The President's Club Annual Gala - "Men Behaving Badly"

I think The Suffragettes would be appalled by the way some young women behave today, I don't think they were fighting for some of the antics that go on.

Well said ichtb, how true is that!!

Groping old men at the dinner - sleazy and disgusting.

So why, oh why, go on to a "party" with these old men afterwards?
Can anyone explain that to me please?

The article, Jalima was written by a reporter for a reputable newspaper, not, as you imply, by a disaffected 'hostess'. It is very common for reporters to go 'undercover' in order to expose bad situations.
I didn't know it was written by the reporter.
I thought the one I quoted from was written by a student.

I'm not implying anything Maizie
This was the article from which I quoted:

thetab.com/uk/2018/01/29/i-was-at-the-presidents-club-afterparty-old-creepy-men-treated-us-like-prostitutes-59003

Who Coerced these girls?

but if you think that is because of what went on in the previous years then the women taking the job should have known that too.

That's assuming that the women who took the job actually saw the brochure. I'd think they were highly unlikely to have done so as it was information for the men attending the event, not for employees.

And some of the women who took the job had never worked that event before so how on earth could they know what had happened in previous years?

Well said.

I think The Suffragettes would be appalled by the way some young women behave today, I don't think they were fighting for some of the antics that go on.

I have read the original argument and I don't see 'coercion' to take the job in the first place. Maybe if you choose to read that between the lines. I don't think anybody arguing for a woman's right to choose the job she does is arguing for women to be coerced, to be assaulted or subject to boorish behaviour. One could argue that the organisers knew what men could be like with their disclaimer in the brochure but if you think that is because of what went on in the previous years then the women taking the job should have known that too.

It would be interesting to know how many of the girls suffered this behaviour and how many went to the after party having viewed this behaviour.

And may I add I would say the same about woman if they were behaving that way to male workers !in fact I once witnessed the fear of some male entertainers who were not prepared for the shall I say ‘ attention ‘of some woman.

Baggs,The Suffregettes certainly did not know what freedoms we have today, how could they, but it is because of them that we do! And we should be very careful not to squander such hard fought rights, that is why men should not be allowed to behave badly!!Unless a woman gives her permission without any coercion. And let’s not forget the word Respect ,everyone should be treated with respect. Unfortunately many don’t deserve it & I don’t mean the girls on that night, just in case someone body misinterpretes me,!!! They deserve our support & condemnation of such silly puerile men.

I think I know where your mistake was made: you seem to have missed the word "can" or to have read it as "will".

Nobody disagrees with 1, 2 or 3 though, as far as I can see.
An experienced hostess also said that previous years hadn't been frightening like this years event. How could anyone have known that it would be like that?

According to your theory men at the event must have been carried away by their sexuality, but not all men behaved badly I think that has been agreed. So the men who behaved badly did so from choice not necessity.

I think you have misinterpreted my posts, trisher.

They wre uninformed. The conditions were not clearly explained to them and things according to one experienced girl were out of hand.
1. It shouldn't have happened at all
2. It happened.
3. It isn't acceptable.
It really is pathetic that there are still people on here excusing what even the organisers have acknowledged was inexcusable.

Yes, I appreciate that, but its not the same thing as them being totally uninformed, which is what keeps being said.
I don't know how any one of them would have called a halt to it.

MissAdventure but they were escorted to the loo, not allowed to absent themselves for very long and generally hassled. It's a brave girl who looks for management at 1am.

*Baggs the movement for women to vote began in the early 1800s. The education of women was something that many women had been campaigning for for decades. The suffragettes were simply the last flowering of a suffrage movement. The 1871 education act was as the result of women such as Millicent Garrret Fawcettt campaigning. Look up the Fawcett Society. Men were pushed into the move by strong women.

They were told to expect that some of the men might make nuisances of themselves, and told to contact the agency owner if that happened.

Baggs that is the most extraordinary statement to make. It carries with it echoes of all the excuses made by men and their apologists for centuries. It has echoes of cultures where women must cover themselves because men are unable to control their urges and it has absolutely no place in modern society. Men are quite able to control themselves if they CHOOSE TO. According to your theory men at the event must have been carried away by their sexuality, but not all men behaved badly I think that has been agreed. So the men who behaved badly did so from choice not necessity. And no woman should have to put up with that unless she has been clearly warned beforehand and these women were not warned.

And now some women want to take away another woman's freedom of choice, most odd

And that was put through by male politicians.

Also, I don't think the current state of women's freedom in countries like ours is all down to suffragettes. The 1871 Education Act helped improve women's chances by making it possible for poor girls (and boys) to go to school.

I have. But I doubt if the suffragettes had any notion of just how much freedom women like us have.

Try interpreting it as being very grateful that we woman are at liberty to make these choices BECAUSE of them!'! !!!!

So only men of wealth and power gropes females, rapes females, physically abuses women or is it only wrong if the man is wealthy and powerful but if a milkman, labourer, council worker, shop assistant etc then no problem.

The problem some here seems to be concerned about is the wealth else why shout out about wealth and power?

Free women, and probably unfree ones too, know that men can behave badly with regard to their sexuality. With this knowledge and knowing that only men would be 'dining', they still made the choices they made.

Have any of the men been charged with illegal behaviour yet? I think that might be significant.