This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/24/the-guardian-view-on-the-presidents-club-we-are-all-complicit
The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on the Presidents Club: we are all complicit | The Guardian view on the Presidents Club: we are all complicit |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Wed 24 Jan 2018 18.45 GMT | Wed 24 Jan 2018 18.45 GMT |
| Last modified on Wed 24 Jan 2018 23.15 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| View more sharing options | View more sharing options |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Close | Close |
| Everything stank about the Presidents Club annual fundraising gala, held in central London last week and reported in Wednesday’s Financial Times. A glance at the invitation should have been enough: the night was billed as men-only. A compere described it to paying guests as “the most un-PC event of the year”. The programme was studded with supplications to behave, and reminders of the “gentleman’s code” (the what?). One of the auction offers was a course of cosmetic surgery with the catchline “add spice to your wife”. What the guests might not have known, although it seems to have been made entirely clear to them once they arrived, was that there would be “hostesses” to look after them, recruited for their looks and their figures, compelled to wear short skirts and black knickers, given alcohol and not allowed to hide in the toilets that were monitored by security guards. The only warning the women had was that some of the guests would be “annoying” and that, in order to earn their £150 fee plus a cab home, they were obliged to sign a non-disclosure agreement. | Everything stank about the Presidents Club annual fundraising gala, held in central London last week and reported in Wednesday’s Financial Times. A glance at the invitation should have been enough: the night was billed as men-only. A compere described it to paying guests as “the most un-PC event of the year”. The programme was studded with supplications to behave, and reminders of the “gentleman’s code” (the what?). One of the auction offers was a course of cosmetic surgery with the catchline “add spice to your wife”. What the guests might not have known, although it seems to have been made entirely clear to them once they arrived, was that there would be “hostesses” to look after them, recruited for their looks and their figures, compelled to wear short skirts and black knickers, given alcohol and not allowed to hide in the toilets that were monitored by security guards. The only warning the women had was that some of the guests would be “annoying” and that, in order to earn their £150 fee plus a cab home, they were obliged to sign a non-disclosure agreement. |
| This was a testorone-fuelled, dick-swinging (in one case at least) slimeball night out that depended on objectifying and in some cases abusing women to big up male entitlement and thus raise a great deal of money for charitable causes like children’s hospitals. At least two of the beneficiaries have now refused to accept the cash. | This was a testorone-fuelled, dick-swinging (in one case at least) slimeball night out that depended on objectifying and in some cases abusing women to big up male entitlement and thus raise a great deal of money for charitable causes like children’s hospitals. At least two of the beneficiaries have now refused to accept the cash. |
| There are questions to answer that are specific to this event. The Charity Commissioners, emphasising fundraisers’ obligation to be ethical, are belatedly investigating. David Meller, one of the organisers, who also served on the board of the Department for Education, was there, and at his invitation so was the education minister (responsible for child protection) Nadhim Zadhawi. Mr Meller has resigned. Mr Zadhawi – who was missing when an urgent question was asked in the Commons – says he felt uncomfortable, left early and will never go to a men-only event again. Some MPs want his resignation. | There are questions to answer that are specific to this event. The Charity Commissioners, emphasising fundraisers’ obligation to be ethical, are belatedly investigating. David Meller, one of the organisers, who also served on the board of the Department for Education, was there, and at his invitation so was the education minister (responsible for child protection) Nadhim Zadhawi. Mr Meller has resigned. Mr Zadhawi – who was missing when an urgent question was asked in the Commons – says he felt uncomfortable, left early and will never go to a men-only event again. Some MPs want his resignation. |
| This event has been happening every year since 1985 (not, as one might imagine, 1885). Eight years ago, an item in the Independent on Sunday reported a “beauty parade” of hostesses and said one guest described “the boys tucking into the girls”. Among the guests, reportedly, that night was Nadhim Zadhawi; so he knew what it was like when he accepted an invitation this year. So did the table sponsors who return year after year. This is not only about a small group of rich and privileged men behaving badly. Yes, the dinner was indeed shocking; yet it represents the kind of overt misogyny that women experience everwhere. And with a self-confessed sexual predator in the White House and serial assault allegations against dozens of Hollywood powerbrokers, after #MeToo and the Women’s March, shock as a weapon has clearly reached its limits. | This event has been happening every year since 1985 (not, as one might imagine, 1885). Eight years ago, an item in the Independent on Sunday reported a “beauty parade” of hostesses and said one guest described “the boys tucking into the girls”. Among the guests, reportedly, that night was Nadhim Zadhawi; so he knew what it was like when he accepted an invitation this year. So did the table sponsors who return year after year. This is not only about a small group of rich and privileged men behaving badly. Yes, the dinner was indeed shocking; yet it represents the kind of overt misogyny that women experience everwhere. And with a self-confessed sexual predator in the White House and serial assault allegations against dozens of Hollywood powerbrokers, after #MeToo and the Women’s March, shock as a weapon has clearly reached its limits. |
| So what next? Back in 2013, the coalition removed third-party protection from workers, leaving those in the hospitality industry in particular without redress for harassment by their employers’ customers. The law is part of the answer. But legal measures work better when they are protecting societal norms. And what this gala night shows, again, is that gender equality is not the norm. Millions have to take short-term, insecure work that leaves them vulnerable to sexual harassment and even abuse. Some men and women go along with behaviour that they know is wrong because they don’t want to risk their job or cause a scene. That has to change; and it is for each of us to decide to change. Until then, there will always be guests for a men-only gala night out. | So what next? Back in 2013, the coalition removed third-party protection from workers, leaving those in the hospitality industry in particular without redress for harassment by their employers’ customers. The law is part of the answer. But legal measures work better when they are protecting societal norms. And what this gala night shows, again, is that gender equality is not the norm. Millions have to take short-term, insecure work that leaves them vulnerable to sexual harassment and even abuse. Some men and women go along with behaviour that they know is wrong because they don’t want to risk their job or cause a scene. That has to change; and it is for each of us to decide to change. Until then, there will always be guests for a men-only gala night out. |
| Sexual harassment | Sexual harassment |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| London | London |
| Women | Women |
| editorials | editorials |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |