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

There's a new book out called Deeds not Words about women's rights, which I have bought my granddaughter for her birthday. That's what she gets for being 18 this year!
Although I know she will enjoy it.

It was on Daily Politics a week ago last Friday, I think.
They interview a different person each Friday. You should still be able to find it on iplayer, I would think.

Yes, she died a couple of weeks after her daughter was born, didn't she? Such a shame. I wonder if Mary Shelley was brought up in her mother's house or her father's house.

Didn't know that. I read Romantic Outlaws recently- about Mary Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelley. Incredibly interesting and fascinating. Two incredible women. Although Wollstonecraft never knew her daughter.

Yes, it's a good idea, isn't it, trisher.

Did you see that Mary Wollstonecraft is Corbyn's political hero?

Thanks dj I've joined and shared!

Mary Wollstonecraft would appreciate this.

www.facebook.com/5050Parliament/videos/1591875770895095/

I am suitably chastised

Jalima Thanks

Hope I didn't sound too aggressive

What annoys me is people putting links on, then proving subsequently that they haven't read beyond the heading.
At least I always read my links before I put them on.

That's tying in with Eloethan's post. How can people think that these women knew what they were letting themselves in for if they have read the FT article?

Point taken!

However, I'm not the only poster to do it - and at least I didn't write it as if it was me who had experienced the evening.
Anyway, I was wearing jeans the only time I danced on a table.

Good post, Eloethan (3rd Feb 00.57) Thanks.

I didn't know it was written by the reporter.
I thought the one I quoted from was written by a student.

Jalima How on earth was I supposed to know that you were talking about a completely different article from the article which triggered this whole affair?

It drives me crazy when people start discussing something that they have clearly read or been told about but don't give any context at all. It generally results in people talking completely at cross purposes...

You could at least have added that despised article, a link, to your post so I didn't have to make a fool of myself responding to you

(P.S I've just trawled through 24 pages to make sure that I'm not making even more of a fool of myself by complaining about you not posting a link when in fact you might have been referring to an article posted earlier. But you weren't (phew!). Interestingly, I noted that no-one linked to the FT article until I did on p6. So for 125+ posts we were all discussing away without really knowing what other people had read/heard/seen about the affair...)

Exactly, trisher, but change for some women obviously takes a long time.
And some men.

When you have lost an argument just nit-pick and hope nobody notices that actually you haven't a leg to stand on. Funny I was thinking about Mary Wollstonecraft as well. It may only be 100 years since women got the vote but it is over 200 years since she published.

What on earth has smoking in public to do with this ? getting rather silly now

No, they shouldn't.

Mary Wollstonecraft (1759 - 1797) was an English writer philosopher and advocate of women's rights. Wollstonecraft is best known for 'A Vindication of the Rights of Woman' (1792) in which she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men but appear to be only because they lack education. She suggests that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason. Today she is regarded as one of the founding feminist philosophers and feminists often cite both her life and work as important influences.

It's a shame these men haven't read any Mary Wollstonecraft. It's about respect, for both sexes, not about women being seen as inferior.

On the one hand, some people are saying that these women should not be judged for the work they do - indeed it is a sign of their empowerment. Some of the same people are at the same time implying that these women were well paid (only average pay for London, in my experience), knew exactly what they were getting into - men being men - and a lot of fuss is being made about nothing because wearing "skimpy clothes and sexy shoes" apparently means you are fair game.

Generally speaking, men and women don't do jobs as a political statement or in order to empower themselves - they do them to earn money so that they can pay their bills - and quite often they have a limited choice as to what work they do. In my view it is therefore perfectly understandable that some women accepted an assignment that offered a reasonable rate of pay and a taxi home. Also, if you work for an agency it is wise to accept whatever assignment they give you and never to complain about any of your employers if you want to be given more work.

There is such outrage at the abandonment of F1, darts "girls", etc. But who here thinks it's a bad thing that Page 3 no longer exists and that Miss World is no longer broadcast on mainstream media?

When the smoking ban came in, several businesses suffered - pubs, clubs, bingo halls, etc, - and people lost their jobs. Should practices continue even if they are felt to be unhealthy, outdated/disrespectful of certain groups just so that those jobs are maintained?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/28/ft-presidents-club-scoop-attitudes-changed

It's not often that the FT has a scoop like this. It's good to know that serious newspapers care about the way women are treated by the men who buy them.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/28/presidents-club-scandal-bruce-ritchie-residential-land-loses-major-backer

He's lost a major backer.

MaizieD, I know it’s daft to make such an assumption but no more daft than suggesting that because it was included in the brochure, it must have happened before in previous years. It might be safer to assume, from a promoter’s point of view, that there will always be some t@sser who will overstep the bounds of decency. In my experience it could be either sex when the booze is flowing.

Well, I know that my DD have.

^Of course some suffragettes were able to give as good as they got.
And I hope my DD and ultimately my DGD will have as much gumption.

The girls at this event were not fighting for women's rights, they were willing to don black underwear to go under the very skimpy dresses provided and sexy shoes, they could not have been that naive surely

I think the suffragettes would see the behaviour of the men as much the same as in their day and think very little had changed. Suffragettes were seen by many as sacreligious and impure women, the white dresses they wore and the white stripe in the suffragette colours stood to show they were 'pure'. Of course that didn't stop men who opposed them from grabbing them and subjecting them to groping and assault. Of course some suffragettes were able to give as good as they got.

I expect this is going to divide opinion, but what's your take on the Men Only charity event that's all over the news. However, for those not familiar, a bevy of young women, many of them students, were recruited through an agency for this event, they had to be slim and good looking they were told to wear sexy shoes and black underwear to go under the very skimpy dresses provided.

Well, that would have rung alarm bells for me straight away but some women may be quite comfortable with that.

Why was it more raucous and sleazy this year? Who knows, was it because the agency sent what can only be described as 'enablers'?