For the fiftieth time in this thread, where are you getting your information about the event?
It’s almost like you two are using the exact same cite, but conveniently ignoring the parts that don’t support your position.
What parts of the FT story don’t support my assertions?
Sure it is.
**Left Hand of Dorkness **
*Originally Posted by the woman in the interview
We thought we would be waitressing.
There were actually drinks already on the table. A lot of the girls felt awkward, because…we didn’t really know what we were supposed to do. So we sort of realized, we weren’t here to serve drinks.
…
They would come up to you if they saw you weren’t speaking to the man, and sort of say, you need to engage in conversation. Which just felt so forced, and just a bit strange, because that wasn’t what we were told.
…
Some of the men, it was quite obvious, they were very confused what our role was, and also why we were there, and they were quite shocked by it.
…
The other side of the men, were just quite flirtatious, and also grabby. Like some of them, you know, you’d stand, and they’d try and hold your hand and speak to you. Or hold you by the waist. I had one man, I was standing there, and he grabbed my bum, and he said, ‘You don’t work out a lot, do you?’ And that’s when actually another one of the men stood up for me and said, ‘Don’t let him speak to you like that.’
…
There were girls there who had clearly done it before. It looked like they were enjoying it… Some of the girls were sitting on men’s laps, and the men were sort of feeding them their food.
…
A lot of the girls were handed the mens’ business cards. I know there were a lot of nanny jobs being offered. So they were getting work from these rich men, to go and nanny, as well as other things. And then, there were, you know, the girls who were very young. Some were 19. Some of the men on their table didn’t want them on their table, because they said they were too young, and they wouldn’t entertain them properly.
…
It almost felt like we were escorts. And that was not our role. And we didn’t get told that would be our role.
[At the afterparty] Things changed, because all us girls were in black…and at one point a song came on, and these girls…I think about five women came in in sort of gowns that were quite sheer and sequins everywhere…and it seemed like they were prostitutes. That’s what some of the girls who had done it before said.
…
At the afterparty, a lot of the girls said they were taking them back to their hotel rooms.
*
An actual interview with a new hostess:
The other side of the men, were just quite flirtatious, and also grabby. Like some of them, you know, you’d stand, and they’d try and hold your hand and speak to you. Or hold you by the waist. I had one man, I was standing there, and he grabbed my bum, and he said, ‘You don’t work out a lot, do you?’ And that’s when actually another one of the men stood up for me and said, ‘Don’t let him speak to you like that.’
So, you quote the same woman giving the same account of her own expirence twice, and then conclude there was only one ass grabbed and another guest objected to it?
Jesus Christ, imagine if I quoted a soldier at D-Day watching his friend be killed, only to have you conclude that based on this evidence there was only one casualty.
No, certainly there could be several women getting their asses grabbed by jerks. But this is one hostesses story, a new hostess, and she had the following things happen to her:
1.Her ass was grabbed by one jerk, and that jerk was told off by the other men.
2. Some men wanted to hold hands, or perhaps by the waist.
You can make up any story you like, but this is the interview we have to work with.
I think it is telling that yes, no surprise a drunk jerk grabbed her butt, however he was immediately told off by other male attendees. That indicates strongly that unwelcome butt grabbing was not the order of the day.
Based upon this interview, there was nothing like a Bacchanalia.
So you’re basing your ENTIRE understanding of this event on an interview with one of the hostesses, who also said, “It almost felt like we were escorts. And was not our role, and we didn’t get told that that would be our role.” Kind of the exact opposite as your unsubstantiated “they were told what would happen” allegation, eh?
But we also know that this one girl isn’t the only source of information for what happened. According to the undercover reporter who was there (not the same as the girl in the interview) –
Not to mention that the undercover reporter said she was groped several times.
What’s your definition of a bacchanalia? Rape?
All this pearl clutching over that poor girl getting her butt grabbed once seems to mean you have never worked as or knew anyone who worked as a cocktail waitress. My ex did, in a rather classy place, wearing more or less the same outfit here. Hardly a nite went by when she didnt have her ass grabbed at least once by some jerk. That doesnt excuse the jerk, of course. And it is horrible that some men are jerks.
But it just shows that this event with 150 'cocktail waitresses" and a occasional jerk doesnt qualify and a "bacchanalia or even out of the ordinary. That may be sad of course, but it is hardly worthy of putting 125 women out of work and taking big money away from many worthy charities.
I wish that we could get rid of those few jerks, but this doesnt seem liek the best way to do it.
In your defense, everything that comes before a comma in that quote is correct. Sadly, everything after the last comma is incorrect.
He wasn’t told off. Instead, someone gave HER commands: “Don’t let him speak to you like that.” Nobody talked to him at all about his behavior.
It wasn’t “other male attendees.” It was one individual dude.
You may be interested in examining your motivation for incorrectly summarizing these events. Or, y’know, you may not.
And there are tons of stories of women being sexually harassed in offices, too; doesn’t mean that grabbing ass in an office is normal.
With all due respect, first we probably need to do something about the apologists for those men.
Two more notes on this specific incident of sexual assault, and the response to it:
- Note that the guy who spoke up didn’t say anything about sexual assault. A perfect conversation, in which a “drunk jerk . . . was immediately told off by other male attendees,” might be like this:
Instead, what we get, is, not multiple guys, but one guy; not addressing the cad, but addressing the victim; not about the physical assault, but about the verbal negging.
Not ideal.
- DrDeth claims he’s not excusing the jerk, but only after he calls the reaction to the criminal assault “pearl-clutching”. I’m sure he’s rolling his eyes at my characterization of the ass-grab as “criminal assault,” too. We shouldn’t be so dramatic about it, he seems to say, because this happens all the time. In other words, our culture normalizes this sort of criminal assault, so why treat it as something worthy of discussion? That’s one of the best examples of rape culture I’ve ever seen.
From an FT article, my emphasis: “Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.”
That’s weird, I posted that days ago.
I’ve always understood that, in the UK, virtually any uninvited touch might, potentially and depending on the circumstances, in law be a “common assault”: depends on a court’s view of the circumstances, and, who knows, in the not so distant past they might very well have taken DrDeth’s view, that this was implicit in the situation and what anyone signing up as a hostess had to expect.
Nowadays they probably wouldn’t. But the legalities are somewhat beside the larger point about the whole concept of such an event for such an audience.
Paul, you never answered my question about strip clubs:
Do strippers and waitresses in strip clubs really have to accept all offers? Do they not have any ability to chose? Again, I always thought that even in a strip club–especially in a strip club–the women had a decent degree of control, and men couldn’t randomly grope women: there was always a give and take, and women can draw boundaries. It might hurt your tips from that table, but going to work doesn’t mean giving up control over your body. You can say no and have every expectation that that no will be respected. Obviously, if you never want any sexual contact with anyone, it’s not a good career choice, but if a table is just gross, or a dude looks like your dad, you do have the right to say no, right? A guy can’t follow you around groping you–or even talking to you–with the expectation that you have to take it or get fired. You can’t be told you have to give that guy a lap dance or go home? I sure there are bad bosses that insist on that sort of thing, but the industry standard, the expectation, is that you have right of refusal, isn’t it?
Not Paul, but IME this is so for legit clubs in the USA. Of course the boundaries are drawn at a different point (and everybody REALLY knows what they’re getting into). This may further vary depending on club or jurisdiction (but even in Detroit someone whipping out Mt. Happy in the public area of the club floor will likely get bounced) yet the general rule is you will not compel someone to do something they are not willing to: management is expected to find you accomodating company if your first choice demurs (mostly having “independent contractor” status, the strippers *can *just walk away, *though *at the expense of their house fee and potential future contracting of course), but if you are being excessive, unreasonable, or are going to cost the club more in legal costs than you are offering, you may invited out by the large dudes in the cheap dark suits.
Now, of course, there is the matter of that some of the people involved *will feel *compelled to NOT walk away because, dammit, the kid’s braces (or the opioid habit) are not going to pay for themselves, or because they get the vibe this dude is hairtrigger violent and no way the bouncer makes it here in time, but that’s another whole tragedy.
That is pretty much all we have from a actual hostess.
I consider that muckracker to be a not be a reputable source. Her information goes against everyone else’s story.
It 100% doesn’t; this is straight up, obviously-from-the-links-in-this-thread, incorrect information.
I suggest that you don’t believe the reporter because of your own bias, which is why you call her a muckraker. Which is admittedly a little more highbrow than slut-shaming and crying “fake news.”
Have you heard of the Financial Times before this story?