FT investigation: Men only fundraiser and sexual harrassment

[RedToothBrush]

amp.ft.com/content/075d679e-0033-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5?__twitter_impression=true
Sexual misconduct allegations
Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show
FT investigation finds groping and sexual harassment at secretive black-tie dinner

It is for men only. A black tie evening, Thursday’s event was attended by 360 figures from British business, politics and finance and the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.

All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned.

The event has been a mainstay of London’s social calendar for 33 years, yet the activities have remained largely unreported — unusual, perhaps, for a fundraiser of its scale.

Hats off to the FT for sending two undercover reporters

And please can everyone stop questioning why the women took the jobs.
You are totally missing the point that this story is ALL about male privilege - the female workers are collateral damage.

The only difference between the attendees and a leery guy in a dingy pub pestering the barmaid and groping her is the tuxedo and the wallet.
The barmaid has the freedom to go to the bathroom and complain though, and get the dodgy guy booted out.

I'm just going to drop this here. You know, in case anyone might find it useful.

www.indy100.com/article/this-comic-is-the-most-apt-description-of-twitter-youll-ever-see--eJ4E7Y6Sre

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/24/hostesses-gropefest-charity-dinner-women-dorchester?CMP=share_btn_tw

by Suzanne Moore.

Always lots of sea lions on feminist chats and blogs.

TheBrilliantMistake
You are never going to convince people that 99% male perps is exactly equal to 1% female perps no matter how long you go on about it.

According to the news many men who attended this event are now desperate to distance themselves and are "condemning" it. Still, it took an undercover women to break this story. Presumably if she hadn't these men would be attending the 31st event next year!

I don't t see any male attendees describing their experiences there and what they witnessed that they are condemning in. They've all had 30 years of sexist shitty exploitative parties and are making the "right" noises now they have been exposed.

Let's not confuse arse saving back peddling with condemnation.

What a bunch of despicable arseholes they are.

Their asses were not superglued to their seats. They could have left if they'd wanted to. They didn't want to, because they felt entitled to have servile young women provided for them to peruse and choose from, like a sort of ambulatory buffet. There's nothing new about this, the new thing is the media pretending to care.

This is why Worboys only got a few years, because men like this run the country and their attitudes are depressingly common.

TheBrilliantMistake

First I'd suggest you read this great article on "whataboutery" victimfocus.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/stop-asking-me-what-about-men/

Second not sure why you're bringing into the debate that women in some professions wear skimpy clothes. I don't see the problem with that (although obviously not everyone would agree). What is a problem is that these women were assualted. A woman wearing skimpy clothing isn't inviting you to assault her you know?

Is the woman in the skimpy clothes cold? If so I may offer to lend her my cardigan. Otherwise? None of my business.

(Or his, but I suspect it will take another few hundred comments for that to sink in if it ever does.)

Those people who say 'it's the same as the Chippendales/male strippers', have you ever actually seen a male stripper in real life? Generally they are built and incredibly strong and muscly and absolutely tower over the women around them. If they were ever uncomfortable with what was going on they would very easily be able to stop it by whatever means they felt necessary.

It’s not the only event like this. There is St George's Day men only event and I think it’s in Dorchester too. It always puzzled me why no women allowed but apparently the had a ladies Night for the wives of the men involved. One one gay partner.

The F1 culture is not just what you see on the grid on race weekend. Nor is it all the stars with the money.

What you have is lots of men travelling the world away from their wife and kids for weeks if not months on end. They work long hours and then have the prospect of going back to spend the rest of their day back in an empty hotel room.

Because the industry is so male dominated cheating in those circumstances becomes the norm and accepted for those men in that social circle as much from the bottom upwards and the top down. They talk openly amongst themselves about what they are up to, without any social taboo about it. And even those on the bottom rung, have a certain power and status and money purely from working in that particular industry.

A man who isn't happy about it seems to be something of a rarity.

In that environment do you think its any wonder that it becomes normal and accepted to parade women about?

Some (not all) are 'nice' ordinary guys who wouldn't dream of cheating without the social expectation and acceptability and pressure to do so and behave when at home.

So when I see things like the Presidents Club, do I think its just the men at the top of those companies who are doing this? Or do I think they are likely to be part of a deeper culture at the heart of their business?

No I do not. Its bullshit.

As for the women involved. Every single one lacks power, status and money. The power imbalance is what drives it. It is an abuse of power. Thats the problem.

So don't give me shit about the women or harp on about the Chippendales, cos you haven't got a fucking clue. Its just a cheap justification for behaviour men would not do in the presence of women they regarded as being of importance to them or having an equal social status to them.

Its quite right to be embarrassing the men involved. Make them give the shit explanations to society and to their families.

Its not about the women being cheap, slutty or greedy or whatever nasty little slur you want to throw at them. Its about where the power lies.

Every time you talk about what the woman was wearing and how could have walked away, you betray your own power and your own status and lack of understanding of how they don't have that.

There's nothing new about this, the new thing is the media pretending to care.

Yup.

I worked for a big City bank. One you'd have heard of. One year at one of its events, it went one further than hostesses and actually hired a swathe of prostitutes. (I don't think my DH totally believed me about this when were discussing it yesterday; funnily enough, he has a female colleague who worked for the same organisation who told him exactly the same thing....)

These are the top 'people' in powerful positions that lead our country!

What hope do we have?

They think this behaviour is acceptable?

Now all these lies about not seeing anything untoward or leaving early?

If it was all fine and good then no one would not be proud to attend and be publicly acknowledged for all their good works.

Absolutely, Natalia It's even made the press on several occasions:

2016 www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/13/goldman-sachs-hired-prostitutes-to-win-libyan-business-court-told I don't know whether the court found that these particular accusations were proven.

2011 www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/insurance/8524688/Insurance-giant-Munich-Re-admits-it-used-prostitutes-to-reward-staff.html In this case, though, Munich-Re admitted it had used prostitutes to reward staff.

This is being discussed on Wright Stuff if anyone's interested. 'Jennifer from London' needs to be quiet.

Same goes for 'Mary'

I once attended an event held to raise money for a famous children's hospital, I should probably say that I was there as part of the "entertainment" and not as a paying guest before I get e-lynched.
It was an all-day event with activities and a lunchtime auction of various things (some really good prizes to be honest). I was amazed at how much everything was, the sophistication (all guests given an iPad to bid through) and the plethora of young (and not so young) well-turned out women who were there as hostesses. Didn't see any inappropriate behaviour but I did get a bit of an odd ?70s vibe from it. Not so much from the attendees, more from the compere and general ambiance of mainly guys having a nice day out with some pretty ladies to look at.
From a quick chat to some of the hostesses they did this a lot, some full-time and the charity obviously made a decent return on the day. If having some pretty girls around makes some very rich men more likely to give large sums of money to charity is that immoral? Jury's out for me on that to be honest.

Completely disagree with the behaviour in the OP; just wanted to add my own experience.

m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/job-advert-slammed-for-saying-candidates-must-have-ability-to-deal-with-male-banter_uk_5a6997fce4b0e563007653d2?ncid=tweetlnkukhpmg00000001
Job Advert Slammed For Saying Candidates Must Have 'Ability To Deal With Male Banter'
Women's rights campaigners and an employment lawyer respond to the controversial ad.

Interesting post ForestDad.
I accept that most of those attendees are perfectly well intentioned, and have no conscious desire to leer at the ladies etc, but I think the cycle still has to be broken where we hire women to look pretty etc.

If I see an attractive woman, I cannot control that attraction, but can control how I act upon it. The attraction can happen by pure circumstance. However, if I organise an event and set out to hire attractive females, I am doing so to deliberately initiate attraction in the males for their and my pleasure, and that seems wrong.

Hiring some pretty ladies is still ultimately acknowledging that part of me is hiring them for their sexuality.

Maybe if I hired a woman and told her that her good looks pleased me (not necessarily sexually), then it would be an honest approach. But if I hire them as a tutor, or waitress but base the hiring on looks, then ultimately I'm still bring disingenuous, regardless of how well behaved people are or the merits of the event.
What say you?

I worked on the trading floor of a large US bank in London about 15 years ago, and when the young bucks did a good trade or made a lot of money or whatever, the head of the desk would arrange various "treats". They usually used to go to the strip clubs and brothels of East London that serviced these people, but one day, I was sitting at my desk eating a sandwich, about 12.30, and the desk head went down to the lifts looking all pleased with himself and came back with about 12 prostitutes, who proceeded to file past my desk. Much hilarity ensued before they all retired into a couple of boardrooms for awhile. Sometime later, they all trooped out with a woman each and went off for the aftetnoon to a nearby hotel. This wasnt the last time I saw this.

Now ok a lot if those excesses went away in the noughties and after the various financial crisis (not surprised, they were so coked and sexed up Im amazed they could make any kind of mathematical decisions), but those guys, who were in their twenties and thirties then are now in their fifties and sixties now and are some of the very captains of industry we are discussing. Dont tell me they have all had some kind of road to damascus epiphany in the meantime and have now become more enlightened, respectful men. They bloody havent.

The good news is I dont see young guys behaving like that anymore. But I think we still need that controlling generation of men to retire/die off to get rid of this shit once and for all. Hopefully the medias change of heart and the various exposes of the last couple of years are the beginning of this sea change. Bloody bring it on I say, I dont want my daughters to have to put up with the shit I put up with and I dont want my sons to be that kind of man.

I should probably say that I was there as part of the "entertainment" and not as a paying guest before I get e-lynched.
You probably think that is a joke, ForestDad. What it is is a tiny red alert flag.

Events like this make men like me a little more paranoid.
For instance, it doesn't feel wrong to find a woman attractive, be it as a barmaid serving me, or as a customer I might serve. But the worry then arises about is it ok to say to colleague 'she was attractive!'? On the one hand, why should I have to mention that to a colleague, and on the other hand, why should I feel that I can't say it?

Where is the line drawn between 'he/she is pleasing on the eye' vs 'he/she is really engaging mentally, I like them a lot' vs the obviously crass 'I'd .... that!'?

I think the extreme behaviour of the type of men in the article affects all of us and make us nervous about any positive comment we might make about a woman that might be considered remotely sexual. Whilst I might be able to say 'I find her attractive', a less articulate friend of mine might say 'I really fancy her'. From my perspective, both are innocuous and genuine comments, but to some, it might be interpreted as the very mild end of a sexual comment.

I suspect there are some very decent men unsure of themselves.

It almost reminds me of the reluctance we can feel when considering comforting a child who has hurt themselves.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it feels that the actions of those men (and those like them) create a tension between perfectly moderate men and women, where both feel guarded. That's a terrible shame indeed.

Yes Brilliant, we know that the 10th rule of misogyny is that the worst thing about men abusing women is that it makes men look bad.

Brilliant it's quite simple really. If you don't behave like a sexist arsewipe, then no-one will call you out for being a sexist arsewipe. It really isn't rocket science.

(Handy hint, though - you asked "when is it appropriate to comment on a passing woman's sexual attractiveness to a third party in a work context?" Fortunately, there is a one-word answer to this one: "Never.")