UK captains of industry have charity night where they sexually assault young female 'hostesses'

[Teaboy]

Not at all.

They didn't just "go out" on a normal night out.

They were specifically told it was a men only do, and that they had to wear skimpy dresses and matching underwear. If I was told that, I would turn the job down, because I'd have a very good idea of what sort of evening it would be.

Opting in to wearing a certain outfit is not tacit acceptance that you will be sexually assaulted. I mean, even in a strip joint where the girls are wearing no clothes groping is strictly unacceptable.

 

[DotCommunist]

Not at all.

They didn't just "go out" on a normal night out.

They were specifically told it was a men only do, and that they had to wear skimpy dresses and matching underwear. If I was told that, I would turn the job down, because I'd have a very good idea of what sort of evening it would be.

you are taking a line of 'well they knew what they were getting into- even if you are right about that it doesn't make it acceptable btw-when in fact the FT is the one who publicised this. Of course the workers were happy to talk to the journos, why wouldn't they be.

 

[Teaboy]

Just to expand as well, if you're a young women doing some temping work there are loads of jobs out there which require you to wear sexualised clothing. Everything from standing on an exhibition stand (promo girls) to wandering around sports stadia handing out t-shirts. Yes, the girls opt into that and the inevitable stares and comments that come with that but none of that means they are fair game for groping.

 

[Thora]

In an ideal society, this sort of event wouldn't happen.

But given that we're not in an ideal society ....

The women who took the job at the gig were told they'd be wearing skimpy outfits and "matching underwear" at a mens' only event. What did they think was going to happen?

Even if you know you're there to look pretty, surely you don't expect that you will be sexually assaulted?

 

[chilango]

Not everybody is lucky enough to be able to pick and choose what work they do.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Even if you know you're there to look pretty, surely you don't expect that you will be sexually assaulted?

You'd hope not, of course. But as I say, they were told it was a men only dinner, and that they'd have to wear revealing outfits and matching underwear.

You'd have to be very naiive to think it was going to be a vicars tea party.

 

[no-no]

Not sure where you are going with this. What do you want, a statement saying 'these men have paid lots of money and are entitled to proposition and sexually assault you'?

legalized prostitution, yes. better than what's happening now and allows women who are willing to do this sort of work to do as they wish. Just as boxing is better than the alternative bare knuckle fist fights.

 

[Thora]

You'd hope not, of course. But as I say, they were told it was a men only dinner, and that they'd have to wear revealing outfits and matching underwear.

You'd have to be very naiive to think it was going to be a vicars tea party.

Well they were likely all very young, and had probably done other promotions jobs where they were skimpily dressed and had to be friendly and there wasn't an assumption they would be sexually assaulted, so actually I don't think they should have known that a charity dinner attended by MPs and celebrities meant they should expect groping.

 

[Pickman's model]

A safe assumption, doesn't follow that anyone in there is complicit though. no more than anyone in a drug filled club with a sign on the door that says "strict no drugs policy" is guilty

tosh. utterly rubbish analogy, which would be better if there was a 'strict no drugs policy' which was then contradicted by the management handing drugs round to everyone

 

[redsquirrel]

What did those people who worked at Sports Direct expect? It wasn't going to be picnic was it, bit naive of them to think they should be able to take time off if they feel unwell or are about to give birth.

I'm not a fan of this line of reasoning tbh.

Bit more than "not a fan", it's a horrible load of shite

 

[Teaboy]

You'd hope not, of course. But as I say, they were told it was a men only dinner, and that they'd have to wear revealing outfits and matching underwear.

You'd have to be very naiive to think it was going to be a vicars tea party.

She allowed herself to get really drunk, he's a guy. What was she expecting?

 

[Thora]

Just to expand as well, if you're a young women doing some temping work there are loads of jobs out there which require you to wear sexualised clothing. Everything from standing on an exhibition stand (promo girls) to wandering around sports stadia handing out t-shirts. Yes, the girls opt into that and the inevitable stares and comments that come with that but none of that means they are fair game for groping.

And indeed I can imagine a big posh charity event with lots of high profile people might have felt safer and more legit than other promo work.
Lots of "modelling" etc might involve wearing very little and being objectified/sexualised but there's still a big leap to actually being sexualised assaulted.
And even if they had an idea the work might be unsafe but still had to do it, that doesn't make it their fault.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

From the FT article:

"The nature of the occasion was hinted at when the hostesses were hired. The task of finding women for the dinner is entrusted to Caroline Dandridge, founder of Artista, an agency specialising in hosts and hostesses for what it claims to be some of the “UK’s most prestigious occasions”.

At their initial interviews, women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”.

Hostesses were advised to lie to their boyfriends about the fact it was a male-only event. “Tell him it’s a charity dinner.”

“It’s a Marmite job. Some girls love it, and for other girls it’s the worst job of their life and they will never do it again . . . You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine."

I think they had a slight inkling of what the job might be like.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

They may have had an inkling that they’d be expected to throw their employment rights out of the window and put up with criminality?

 

[Thora]

"Putting up with annoying men" doesn't automatically mean groping.
Even if they were explicitly told "there's a risk you may be sexually assaulted" - what difference does that make?

 

[no-no]

tosh. utterly rubbish analogy, which would be better if there was a 'strict no drugs policy' which was then contradicted by the management handing drugs round to everyone

No, the two aren't identical but the point is that if both were legal people would know where they stand and could make a properly informed choice about where they go or where they work.

it'd be better if prostitution and drugs were legal and then organisers would be able to advertise events honestly and also recruit staff honestly.

It comes down to whether you think ti should be legal for someone to pay to have sex with someone else. Personally I wouldn't but I have no problem if other people want to do that and it'd be a lot better done in an open and honest way where organisers can't exploit ambiguous job descriptions to trick young girls into situations where they can be coerced and pressured into being assaulted.

 

[redsquirrel]

I think they had a slight inkling of what the job might be like.

Even if that is true so the fuck what?

Those cockle pickers that got drowned might have had a inkling that what they were doing wasn't safe, guess it's just tough tits they were killed?

 

[Wilf]

You'd hope not, of course. But as I say, they were told it was a men only dinner, and that they'd have to wear revealing outfits and matching underwear.

You'd have to be very naiive to think it was going to be a vicars tea party.

The women who took this as a paid job had the usual variety of reasons for doing so - we could debate all of that. But surely, that's the wrong side of the equation? This is all about the rich men who demanded women as objectified entertainment - right through to actual sexual assault and exposing themselves - and the 'charity' and agency that delivered them to these men. You seem to be victim blaming.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Even if that is true so the fuck what?

So why all the outrage about the event? Women are groped, propositioned and flashed at whilst going about our everyday lives. Where's the outrage about that?

 

[no-no]

From the FT article:

"The nature of the occasion was hinted at when the hostesses were hired. The task of finding women for the dinner is entrusted to Caroline Dandridge, founder of Artista, an agency specialising in hosts and hostesses for what it claims to be some of the “UK’s most prestigious occasions”.

At their initial interviews, women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”.

Hostesses were advised to lie to their boyfriends about the fact it was a male-only event. “Tell him it’s a charity dinner.”

“It’s a Marmite job. Some girls love it, and for other girls it’s the worst job of their life and they will never do it again . . . You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine."

I think they had a slight inkling of what the job might be like.

I'd prefer my job descriptions to be clear rather than vague inklings. I'm sure many of the women were glad to be there, the FT article says so anyway but thers's still room for doubt. It's entirely possible girls took the job thinking it'd be a lot more tame than it turned out to be.

 

[Thora]

So why all the outrage about the event? Women are groped, propositioned and flashed at whilst going about our everyday lives. Where's the outrage about that?

We are talking about women here Are these the wrong kind of women?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

The women who took this as a paid job had the usual variety of reasons for doing so - we could debate all of that. But surely, that's the wrong side of the equation? This is all about the rich men who demanded women as objectified entertainment - right through to actual sexual assault and exposing themselves - and the 'charity' and agency that delivered them to these men. You seem to be victim blaming.

I'm absolutely not victim-blaming. I'm just surprised at the level of outrage about this particular event, when women are treated appallingly all the time, without any outraged headlines all over the place.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

We are talking about women here Are these the wrong kind of women?

No .... I don't understand what you mean.

 

[redsquirrel]

So why all the outrage about the event? Women are groped, propositioned and flashed at whilst going about our everyday lives. Where's the outrage about that?

Oh fuck off. There's plenty of people that are outraged by the sexual harassment/assault that women have to put up with. But if you can't see why this event organised by the very wealthy for the very wealthy that set itself up as a opportunity to exploit women and turned a blind eye to criminal behaviour is worthy of outrage you're a idiot.

 

[Wilf]

I'm absolutely not victim-blaming. I'm just surprised at the level of outrage about this particular event, when women are treated appallingly all the time, without any outraged headlines all over the place.

So, why the fuck are you giving us the 'they knew what they were getting into' line?

 

[Wilf]

We are talking about women here Are these the wrong kind of women?

Not 'respectable' women?

 

[Thora]

No .... I don't understand what you mean.

It reads to me like you are making an argument that these silly slappers knew exactly what they were doing so who cares, we should be talking about decent women who aren't wearing short skirts in rooms full of men.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, the two aren't identical <snip>

they're not intended to be identical. one is a shit analogy, the other is a far superior analogy.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

So, why the fuck are you giving us the 'they knew what they were getting into' line?

Because it seems crazy to me that there's such outrage about men treating these particular women shockingly, even though the women had been warned about it, whereas there's no similar outrage about the things that happen to women every bloody day, when we're going about our ordinary business.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

It reads to me like you are making an argument that these silly slappers knew exactly what they were doing so who cares, we should be talking about decent women who aren't wearing short skirts in rooms full of men.

You said that, not me.