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

You're forgetting the poor bloke in that Coke advert!

She was a "real" worker, she did exactly what the other worker did. Presumably you're suggesting she's lying or exaggerating or a combination of both?

Kittens, it's not willful ignorance at all.

You seem to be assuming I'm defending it, when in fact I'm doing the opposite, I'm widening the subject to include the objectification of men too.

Let me put this bluntly...

A group of men tells a woman to dress in lingerie / scantily clad outfit for a men's party (and she implies consent by doing so) That's bad enough. To then molest the woman is horrific.

A group of women tell a man to dress and strip (and he consents by doing so), and it's 'ok'. If the women then grope the man (or worse) - that's 'just a bit of fun'.

The difference is that woman only wanted to be a waitress, not a sex object, and the male stripper agreed to be a stripper from the start.
The similarity is that both were being objectified, and both are groped without consent.

The women really should have said no to dressing in lingerie for what was supposedly a waitressing job. I'm not excusing the subsequent horrific behaviour of men, but there were earlier opportunities to call a halt to events too. The event was already pathetic as soon as they wanted waitresses in skimpy outfits.

Sorry, I was referring to SweetGrapes

"Have seen these arguments so often - from hooters to playboy bunny to lap dancing clubs and now president club... a:nd always poor ol chippendale is trotted out. Wonder why there are sooooo many examples on the one hand versus chippendale on the other hand?"

Adding victim blaming to the willful ignorance doesn't improve your argument, you know.

No assassinated I'm not implying she's lying or exaggerating just that she went there with the expectation she was there undercover to write a story about sexual.harrassment. so her take on it must be different. There's much more to this surely in terms of politics ?

Someone already posted a link to an interview with one of the women hired to work the event, maybe go look for that and give it a read.

It was men, exclusively, who were the audience at this event, and behaved abominably; not the younger and relatively very very much poorer women who were requested to turn up for a job and to see it through, regardless.

It is horrible.

You're forgetting the poor bloke in that Coke advert!
Good point! We can't have it both ways you know

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/24/guest-list-presidents-club-all-male-charity-gala?CMP=share_btn_tw

Gina Miller has just made a damn good point on Newsnight - that the heart of the problem is that the men at this particular event are the captains of industry who by day are spouting equality and the need for the advancement of women - but are behaving like this by night.

@TheBrilliantMistake there's no need to "widen" the subject. The subject is the objectification of women. Referring to something else isn't useful, it's whataboutery and designed to distract and detract from the issue at hand. It's ok to focus on women, without always having to discuss men too.

But are they even though? I dont think they are. These are generally late middle age men in position of seniority, who have never been challenged by women and dont work with many women, who are further down the pecking order, apart from their PAs. I don't hear them promoting or championi g women in the places I've worked. I think they pay lip servcie to it and these tupes of events whow what they really think.

I think they pay lip servcie to it and these tupes of events whow what they really think

I agree....

"It's difficult to accept that women who were 'hostesses' or waitresses didn't realise the situation when they're being asked to wear skimpy outfits. That was the time they should have refused as it was clearly inappropriate at that point already"

If a woman at an economic disadvantage turns down work in the present climate.............she very likely faces the prospect of Universal Credit and benefit sanctions.

I think there is some sort of rule where you cannot speak about inappropriate male behavior from catcalling to rape and murder without someone trying to change the subject to women do it too with a lethal dose of whataboutism.

I'm also fairly sure that there are jobs where skimpy outfits are required where the customers are not not only allowed but encouraged to stick their hands in your knickers. What our whatabout friend is attempting to suggest is that women who accept jobs that require them to look sexy are agreeing to sexual contact. So if you take job that comes with a skimpy uniform you're a prostitute (and a rather poorly paid one in this case), even if that's not what you thought you were signing up for at all.

Because Chippendales, you see. Chippendales!

I disagree that's is wrong to keep it only about women.
If we are ever going to overcome sexual objectification, then it has to start by seeing it in both genders, not one.

We are all rightly criticising this horrible event, but nobody bats an eyelid when we have skimpy outfitted women in boxing rings, or at F1 events. If we are going to say it's wrong, then say it's wrong in all forms, not just when we also don't much like the political movers and shakers.

If it's not equal criticism at all levels of society, and across genders, then it's pretty hollow criticism.

You know, if you're going to keep playing dumb you should really choose a more appropriate screen name.

Yes, people do object to those other examples. Frequently. And are told not to be so churlish and petty about minor things. Being humourless feminists that hate men.

You must be aware that the idea of the F1 pit women was in the press recently, and objected to by many?

I agree the economic pressures do add another element of pressuring people into doing stuff they'd rather not be doing. They can affect both genders, but given the substantial evidence about pay inequality, one the whole women are under more pressure to do this - absolutely.

If you turn up for work expecting to be a waitress and (say) earn £100.00, then absolutely it becomes harder to say no at the last minute. They probably still should say no, in principle, but in reality, it's difficult - can't deny that.

I have worked in a firm where some of the Presidents Club attendees are/were alumnis. What is so utterly shocking about this story is that this firm (and no doubt others) prides itself on its supposed commitment to diversity and all that wholesome sounding stuff, and will roll out these male dinosaurs for “round tables” or “diversity panels” or to be “allies” or “mentors” or whatever bullshit they come up with to appease HR. And proclaim on networks such as LinkedIn as to how “inclusive” they are because they desperately need to increase their diversity stats and employ/retain more women. But in reality these men with power and wealth and status are partaking in this exclusive (by which I mean excludes all low status employees such as women) network, forging their business contacts and further advancing their own careers and prospects. Whilst abusing young, vulnerable women. Wankers the lot of them. I hope they are all named and shamed. They deserve everything coming to them. It is so depressing how little the world has changed.

Yes, the F1 stuff was objected to for a week or so. It was fairly short lived and continues to raise its head every once in a while with no real progress though.

We still keep watching it though don't we ('we' as a society)?

I'm widening the subject to include the objectification of men too.

But why? We're not talking about men being objectified on this thread, we're talking about women.

If we are going to say it's wrong, then say it's wrong in all forms, not just when we also don't much like the political movers and shakers.

Of course it's all wrong! Nobody has said otherwise.

Perhaps you should go debate these fascinating points with the part of society that has no problem with female objectification on a wider scale (ie not the feminist part).