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

And if I didn't want anyone belonging to me to do this work I have no right to say no one should do this work,

Lots of human behaviour saddens others. Its life.

I don't think anyone would 'want' a granddaughter to do this type of work, anymore than you'd 'want' a grandson to be a male stripper, but if they choose to then, like Baggs, it would be none of my business.

All my daughters have made choices I wouldn't make. Why shouldn't they? Their lives are their lives.

I think we have already established that anyone has the right to do what ever job they choose, but

FOR THE LAST TIME IT IS ABOUT MEN STILL BEHAVING AS IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY PLEASE BY VIRTUE OF WEALTH AND POWER !

So get onto the men's behaviour then and not the women's!!!!!!!!!

That’s what I have been trying to do since the start of this thread!!!!!?????????

While blethering about what suffragettes might think of the WOMEN'S choices ?

The mens behaviour was appalling! Some of them, it seems, at least, whilst others claim to have seen nothing, which may well be true.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

And that was put through by male politicians.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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