A slightly odd question about sexism

How much more shock do we have the energy to articulate? How many more times do we need to become enraged at the status quo before something changes? The Financial Times’ scoop on the behaviour of senior city figures at the Presidents Club gala charity dinner has unleashed new fury about the institutionalised acceptance of harassment of women. But what is particularly depressing about this exposé is that it simply captures in slightly sharper focus a reality with which we should all be very familiar.

So, let us accept, arguendo, that men are indeed sexist pigs.

Wouldn’t we prefer that they do this in private, by invitation only, rather than in the streets where they might frighten the horses?

The alternative apparently being that men must not be men.

Hmm.

17 comments on “A slightly odd question about sexism

  1. How does the concept of rich entitled men ogling women sit alongside poor Northern women screaming encouragement at the Full Monty?

  2. The waitresses were warned beforehand. Presumably they were paid accordingly. Some words were said but there is no evidence of refusal when such offers were rejected. All in all this is not gentlemanly behaviour but it is hardly a crime either.

    A leaked consultation on the possibility of female membership in 2014 revealed male concerns that the arrival of women would jeopardise the club’s reputation as a place where men can enjoy “male banter, without having to bother with the etiquette that one inevitably must adhere to in female company (whether it be offering her drinks, waiting for her to eat, or standing when she arrives or leaves)”.

    Quite. Very clever these old chaps in the Traveller’s Club. By all means, let’s make the etiquette around female company even stricter. And not in the good sense either. That will work wonders.

    Women belong in the home. And maybe serving drinks in heels and black underwear. It is time we stopped pretending otherwise.

  3. How much more shock do we have the energy to articulate?

    Well, you’ve loads of ‘shock’ saved up from not expressing any about Rotherham et al, so it should keep you going for a fair while yet.

  4. In passing, it seems that we will no longer to be able to celebrate Burns Night with the usual hunting of the wild, free range Haggis. Which might save the wee beesties now they are so close to extinction:

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2018/jan/24/robert-burns-was-the-beloved-poet-a-weinsteinian-sex-pest

    His crime?

    Ahead of her talk on Burns and Women next week, Lochhead, the poet, playwright and former makar previewed her speech, in which she calls Burns a “sex pest” and drew attention to a 1788 letter to a friend in which he bragged of giving his lover Jean Armour a “thundering scalade [a military attack breaching defences] that electrified the very marrow of her bones”, and said he “fucked her until she rejoiced”. …. For Lochhead, this “disgraceful sexual boast … seemed very like a rape of his heavily pregnant girlfriend. It’s very, very Weinsteinian.” …. “There is an image of Burns,” Kelly wrote, “a bit of a rascal, a bit roguish, a naughty roister-doisterer – who nevertheless produced some of the greatest love poetry in our language … But here’s another r-word. Rapist.”

    So now giving your girlfriend an orgasm is nigh on the same as rape? Well blow me down. Every time you think we have reached Peak Guardian Stupidity there’s another f**king Himalayan mountain range further up.

  5. Some patients, or parents of child patients, are going to find out the hard way that you should never believe a lefty’s stated principles, unless they were to say “I want to look good”.

    It’s far more important that the Trustees look good, than if a few children die.

  6. SMFS

    That’s a truly terrifying link – I think the only cure for such a person is indefinite detention for their health as much as the health of the wider community. I have never seen better prima facie evidence of insanity in my life.

  7. Just wondering. At what stage does someone transition from being ‘someone’s daughter’ to the status of a fully functioning adult responsible for their own actions?

  8. A woman’s body is hers to do with as she pleases, unless that displeases the Guardian, and anything remotely fun or profitable dislpeases the Guardian.

  9. @SMFS: “Burns […] produced some of the greatest love poetry in our language”

    If you imagine a Scotch commercial traveller in a Scotch commercial hotel leaning on the bar and calling the barmaid “Dearie”, then you will know the keynote of Burns’ verse. – AE Housman

  10. Bernie G.,

    “Just wondering. At what stage does someone transition from being ‘someone’s daughter’ to the status of a fully functioning adult responsible for their own actions?”

    The latest research appears to show that the brain is still growing and developing up to the age of 25. Also, the Beeb ran an article recently about how the latest generations don’t thinks they’re adults until they clear their early 20s – something to do with going to university, living at home etc.

    This is an argument for raising the age of majority, and yet we have the usual suspects in the Guardian and elsewhere wanting to reduce it to 16, for the vote but note for everything else.

  11. Oh, come on. All of you. None of us cares.

    All we care about is the legion of Matthew Hopkins. Which much be destroyed.

    But let’s not pretend there’s an argument to be had. Things are way beyond that.

  12. Dear Mr Worstall

    Given that there are two sexes, is sexism and sexist behaviour not inevitable from both sides?

    Perhaps the final solution would be to reduce the masses to neutered drones, whilst the guardian elite play at being elitist. Or something.

    DP

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.