"It's not as if we murdered babies in their cots" - Oxfam

[JaimesGoldenHand]

Apparently the Oxfam CEO thinks the reaction to the Aid Worker rape and use of prostitutes and the subsequent apparent cover-up has been disproportionate. It happens in all aid agencies so why the fuss.

I was in two minds as to whether to boycott Oxfam but this has decided me. I feel physically sick.

I'm always uncomfortable about sexual contact in which there's a power imbalance. It's not hard to be clear on this as a policy. It's not ok, and people must have witnessed it and turned a blind eye. Absolutely many people working for Oxfam did and do amazing work - but the fact is they've handled this so badly. They should have dealt with it when it came to light and it says something troubling about the culture that they didn't. That culture would seem to be dominant if the recent comments are anything to go by. It massively minimises rape (whether underage or not because there is no consent in that situation and to imagone there could be is outrageous).

@k2p2k2tog I hear what you're trying to say 're references but organisations can refer to the debarring service and many do. Because they are legally obliged to. Oxfam chose either a. To not investigate (which isn't ok) or b. To investigate but do nothing with the outcome (which isn't ok).

Once people stand by while abuse of power is rife it becomes acceptable and normalised and I can't help but think this has happened here. Just "you know it's natural" well it isn't, and many of the people working for Oxfam don't think it is either I assume, but enough did to allow it to go unchecked.

Thanks lass

We have no way of knowing at this time that the perps raped and did not also murder the victims.

Do not place all the blame on men for this. I worked in the sector and knew of at least 2 female employees who had inappropriate sexual relations with people. The comments about ‘this would not happen if all aid workers are female’ are blatantly not true.

I worked in the sector and knew of at least 2 female employees who had inappropriate sexual relations with people.

Can you expand on this? What do you mean by 'inappropriate'? They paid for sex, or had sex with under age boys?

Ok, how about "this would happen almost 100% less than it does now if all aid workers were female".

Yes. Rape of poverty stricken males has exactly the same lifelong biological and social consequences. Ffs!

Let us now change the conversation from the overwhelming horror of male violence and consider that WDIT (women do it too).
We will pretend that 97% of male perps are exactly equal to 3% female perps in the name of equality.

WDIT should absolutely be a thing like NAMALT. It's so endemic!

There's a bit of a weird double standard in the Guardian reading classes, where on the one hand everyone is shocked and appalled about use of prostitutes in Haiti, and on the other hand Amnesty International's official policy is that prostitution should be decriminalised.

I'm not defending the aid workers, by the way, just pointing this out.

If they did in fact have sex with underage girls, then that's a different matter.

By that I mean whoever says it should be laughed off of the internet obviously...

Ah, the women do it too thing has happened. Took longer than I thought.

Men commit 98% of all violent crime so, if aid workers were all women, you would rid aid work of 98% of the problem.

Is that better?

I do agree that there is a lot of anti-aid sentiment around and the level of it has grown enormously over the last couple of years. There's not a post by a charity on socmed or an article in the newspapers about foreign aid that isn't crayoned all over by the type of person who believes that charity begins at home, while simultaneously never having done a damned thing for home grown charity either.

There is also a case for scepticism as to why papers are reporting these things, many of which have been poorly kept secrets for years right now, but papers publish along with the zeitgeist and the increase in anti foreign aid belief in a vocal section of the social media commentariat has no doubt fuelled it.

NONE of this means that this shouldn't have been made openly public, that the way that Oxfam have dealt with it can be excused or that what has happened is in any way right or reasonable.

What we need to be pressing for is a continuation of the foreign aid budget, but better oversight and a different approach to what aid actually looks like. There are some utterly brilliant schemes happening all over the world, maybe now would be a good time to look at those and work out best practice? And to have a predominantly female led workforce as well, to make life safer for the women and children in those vulnerable areas.

We're aware there's a massive and well-fundeded pro-prostitution lobby out there which has captured Amnesty, among other allegedly feminist organisations.

I don't think many posters here think that justifies the exploitation and rape of vulnerable women and girls, whatever their age.

That was to biscuitmillionaire

O fam isn’t on my monthly donation list but I do contribute at different times.
What would knowledgeable people suggest as a good replacement - how fucked up that we need to source an ethical charitable organisation.

First, do no harm.

Save the children did a report warning about this 10 years ago so maybe they have their house in order?

I don't know any grass roots orgs or anything sorry.

Also love the straw man upthread, no one has suggested that women are incapable causing harm.

All available stats do point to them being far less likely to rape or sexually abuse, and so if it were all women, maybe just maybe this problem would decrease by many times. And it couldn't be worse than the current situation, with male (all the stories I've read have been about males) sexually exploiting and raping those they are sent to look after, including children, with seemingly little consequence.

Isn't save the children where the Brendan fix scandal occurred?

You're legally not allowed to ring round all the other charities telling them not to employ Fred because he was up to dodgy stuff in Haiti.

I work in HR at an aid agency and I don't agree. This is a cowardly, pathetic, miserable excuse. Sue a charity then Mr Roland van Bigdick, let's see you in court, prosecuting Oxfam over your rights to rape women and children whilst distributing aid? Prove you didn't do it big man.This is just the shitiest, shit nonsense ever, hiding behind the law on this one. Doners expect zero tolerance, not ambiguity, and collusion like this.

Isn't save the children where the Brendan fix scandal occurred?

He worked at Save the Children but in a managerial/ admin/ fund raising office role - not in the field.

I agree that it's tragic that we are all with drawing our donations, because a lot of good is done by most of these charities.

But what else have we got to make them stop?

The legal powers that be haven't managed it.

If we all carry on, I can just imagine this man, who is quoted in the OP, saying
" Well we still have donations flooding in so obviously people don't mind"

It suggests an attitude of senior management at save the children though. They only asked him to resign because the women threatened to go to the police. So an attempt to protect their and his reputations

I just read the interview. What struck me most (apart from the fact that the Oxfam CEO really needs some media training) was his failure to express any concern or interest in the prostituted women involved. They didn't really seem to exist as people for him.

That is the key thing Irene - people like that CEO genuinely don't see women as people. His argument is that babies weren't killed so what are we getting all fussed about - the implication being that no one was really hurt because no actual people were abused, it was only the dark skinned things with vaginas that his mates sometimes like to use for fun.

This sort of attitude is not news to any feminist, but it seems to take a long time for some women to realise it exists - perhaps because it's so awful and hard to accept?

What troubles me is if the charities that state they help girls with eg education, not getting married off, all that stuff, if they feel like this, then how does that fit? Oh we'll support them til they're old enough and try to see that they get "better loives" but then at this cut-off age anything goes it's fine for our people to coerce them into sex...

Amnesty is pro prostitution so in general I think that indicates issues with this in the sector. loads of people stopped supporting amnesty over that