Specifically at this event

https://www.ft.com/content/075d679e-...0-9c0ad2d7c5b5

A fund raising dinner, men only, at The Dorchester has been reported by the Financial Times as a rather nasty event where the women employed as hostesses were groped, propositioned, leched at, by some of the men.

It's just nasty.

It can’t be true as I didn’t see it on Facebook

I can't read it apparently,as I don't subscribe to the FT.

"Subscribe to the FT to read: Financial Times Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show"

It's also in the Daily Mail so it must be true...
Hostesses 'flashed at and groped' during Dorchester gala | Daily Mail Online
Not the best way to squeeze the wealthy for charity money I think.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Male-only anything has a tendency to career towards showmanship - grandstanding or lothario behavior. Culturally, in the upper echelons, it is often thought as "letting off steam" or "boys will be boys". It's a puerile form of socialization that is sadly considered acceptable in some strata (mainly extreme upper or extreme lower).

That's odd. Neither do I but I got the full article.

It reminded me of a plotline in TV's Vice (I think) except the concern there was underage hostesses.

Men only event for the attendees, 130 young female hostesses employed to keep the men happy, had to wear sexy black underwear and short black dresses supplied by the organisers, seemed a lot like anything goes for the men groping and propositioning the girls, getting them drunk etc, most of the girls said they would never go again, some had been before so knew what to expect. Shows up the very worst in the upper echelons of society and is a real throwback system. I strongly suspect things are likely to change after the exposee, it's something that just shouldn't be contemplated in this day and age particularly in light of the Weinstein suspicions, The FT had to send a female reporter in undercover to try and verify the rumours as the girls had to sign non disclosure agreements before the event.

I seem to be able to access without subscription. Try this link: https://www.ft.com/content/075d679e-...0-9c0ad2d7c5b5

Interesting tweet in my timeline this morning - a report on the same event in 2010 with slight eyebrow raising compared to the entirely justified outrage and distaste today. The world is changing. Some men are not changing with it fast enough.

A large proportion of these men must also have daughters and would more than likely be horrified and presumably, litigatious should their children be subjected to such treatment? It boggles the mind, really.

The misogynist bubble exposed by the FT reminds us power is still set up to exclude women
The Presidents Club dinner gave men a seat at the table but put women on the menu."

That's from The New Statesman.

Says it all really.

Not really. There are different types of people out there. Men and women. It's not my kind of event, but I think things are getting quite puritanical these days. We'll end up with a very anodyne society. And if transgender becomes a movement humans will end up sexless. However, since we're eventually going to be uploaded into a Borg like consciousness, that may be a moot point.

I'm sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree. No one should expect to go to work as a hostess i.e. being friendly and serving drinks/canapes and endure being flashed at by men as a display of their power. It's dehumanising.

They certainly should be warned of what kind of event it is, so that they can make an informed choice. In the article it suggests the warnings were vague. However for some women in the 'entertainment' industry, this would be something they could handle, and which they elect to do. Not dehumanising for them. It's part of their human experience, you just happen to disagree with it.

I dunno..."don't tell your boyfriend" seems fairly specific to me.

Thankfully times are clearly changing. I wouldn't want my daughters or sons to think being objectified is an acceptable human experience to have at work, especially in such graphic terms as the ones described. By the same logic, you could argue that modern-slavery isnt dehumanising just because for some people it is part of their human experience. It can be an abuse of power of those involved at the expense of the person employed. Just because it has been a "flavour" of life in the past doesn't mean that it's right, considering that most of our interactions are social constructs based on what is considered acceptable in society at the time. That acceptability is fluid and does change over time.