keep jumping up and down accusing the OP of not listening and saying this isn't a feminist issue. I also think you have been goading. The journalist using photographs of the women is wrong but that issue is whataboutery when it comes to the behaviour of Newmark. It's a completely separate issue and does not affect my view of Newmark's behaviour. You don't agree, fine.

You think I have conducted myself badly, I think you have. I think you've joined up with some other people who seem to be NCs or new and egged each other on. Since I don't know who you are, I don't know whether we normally agree or not. In the spirit of FWR, I don't want this thread to spill over into other threads.

Or put another way - at what point do you say that a noble cause justifies unethical practice?

For Flora it's simple - she'd already decided that Newmark was a wrong'un and guilty before she knew any facts at all.

For others it's more complex.

I know what you're saying. I disagree. I have tried to explain to you why I disagree with your views but you keep coming back with accusations that I am not listening or misreading.

I took this post as you saying it is not a feminist issue.

MyEmpireOfDirt Wed 01-Oct-14 06:57:00

A man sending unsolicited cock shots to a strange woman, and the fact that many men feel entitled to do this = feminist issue.

A man exchanging photos with a woman who has sent him hers, who has requested them and is flirted with him is different. And it has been stated in an article I read that the journalist targeted at least 6 politicians - so 'she' did initiate it.

It's like the difference between grabbing a woman's breast in the street or at work with no consent, and touching the breasts of a woman when you are lying on the sofa snogging, groping each other and giggling. One is sexual assault, the other is not.

i.e. one is a feminist issue and one is not. It seems to me like you are distinguishing it being a feminist issue based on the level of engagement by the woman. I disagree with this.

I disagree with you on the facts of this situation but even if your facts are correct (I don't know where you are getting them from) and the facts set out in the Mirror are wrong, I disagree with your conclusions. For some reason, you, why and PP seem to think this is an unacceptable position to take, which I actually find quite baffling. Maybe it's my work but I don't see the problem with "I think the facts are X and those facts support belief A. However even if the facts are Y, those facts also support belief A." You seem to be saying the facts are Y and those facts don't support belief A (as well as some other things) and if I don't accept that it must be because I am not listening to you or misreading you or I'm saying that because I don't see you as an FWR regular. I'm not and it's not that. I just don't agree.

If we can take it as given that someone in a senior position should always act properly etc etc etc

I've been thinking about the core of this story, in the context of the reactions to it right now with next to no information available.

Consider these two scenarios -

Scenario A

Newmark is essentially innocent. But he has enemies in his own party who briefed against him to Wickham which led to the entrapment which Newmark haplessly fell into.

Scenario B

Newmark is indeed a sleazeball who literally cannot be trusted around young women, so falling into the trap was just inevitable.

On the basis of the verifiable evidence that we've got, how could you decide whether scenario A or B is true?

The fact is, right now we have no absolutely nothing that could prove it either way.

The only thing we have got is the fact that he fell into the trap.

So it must be our response to hearing that fact which drives our opinion of whether he's a sleazeball or hapless idiot?

How many men do you think would fall for it?

Based on the men I've known, I would say probably about 70% - after all, as the saying goes "you don't turn down something that's offered to you on a plate". Other women might have wildly different estimates, based on their experience.

Also, of course, it's possible that the probability of him falling for it would be increased by his sense of his own importance, entitlement etc ("No it's not at all suspicious that this young woman is sending me nude pictures of herself - it's what I deserve").

If you look at the 'below the line' comments on the mainstream press (yes, I know, I know), the consensus seems to be that he was just a hapless idiot viciously set up by the evil newspapermen. I think it's the case that the bulk of those commenters are male, so it leads me to think that they are silently thinking that they would have all fallen for it too...

It'll all come out eventually, of course.

The premise of the OP is that BN was the driving force behind te exchange. What evidence we have suggests otherwise. The balance of probability suggests otherwise - it's in the journalist'a interests to encourage BN. And that's it; if BN wasn't the driving force, he couldn't have been exerting power over a junior party. It really is that simple.

Too many academics, zealots and theorists spoil the broth, as they say.

Peckham, I disagree with "hapless idiot" though, because of the specific circumstances of this situation.

Man meets younger woman in pub, flirtation happens, woman sends man pic of breasts, man responds with pic of cock, turns out man is politico and woman is undercover reporter but the terms of their meeting and interaction have been as private individuals - maybe man is hapless idiot.

Man with power and influence in a specific campaign area meets younger woman to whom campaign is relevant in course of his professional life, who initially asks professionally related questions, and responds to her flirtation and breast pic - something beyond hapless idiot, I think. Not just foolishness but utter disregard for the power dynamics and the appropriate way to behave when power dynamics exist.

"BN wasn't the driving force, he couldn't have been exerting power over a junior party."

I think this is too simple. He should have been aware of the risk of his power and addressed it if he wanted to continue relations with this woman he met professionally.

It's not only too simple yonic, it is completely unsupported by any of the accounts we have available.

How anyone could look at this situation and not see the abuse of power is beyond me. Would he, under any circumstances, have sent this pic had he not seen the leverage he had over an ambitious youngster? I don't buy the idiot theory. Notwithstanding the lack of admiration I have for the current lot of government incumbents, I don't think Newmark is or was stupid. I think he was calculating. I think he calculated that the risk of exposing himself to a Tory hopeful was very low as (had she been genuine), the risk of her exposing him would be very low.

I don't think Newmark is or was stupid. I think he was calculating. I think he calculated that the risk of exposing himself to a Tory hopeful was very low as (had she been genuine), the risk of her exposing him would be very low.

I agree. but I still don't necessarily think it is a feminist issue.

BN could have been openly gay, or closet gay, but with people around who had a hunch and were keen to expose him and undermine him (see PeckhamPearlz 'Scenario A)

The journo posing as 'Sophie' could just as easily have posed as 'Sam' the handsome, ambitious, keen young party activist who sends photos of his cock to BN, BN takes a calculated risk and responds in kind for the reasons you've stated above, and Bam! Same scenario unfolds. EXACTLY the same scenario unfolds.

Except you wouldn't be discussing it on the FWR forum because you wouldn't see it as a feminist issue.

DDaFB, you could use that same argument to say that workplace sexual harassment wasn't a feminist issue as it sometimes happens to gay men, or that rape isn't a feminist issue because men are also raped.

And it would be incorrect to do so.

And there's the nub; the interpretation of this depends on whether you are able to see past BN's job to the human beneath. However, he can only been seen in terms of his position within a feminist definition of power structures. He is a member of the ruling patriarchy so is always guilty. Where the genders reversed, of course, then this would be slut-shaming or victim-blaming. Anyone remember the Sarah West thread? She'd slept with a junior member of her warship crew and the FWR forum all fell about bemoaning the fact that she'd been sacked. Insinuated that it was all a conspiracy... Etc. Now she hadn't been tricked, but I don't recall anyone saying that she had failed to take account of the abuse of power angle.

This is the problem with judging scenarios by pre-arranged principles.

"the FWR forum all fell about bemoaning the fact that she'd been sacked. Insinuated that it was all a conspiracy... "

Bollocks. There were threads about the media coverage, there were threads about idiots saying "she'd let women down", there were not threads like you describe.

And there is no "FWR forum" view, Flora and I are disagreeing on this specific case, for example.

And yes, Yonic, my assessment may be simple. But it's still true isn't it? BN was not the initiator. Unless your assessment acknowledges this, your assessment is flawed. That's been my point the whole way along and, for some reason, it's denied, pushed to one side or ignored. Why is that?

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.

I don't think power dynamics are as simple as "if you are the initiator, you have all the power."

Stuff to do now.

Well I wouldn't say the same about either of those two examples, because it's not the same at all and I find that to be an overly simplistic analogy.

Fact is, this thread would not be here if BN had thought he was having his grubby little 'show and tell' with another man, especially as he was clearly not the instigator of it. With no women involved AT ALL it would probably have barely registered on FF's radar as something worthy of such in-depth discussion.

It certainly would not have been picked over and manipulated and embellished from every angle until it could be made to fit her template narrative, and it wouldn't have been cited as remotely 'illustrative of the struggles women face when trying to further their careers' as someone said. I don't think a connection to feminism and misogyny in the workplace would have been made at all.

It would just have been 'closet gay MP exposed via entrapment in underhand journo sting.'

Nothing to see here.

Excellent post at 08.48 WTCBT

Yes, simple. But not wrong and not to be dispensed with. We are ignoring the simple dynamics of this case to concentrate on the possible context in which it could be said to have happened. It's overly simple to say the Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.., but you don't ignore the iceberg in your assessment. FF ignores the iceberg.