WaPo reports on the the Financial Times report on the President’s Club Charitable Trust fundraising dinner at the Dorchester Hotel:
The attendees last Thursday, as in the past, were an elite from Britain’s business, finance, fashion, entertainment and political establishment, an “esteemed” group if ever there was one, as the club’s website says — esteemed to the man because it was, indeed, a “men only” event.
Men only, except for 130 “hostesses” hired to cater to the needs of the roughly 360 attendees.... The job requirements included “tall, thin and pretty,” the FT’s [Madison] Marriage reported.... They were told that the men might be “annoying,” the FT reported. “You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine,” they were told....
One hostess recounted to FT a scene of “braying men” fondling her bottom, stomach and legs. Another guest “lunged at her to kiss her.” “According to the accounts of multiple women working that night, groping and similar abuse was seen across many of the tables in the room,” FT reported.
Hostesses said men “repeatedly” put their hands up their skirts, with one exposing himself to her during the festivities. Hostesses who seemed unenthusiastic were prodded by “an enforcement team” to interact with the guests....
UPDATE: Later the same day, President’s Club Charitable Trust announces it's shutting down,
the NYT reports:
The British establishment’s reaction to the scandal was severe and immediate, a reflection of the reckoning for many powerful men around the world following revelations of sexual misconduct by the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.
Posts
125 comments:
How was the pay?
Is that wrong?
How is this an issue
Charity meant thinking the best of people rather than the worst, to Augustine.
Augustine wasn't after ratings.
It's like these men have some kind of desire to do stuff like that, they just seem driven.
So... a jolly time in merry olde England.
Female journal goes undercover while some of the men go under skirt and wherever
Sounds like they knew what they were getting into. Is she going to go under cover next as a stripper to tell us all about the male gaze the girls have to put up with?
If you are going to live in LeftWorld, you have to get used to it. Women were the cum buckets in progressive hippie communes, too.
What some of you are missing is that the men are seeking the admiration of the public by giving to charity, but they have been keeping hidden something that would expose them to contempt.
You're also really awful to conflate wearing sexy clothing with agreeing to be groped. You can enter into a contract to be treated with disrespect and to do something with your body (though some things are illegal to contract for), but that doesn't mean that you are agreeing to do additional services (especially things that are even more intrusive on your body).
Come on. Please raise the standard.
Men are awful. More at 11.
What do women get out of these stories. It strokes their resentments, suspicions and grudges.
Men!
Fun for the ladies.
Althouse doesn't see the entertainment industry forces.
Sociologist question. What would you have to set up to get this kind of male behavior out of normal gentlemen.
Something about what the rules are in this or that occasion.
Check that that hasn't been done.
Raise the standard? You're talking about a large group of men at a "men-only" event. Their behavior was a raised standard, it could have been a lot worse.
Put a group of men together, get a group of teenage boys.
Put a group of women together, get a group of teenage women. Only difference is they will get catty, ostracize some, and send others out of the room crying.
And, ever seen women at Chippendales? The Brits had a men-only event with attractive women serving them. It's gonna happen.
It's the MSM monetization of an Althouse hot button.
"What some of you are missing is that the men are seeking the admiration of the public by giving to charity, but they have been keeping hidden something that would expose them to contempt."
Right, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. Instead, they should just confess to being bad men--scratch that, men--and offer their charity as penance for the righteous contempt they so richly deserve.
\sarc off: I do in fact agree that everyone should be "raising the standard," though not just men.
Benny Hill is alive and well I guess.
Speaking of monetization, what is Water Lilies worth.
A young attractive female, but just as strong and capable as a male journalist, goes undercover to prove that men will be men.
Alexander the Grope was the worst, historically speaking.
The Cutting Edge (1992) hockey player learning mixed doubles figure skating
You want my hands where? You gotta be kidding.
I can't get into the WaPo, so what did the charity aid--retired strippers?
fashion, entertainment, and political establishment
So most of them gay. Could an American politician now go to an openly all-male event/locale, if they still exist.
Barmaids were considered little better than whores until recently.
Since waitresses often have both hands full, they need to retaliate after the fact with something embarrassing to him but not painful or disfiguring.
Just like with Weinstein, someone needs to take a stand.
I don't know if it's still true, but you could bait a stewardess pretty well by addressing her as waitress.
130 hostesses for 360 attendees?
I'm calling shenanigans...
M Scott Peck wrote that human nature is represented by the symbol of the dragon, a snake with wings.
The men aren't just seeking admiration. They actually have done admirable things. They also sometimes behave in less than admirable ways. Who hasn't? Human complexity.
Are we puritans now, hunting sinners, looking to catch people in unguarded moments and hold them up for public shaming so we can feel moral superiority?
These guys don't have their names in public, so I don't see how they are getting credit for generosity.
"Charity" in these cases is simply a cover for networking. The charity money is just the cover charge.
Much like any other charity party.
Video or it doesn't matter.
Even then it doesn't matter since the pitiful victims thought it was worth $211 and they probably already had the black underwear.
You’re also really awful to conflate wearing sexy clothing with agreeing to be groped.
I agree the place needed a bouncer.
Sounds kind of boring. I bet Harvey Weinstein would never go to a nothingburger event like that, and Harvey knew how to raise money for charity.
While we are on the topic of charity: what are the odds that men are the biggest donors and women the biggest recipients in the UK?
For some reason, I think we would have heard about it if women had become the biggest net givers.
You're also really awful to conflate wearing sexy clothing with agreeing to be groped.
The gropees were warned, and they could have left. It sounds like the groping was more rare than typical - probably the Arabs.
You can enter into a contract to be treated with disrespect and to do something with your body (though some things are illegal to contract for),
but that doesn't mean that you are agreeing to do additional services (especially things that are even more intrusive on your body).
They didn't leave because it was worth it to stay.
Come on. Please raise the standard.
I'm outraged! The government should step in and do something to prevent those young women from making $211 for a few hours of easy work!
How's that for a raised standard?
Meddling in everyone's private business if their private business doesn't meet my high standards.
Dilly dilly.
BL asks: How was the pay?
Uh-huh.
Tim in Vermont asks: Sounds like they knew what they were getting into. Is she going to go under cover next as a stripper to tell us all about the male gaze the girls have to put up with?
Or dressing provocatively and walking the street in a well-established 'zone' and reporting that men had the insolence to suggest they perform sexual acts.
When corporations and major institutions get involved in deliberately setting up these situations, now that is disturbing. I've read that German corporations do this sort of thing. Pity the poor male employee who would rather not attend.
The word "posh" is underrated.
Would the groping have been less objectionable if their pay was doubled?
This is on the front page of my FT. The horror! The horror!
Was Bill Clinton there? Was Donald Trump? Keven Spacey? Woody Allen? Harvey Weinstein? Did Ronan Farrow go undercover in drag?
It all sounds kinda stupid and vulgar to me...but then I am going to the Boxing Night Stag at my club on Friday. No funds will be raised for charity.
A big factor is booze.
Most American males (and females) stop getting deliberately drunk in their early twenties. They continue to drink but find no pleasure in vomiting and hangovers so they moderate their drinking.
Britain is different. You will see a table of four thirty-something professionals at a top rated restaurant deliberately drinking to excess. Piers Morgan (fifty-ish) recently recounted a deliberate drink-to-excess night with another male celebrity (that guy who reviews cars).
Americans don't do that. (Neither do the French, Germans, etc.) Only the British.
It's like these men have some kind of desire to do stuff like that, they just seem driven.
Yes. Evolutionary Theory shows that men are genetically driven to grope, fondle and even motorboat, for the good of the Race and all that.
Can't be helped.
It would have been nice for them to have hired some short, fat, homely hostesses for those of us who go for that sort of thing.
Maybe this is why Melania didn’t go to Davos.
Darn, how come I never get invited to these type of parties?:)
Althouse ask us to "raise our standards"
Let's start by talking to the actual hostesses, not the faux hostess journalist, Madison Marriage (What a name!) Did the ladies enjoy the event? Enjoy the pay? Hate the event? Felt it was a fraud? Would or not do it again?
Well, we don't hear much from the actual hostesses. Instead, we hear Miss Marriage's interpretation:
"Marriage said that while many of the women were “disturbed and alarmed by what they experienced,” others “enjoyed” working the event, especially if “they were doing it with a group of friends, which makes it a lot easier than doing it on your own.”
So some of the hostesses like it, some didn't. BFD.
Let me get this straight. These rich English elites were not fondling small children at this event, but they were stopping at the sexual abuse of grown up women.
That is really good news...almost like another Reformation is underway British in morals.
It's the kind of thing that when made public, you pretty much have to condemn it. No one will publicly say that money was raised for charity and the girls picked up $211 and probably a lot more in tips, so where's the harm.......Coercive hypocrisy is a kind of moralistic groping.
On a more serious women' rights note, the Irani woman who removed her hijab as a protest is missing and feared arrested.
A big factor is booze.
Most American males (and females) stop getting deliberately drunk in their early twenties. They continue to drink but find no pleasure in vomiting and hangovers so they moderate their drinking.
Britain is different. You will see a table of four thirty-something professionals at a top rated restaurant deliberately drinking to excess. Piers Morgan (fifty-ish) recently recounted a deliberate drink-to-excess night with another male celebrity (that guy who reviews cars).
Americans don't do that. (Neither do the French, Germans, etc.) Only the British.
And the Japanese.
Rotherham, not a peep! But this!
Editing Tim Allen’s line that “Men are Pigs”
“Some Men are Pigs”
And what Tim jus said.
mock:
On a more serious women' rights note, the Iranian woman who removed her hijab as a protest is missing and feared arrested.
American feminists and liberals and J. Farmer don't care.
tradguy:
These rich English elites
Who says? Probably mostly Arabs or excuse me "Asians." And, of the "business, finance, fashion, entertainment and political establishment," probably mostly by the fashion, entertainment and political people.
Carol:
Can't be helped.
Carol, if the evil day should ever come when we men look at you women and all we see is a smaller, weaker man with the bulges in the wrong places, you will be very, very sad that nobody wants to appreciate your breasts, or bring you flowers, or carve you the choicest bits, or let you on the lifeboats first.
Blogger James Graham said...
A big factor is booze.
This appears to be true, and disgusting to me far more than the treatment of the women frankly. I don't think myself puritanical, but can't abide a drunk, let alone a professional one.
Blogger Lewis Wetzel said...
Would the groping have been less objectionable if their pay was doubled?
Their pay WAS doubled, that was my point. In the military they call that hazard pay. Except that servicemen don't risk to get their boobies pinched, they risk to get a pound of shrapnel through their guts, or any of a thousand other ways to die or get horribly mutilated so that no self respecting barmaid would look at them.
Luke Lea said...
I've read that German corporations do this sort of thing.
Prostitution is legal in Germany, as is public sex, and their porn is extreme. Interestingly I believe bribery is also legal in Germany. Nice place. I'm glad the Democrats take their morals from there.
Tim in Vermont said...
You’re also really awful to conflate wearing sexy clothing with agreeing to be groped.
I agree the place needed a bouncer.
Apparently they had the opposite, a team to ensure that the women WERE groped.
Ann Althouse said...
Come on. Please raise the standard.
Come on. Didn't your great-greats burn enough witches already?
Bob Boyd said...
Are we puritans now, hunting sinners, looking to catch people in unguarded moments and hold them up for public shaming so we can feel moral superiority?
Ann Althouse is a direct descendant of Cotton Mather. Remarkably, she seems proud of it.
Tim in Vermont said...
Rotherham, not a peep! But this!
1/24/18, 9:49 AM
This, this, a thousand times this.
AA: What some of you are missing is that the men are seeking the admiration of the public by giving to charity, but they have been keeping hidden something that would expose them to contempt.
This is assuming a great deal not in evidence - from "seeking admiration of the public", to "'men only' just means 'men trying to hide something'", to "contempt". Whose contempt? People in general? I doubt it.
Come on. Please raise the standard.
I don't think endless scolding of adults ever does anything to "raise the standard". There is such a thing as moral authority, but it's not something one bestows on oneself.
What's the essence of moral authority? Making other people feel that "I do not want this person to think I'm an asshole", pretty much. The problem with #me-too-ers, with contemporary scolds in general, is that other people think they're a bunch of assholes, and who cares if assholes think you're an asshole?
Maybe the energies of the scolds would be better spent on studying up on how moral authority is earned, and wielded to meaningful effect?
Fernandistein: The gropees were warned, and they could have left. It sounds like the groping was more rare than typical - probably the Arabs.
You ain't never gonna get The Outraged to notice any interesting demographic trends in Men Behaving Badly.
I propose a compromise. We name one day each week for the German god Frie and we allow drunken orgies on Friday at the Temple of Dionysus with a strict closing time of 3:00 AM.
James Graham: Britain is different. You will see a table of four thirty-something professionals at a top rated restaurant deliberately drinking to excess.
I've never worked in the UK, but every professional I know who did or does says the same thing - followed by "what the hell is wrong with these people?" (Not just after hours, either, apparently. I'm told they regularly start drinking long before the sun is over the yard arm.)
Abusing alcohol seems to a historical failing of northern Europeans, but modern Brits seem to have kicked the pathology up a notch. (If only 10% of what one reads in the papers about the state of modern Britain is true, it's kinda understandable, though.)
AA: What some of you are missing is that the men are seeking the admiration of the public by giving to charity, but they have been keeping hidden something that would expose them to contempt.
Are they seeking the admiration of the public?
If you are a man who wants to drink in the company of men and grope women, isn't this exactly what you should do? Gather privately, at a private event, and hire women specifically for the job?
I would say the women who applied for the job knew exactly what to expect. When you are a professional model or hostess, you know what it means when you are told the men will be "annoying".
"They'll let you grab them by the pussy."
That is true if you are a celebrity and/or if there is enough money for the pussy grabbee.
Sounds to me like these women knew what they were getting going into it. If they did, I see nothing to complain about with the men's behavior.
If they did not, well, that's different.
I wonder if any of these women are repeat hires? "I tells you Mabel, it is just arful! I keep thinking they will get better and more respectful and they never do. I've half a mind not to do these gigs anymore."
John Henry
"I don't think endless scolding of adults ever does anything to "raise the standard". There is such a thing as moral authority, but it's not something one bestows on oneself."
That's the parent part of Althouse's personality, I prefer the adult personality. I'm ok, you're ok.
That kind of stuff was a lot of fun when I was 18, and living in the Fraternity house.
So they cleared all the women out except for those paid to be there and warned in advance?
It's like going undercover to find people shooting animals at a private hunt club.
Work is something you do because they pay you for it.
"“According to the accounts of multiple women working that night, groping and similar abuse was seen across many of the tables in the room,” the FT reported.
Hostesses said men “repeatedly” put their hands up their skirts, with one exposing himself to her during the festivities."
Sounds fairly widespread..and beyond "annoying".
Come on. Please raise the standard.
The standard being of course:
Women must never be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.
Should we pass laws preventing women from entering into such contracts?
@Althouse "You're also really awful to conflate wearing sexy clothing with agreeing to be groped."
Seems to me that depends on the club. If that's a tacit understanding of what happens at that club - and it clearly was - so the lady sex workers were indeed agreeing to be groped.
I suspect "annoying" implied being hit on, not fondled.
You're also really awful to conflate wearing sexy clothing with agreeing to be groped.
Because of course women must never be held responsible for how they dress or behave.
Question: What is the purpose of wearing sexy clothing?
Gahrie,
Try that logic at a strip club..let us know how that goes.
By the way...didn't Gloria Steinem already cover this ground over 60 years ago?
Read the story, watched the video. Didn't see any images of the reported behavior. Didn't see any victim names, didn't see any sexual assault charges from the alleged acts. I also noticed the appeal to authority in the story when describing the Financial Times. Color me skeptical. I'm surprised Althouse isn't
I will not keep reading for $1, but I will say this: Networking -- which this event was, clothed up in fundraising for Charity -- is a lot easier when people are drunk. The hostesses in this event appeared to have known what they were getting into.
I having trouble ginning up my outrage over it. It seems predictable -- that it happened, and that a Female Reporter went undercover and reported on it.
The only thing missing is chants of "Shame, Shame, Shame" -- but maybe that'll happen when the names come out. Especially if they can somehow be tied to Trump.
In the next expose, she will go undercover as a stripper at a bachelor's party.
walter said...
I suspect "annoying" implied being hit on, not fondled.
I would not suspect that. I would expect waitress-sandwich type behavior at least.
Similarly, I would expect scantily clad, attractive men who were casted to host an all-women's party would also be groped, hit on, and touched inappropriately. Think Ramona and Sonya on The Real Housewives.
Unwanted aggressive groping is illegal, presumably. Groping is much less bad that actual rape or forcible sodomy, but it still can be quite traumatic. Law enforcement should enforce the laws and more especially the just and chivalrous laws in proportion to the severity of the offense, which in this case I presume would mean a short period of incarceration for the guilty. Legally it seems to be classified as "sexual assault":
Sexual assault
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
Since the male participants had been drinking too much and the waitresses presumably knew this, I would suggest leniency--a few days or weeks imprisonment depending on the severity of the groping unless actual rape or forcible sodomy occurred.
Ok MayBee,
You and Gahrie work that in a strip club.
Get back to us.
Using the she wore that dress and the Real Housewives defense..as ya get bounced out.
c)B does not consent to the touching, and
They consented to the touching by working the event after being warned what it entailed.
"Ok MayBee,
You and Gahrie work that in a strip club.
Get back to us."
Walter virtue signaled, see Walter virtue signal.
@walter:
Apparently you are missing the point. The whole point of the (private) event was to create an environment in which the men were allowed to behave the way they behaved. Both the men and women involved knew before hand. The women knowingly chose to participate in the event. they just want to have it both ways by reaping the benefit and then complaining afterwards.
The women knowingly chose to participate in the event. they just want to have it both ways by reaping the benefit and then complaining afterwards.
Which, if we are honest, is the basis of modern feminism.
Ok MayBee,
You and Gahrie work that in a strip club.
Get back to us.
Work what in a strip club?
This wasn't a strip club, and so the "rules" would be different. Just like you go to some private clubs in Hollywood, and there will be sex, or there will be women in bondage, or there will be dwarfs on wires being flown about the place.
Just as, I'm sure, if you hire strippers for a private party you may be able to get away with more touching than is in the club.
This isn't about "What she wore". It's about the party they agreed to work and the warning they were given.
And who got bounced out of the party?
From personal experience I know women act worse than men around strippers.
Again, I ask, if you are a group of men who want to drink, be around pretty women, and be inappropriate with them....is this not the exact way you should set that up?
The models who are hired to go out on a boat with the sports stars during Super Bowl weekend know it is going to be a different experience than the models who are hired to pose for a Gucci campaign. Even though they are the same models. You know what you are getting into.
Cads will be cads.
It seems to me that a lot of charity events are really ways to excuse indulging in assorted deadly sins more than just about raising money for charity.
I'm curious what kind of sexual harassment laws the UK has. If they're like the US, that sounds like the employer is liable for lawsuits, for knowingly allowing abusive behavior beyond just "annoying."
Coarsening of society that this is not only put up with but also defended as being just part of life.
When people need a job they shouldn't have to put up with abuse, even if they're just "the help" and even if the attendees are fancy gentleman with very fine hats.
Coarsening of society that this is not only put up with but also defended as being just part of life.
I don't defend it as just part of life, but I do say it is part of the life some people choose to live. And I don't think that's anything new.
When people need a job they shouldn't have to put up with abuse, even if they're just "the help" and even if the attendees are fancy gentleman with very fine hats.
I agree.
But what about people who knowingly sign up for a job knowing what it will entail, because that is the job they want?
We don't know that this is a job of poor impoverished job seekers being abused. It could well be a job for attractive young women who are happy to trade on their looks for good money.
MayBee said...This isn't about "What she wore". It's about the party they agreed to work and the warning they were given.
--
The what she wore addressed Gahrie's comment about sexy clothes. By extension, a strip club invites full penetration.
No..it wasn't a strip club. Which makes "annoying men" all the more inadequate "warning".
Blogger Mac McConnell said...From personal experience I know women act worse than men around strippers.
--
Right..double standards make the Chippendales reference moot.
The what she wore addressed Gahrie's comment about sexy clothes
Nobody answered my question..why do women wear sexy clothes?
To be groped, Gahrie. Get yer grope on.
By extension, a strip club invites full penetration.
If it was legal...most would.
To be groped, Gahrie. Get yer grope on.
So you have no answer? Or is the answer simply inconvenient?
I bet you're polishing all of your pretty white armor as you type your replies.
It depends on the situation..which I have addressed.
By the way, there is an established industry in the current "gig economy" for this sort of work.
I know women who do it..sexy clothes and all..zero groping expected or alloweed..but plenty of annoyance.
Ah..the "white knight" man-card rebuttal. Nah Gahrie, just being sensible.
I have to wonder if one of these 'hostesses' had responded to a grope with, "Keep your hands to yourself, Bub!" would she have been fired? Not rehired?
At 150 pounds for an evening on your feet that lasts to 2 am, and no tipping allowed, you could hardly think you were being paid to be groped.
The fact that they were being allowed free drinks would expose the organizers to serious liability, no matter what kind of waiver form they were made to sign without reading.
The fact that they were being allowed free drinks would expose the organizers to serious liability, no matter what kind of waiver form they were made to sign without reading.
So the answer once again is that women are unable to give their consent, or that men must assume that when a woman gives her consent that she doesn't necessarily mean it? Perhaps we should force male relatives to escort women everywhere to protect them?
Nobody answered my question..why do women wear sexy clothes?
Sometimes they do this to sexually express themselves as being a certain way. Females rarely wear sexy clothes because they want to be groped by people who don't really know whether they want to be groped. I actually would prefer it if pretty females would actually wear sexier clothes more often. Sex is something worth considering, and it is easier to get inspiration about it if one considers females that are less covered, at least if they are at ease with being in such a state. Maybe females would tend to dress in more skimpy clothing if they were more protected from unwanted groping. A very important way females love--perhaps the most important way females love--is by allowing a loved male to have (meaningful) sex with her. Males should think and fantasize about sex a good deal--at the very least to not do so is to willingly ignore how half the population loves. Good for females brave and safe enough to dress skimpily so as to encourage that. Sex does tend to be a more selfish pleasure in males than females, and puritanical people can say that good males nevertheless shouldn't much explore their feelings and fantasies about sex because it is wrong to think about what gives selfish pleasure, but there are ugly and beautiful ways of having sex with females that males need distinguish, and considering "fantasizing about sex" as just "fantasizing about sex" is an arbitrarily restrictive selective choice. Maybe what the excessively puritanical should be asking is whether "fantasizing about sex without much fantasizing about how to get more" tends to be a trait of good males.
Sodomy rather than groping is what screws females up, in my opinion. That said, females emotionally have to deal with distinguishing what screws them up from what does not screw them up. If groping were some necessary or significantly useful way for males to express their affection or sexual desire, that would be one thing, but the natural better alternative is for males to less forcefully express their desire in less drastic ways, e.g., words and facial expressions. Trying to decide whether a sexually motivated undesired aggressive touching should make them leery of their own sexual feelings or not is a time consuming bother for females that can largely be alleviated by punishing gropers. But groping should not be lumped in with forcible sodomy, because forcible sodomy actually does screw feelings up, whereas groping hurts females by causing them to wrongly somewhat consider themselves screwed up by it, making them unnecessarily leery of their natural sexual feelings--in a way the harmful effects of sodomy and groping tend to be opposites.
I wonder what people think is going on here. Do they believe that men will behave like this at all times? This is just how men are? Is that what the story purports to expose? No, I think it's showing, accurately, that this is how men behave at this event. They wouldn't do it at other events.
It's clear that the intention and design of the event is to be a venue where men are allowed to behave this way, in a way that is otherwise forbidden. That may be bad, it may be fine, but I doubt it's a surprise to anyone, including the women. Why do you need 130 hostesses for 360 men? That's not a ratio that makes sense for waiting tables and fetching drinks. The job is something else.
As to the above comparisons to strip clubs ... it depends on what clubs you're talking about. Here in Chicago, there's no contact. In Las Vegas, hoo boy. It's what they call "full contact," and even I was shocked at what I was encouraged by the dancers to do with them.
Perhaps we should force male relatives to escort women everywhere to protect them?
Why, yes, Gahrie. That's the Sharia way.
It is enlightening to read the FT story rather than the report on the FT story in WaPoo. The event raised 2 million GBP for Great Ormond Street Hospital, 400,000 GBP coming from a guy who owns restaurants in London, including The Ivy. The guests sound like a bunch of high-end real estate brokers and their clients, who are mainly dodgy middle eastern "businessmen" and louche Russian oligarchs. There is no one I have ever heard of mentioned in the article. I don't think it was the Boys' Night Out version of the Mansion House Dinner.
A few banks bought some tables. It's a kinda like a Trump-y event from the days before he went legit (and became POTUS).
There is no indication as to whether Fusion GPS had bought a table, but I bet they did. Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele would fit right in.
The gang in the City of London are quite a mixed lot of lords and lads. When we lived there 25 years ago, there were a lot of traders in the City who had made fortunes in the commodities and futures markets after Margaret Thatcher had opened up the City through deregulation. Their fathers had been costermongers in the old Covent Garden fresh produce markets. They were called "Essex wideboys" and they were known for extravagance and rude behavior. Think Jason Statham without the good manners. You used to see the American version piling out of the Board of Trade and the Mercantile Exchange before the markets went electronic.
Kissing booths are the traditional charity machine.
Another issue that I think has to be fair for us to consider is the reliability of the narrator. She's literally a woman on a mission, and she has a story she wants to tell that she very, very likely has in mind before she even goes to the event. Agreed?
I mean, be honest, what do you think the odds were that she would go to all the trouble of getting hired for the job, buying the black underwear, and then coming back saying, "No, there's no story, it was a nice evening" ? None.
Fivewheels--Agreed. I think it is very clear in the FT story.
I wonder how many folks left when they saw the bad conduct.
Drunken gropers are people I don't need to be around. I'd rather go back to the hotel and get to sleep early.
What some of you are missing is that the men are seeking the admiration of the public by giving to charity, but they have been keeping hidden something that would expose them to contempt.
Well, good for you, Ms. Althouse and good for this reporterix. The men, in a PRIVATE event with PAID employees, giving to CHARITY were outed and held up to the usual incandescent Althousian contempt.
These men are very likely to never ever have another charity event. The recipients won't get any money, those ladies will have to find their rent money in a lot harder ways, these men are now explaining things to their missus,
Yay Team Feminism!
So you have raised the standard...and the poor can go suck it.
Wow. Two million pounds for a hospital which will go wanting next year.
Let's see...130 girls times .6 for number of maulees, two bruises per heiny, divide by 2,000,000 pound...how much kids cancer treatment is that?
Works out to 12,820 pounds per grope.
I wonder at the charity of these women. Can't they take a grope for the kids?
Money spent at strip bars should be considered charitable giving. You get nothing in return but the satisfaction of helping young women in need. If it was deductible more needy women would get more help.
Some perfectly fine gentlemen do things that don't translate so well when considered unfairly in broad daylight. Pooping for instance.
Gahrie said...
"The women knowingly chose to participate in the event. they just want to have it both ways by reaping the benefit and then complaining afterwards."
I think you are unfair. That is true of the reporter, but given the laws Mr. Meigs has so kindly researched for us, and the fact that apparently no one was arrested, it would appear that the ladies reaped the benefit and *did not* complain afterwards.
It is rather interesting to consider, that the laws in question describe behavior that occurs billions of times a day. It seems that prosecution is very much a woman's prerogative.
Fuck the children's hospital where the hugely successful event sends the proceeds of their auctions! The men must be made to pay. Stop the fundraiser. Stop the everything . Because women
If your daughter told you she was going to hostess at an all men's event like this, would you tell her to raise her standard? I would, but appearantly these women are stupid, naive, or of low character. Whichever it is, ladies raise your standard.
Oh you knew what it was and went anyway. You poor little thing. You probably thought that was your right as an independent woman. We haven't got there yet, girls.
This is why I never touch a woman unless I'm tied to the bed, intoxicated, and photographed. It's the only way to be sure.
Right fivewheels,
Though rare, I can imagine lap dancers green-lighting behavior.
But note they call that shot.
And you're not likely to be allowed top grope the servers..
I can imagine the reporting being slanted..but the response here given the info is.."Sad!"
I get the impression from Ms. Althouse that even if these women had remained unfondled, she would still be clucking her tongue significantly and holding both groups in contempt: the men for daring to want to see a bit of female flesh in tight clothes and with pleasant dispositions and the women for actually offering it.
Men will only give to charity if they can fondle the waitresses?
Talk about a low standard for humanity!
Great Ormond Street Hospital pledged to return any donations from the event. . . . Bank of England said its auctioned activity was not authorized. . . . Sounds like this is the last year for this dinner.
You wouldn't get away with this at Hooters.
I bet the waitstaff reasonably expected things to remain at level. Objects to be leered at and hit on, not having someone wave theit dick at you or grab your pussy
Well, Paddy O, essentially yes.
Charity managers have known for oh...MILLENIUM that you are more likely to get some cash out of people if you give them an event. Raffles to give away a big T.V. or a car, the Catholic Church running in the amusement park rides every summer, pressing the flesh with celebrities or politicians, gift baskets at the Oscars to drive attendance. Free Tupperware to get those housewives to listen to that sales pitch. Some novelty and benefit to get butts in seats
So they threw a party with some 'entertainers' and they made a hell of a lot of money.
But God Damn it, men are not allowed to have any fun with women anymore! Feminists have spoken!
I have no idea how badly behaved these men got...but frankly, as pointed out earlier, there was absolutely zero chance this reporter chick was NOT going to find a salacious story any more than Sabrina Erdely wasn't going to find a rape. "If you can't find a story, MAKE a story" (Dan Rather)
And as salacious stories go, this was pretty frigging tame. Like 'Hallmark Channel' tame.
So please feel free to run a high dollar charity event and tell them 'you can come in, eat rubber chicken, sit quietly and soberly in your seats and be guilted and hectored into giving out cash because you are men and deserve no entertainment.' Maybe try giving out free Tupperware! Cause men LOVE Tupperware much more than hooters.
I am sure THOSE tickets are going to sell like hotcakes!
UPDATE: Later the same day, President’s Club Charitable Trust announces it's shutting down, the NYT reports
Congrats, Professor Mather, a million dried-up cunts got what they wanted. Now, all each of you has to do is kick in two pounds a year for GOSH, starting now because you've guilted them into giving back the money.
Two quid a year, that's all. Tick tock, operators are waiting to take your call.
What's that? You haven't an intention in the world of helping?
This is my shocked face. :-|
In Hell, you will be the waitresses.
Consequences. Someone is quite likely to die from lack of funding. .
But hey...human dignity and unpinched heinies have to have a value too, right? Right?
Post a Comment