Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



cygnia ([info]cygnia) wrote in [info]unfunnybusiness,
@ 2009-11-02 14:04:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:sure we don't need no feminism

Definitely not cricket
Tower of London Beefeaters Suspended for bullying 1st female Beefeater

LONDON – Something is rotten — again — at the Tower of London, long known for its treachery, bloodshed, and executions.

If the new charges are true, it's time to add bullying to the litany of foul deeds committed at the notorious royal fortress where many were tortured and three English queens were executed centuries ago.

At issue is the alleged bullying of a contemporary trailblazer: Moira Cameron, the first woman to serve as yeoman warder at the Tower, which dates back to the 11th century.

Hers was supposed to be a happy story about how one of the traditional bastions of male supremacy became a place where women, too, could serve queen and country. But it now appears Cameron, 44, was isolated and harassed by resentful male colleagues, despite her long experience in the military.

Embarrassed Tower officials said Monday that two male warders have been suspended and a third is under investigation for suspected harassment of Cameron, who joined the prestigious warders two years ago, integrating what had been an all-male preserve for centuries.

A statement released by the Tower of London said harassment among its staff was "totally unacceptable" and that an internal investigation started last week as soon as the allegations were received.

"We can confirm that three yeoman warders are under investigation in response to allegations of harassment," the Tower statement said. "Two have been suspended. We take such allegations very seriously and our formal harassment policy makes it clear that this is totally unacceptable."

The bullying allegations are an unpleasant wrinkle in what had been a generally popular move to bring women into traditionally male military roles.

The warders, who patrol the fortress on the banks of the River Thames, are popularly known as "Beefeaters," mostly because of the extra rations of meat they were given during medieval times.

Their brightly colored Tudor-style uniforms are part of the picture-postcard London that often enchants visitors from around the world. Cameron's ceremonial, red-and-gold outfit was specially modified to fit her female frame.

Her introduction to the exclusive service went relatively smoothly, as far as the public could discern, but some tensions were present right from the start.

Cameron, with military experience both in Cyprus and Northern Ireland, said when her appointment was announced that some of her colleagues resented her presence.

"I've had some comments," she said at the time. "I had one chap at the gate one day who said he was completely and utterly against me doing the job."

Her reply was quick and piercing: "I said to him, 'I would like to thank you for dismissing my 22 years' service in her majesty's armed forces'."

But she seemed thrilled with her job, telling The Associated Press of the joys of giving historical tours and describing the Tower as a wonderful place to work.

Simmering tensions were kept behind the fortress walls until Monday, when the Sun newspaper reported that Cameron's uniform had been defaced and that "nasty" notes had been left in her locker.

In addition, the newspaper said that Cameron's entry in the online encyclopedia known as Wikipedia had been defaced as part of the campaign against her.

Scotland Yard confirmed Monday that a 56-year-old man had been reprimanded about improper use of the Internet. Details were not disclosed, but it was believed this man is the third warder being investigated for alleged harassment.

Tower spokeswoman Ruth Howlett said she could not confirm the details cited in the newspaper report or elaborate on the reported harassment.

The Tower statement said an internal investigation should be finished within two to three weeks in accordance with the Tower's harassment policy.

The revelations did not appear to bother visitors to the Tower.

"There's always teasing in the army," said Miles Gurrin, a frequent visitor. "The army is known for this sort of thing. It's not as if she is an outsider. She served in the army for 22 years, so she is one of them."

He said the public would probably withhold judgment until the investigation is completed.

The 35 warders — all ex-military personnel — guide visitors around the popular tourist attraction, which houses the priceless crown jewels as well as rare coats of armor and other items of incalculable historic value.

Warders were first used in the 11th century, and early on were used to monitor and occasionally torture high profile prisoners kept in the Tower, which was founded by King William I in 1066. There is a long history of bloodshed and treachery at the Tower, including the executions of three queens: Catherine Howard and Anne Boleyn, both wives of Henry VIII, and Lady Jane Grey, known as "the nine days queen."

The warders and their families live on the Tower grounds so they can be on call both day and night.


The fact that the public doesn't care really makes me shake my head. :(



(Post a new comment)


[info]mirhanda
2009-11-02 08:37 pm UTC (link)
I'll bet these guys will never feel like they did anything wrong. They'll just blame HER because they got in trouble. Assholes.

(Reply to this)


[info]snarkhunter
2009-11-02 08:53 pm UTC (link)
I was just coming here to see if this had been posted.

(Reply to this)


[info]nymeria
2009-11-02 09:01 pm UTC (link)
I can't decide what's more depressing, the bullying and harassment, or anybody seriously referring to the Sun as a 'newspaper'.

(Reply to this)


[info]pathology_doc
2009-11-02 09:54 pm UTC (link)
Three of her colleagues are under investigation because of the bullshit they pulled, two of them suspended from duty pending its completion, and you haven't given the Tower a single bit of credit for acting on that.

My guess is that "revelations did not bother visitors to the Tower" means that they aren't going to let this controversy stop them from coming to see it. Nor should they - if they did, poor Cameron would probably get the blame.

I would venture to suggest that an examination of the Beefeaters' military service records would be most revealing - a possible explanation for the male Beefeaters' resentment is that they've been frontline soldiers under gunfire whereas Cameron is AFAIK still barred from this, and they feel like they have in a way risked their necks for this post while she gets a safe ride.

The same analysis could be said to apply generally to any military in which women are barred from frontline combat, and thus kept relatively safe, while at the same time still being free to move up the ladder of promotion. That is inequity and the male combat officers are justified in their outrage. IIRC, the British Army is still one of these (and certainly was at some point in Cameron's career if she's been in it for over two decades).

It's easy to see why a female officer might not be respected by her colleagues. They have (had) to put their necks on the line in a shooting war - she doesn't (or hasn't). That will tend to put her a cut below combat veterans, regardless of how many years she's served or how high she's risen. Officers in the British Army, however aristocratic, have always had the respect of their men because they shared the same risks (their percentage death toll in WW1 was significantly higher). They lose that respect when, for a given level of seniority, they shirk those risks.

This doesn't excuse the bullshit, and it's good that the Tower's taken action (just reminding you that it's done that), but YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING REASONS before you fly off the handle.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]usagivindaloo
2009-11-02 10:07 pm UTC (link)
But in that case, the male combat officers should be directing their anger and outrage at the system, NOT the woman/women. Let's say that you're right and the frustration is over the fact that women are not permitted to risk their lives on the front line... isn't it the people who are refusing them that permission the ones to blame? The women are just as innocent as anyone else in that scenario.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]usagivindaloo, 2009-11-02 10:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]usagivindaloo, 2009-11-03 02:11 am UTC

[info]chikane
2009-11-02 10:24 pm UTC (link)
That is inequity and the male combat officers are justified in their outrage.

No, they aren't, because these peple are why women are barred from frontline combat. Cause and effect.

And, you know, even if they weren't at fault, they're still not justified in harassment. Sorry.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2009-11-02 10:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bigbigtruck, 2009-11-02 11:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 01:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenygal, 2009-11-02 11:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyssa, 2009-11-03 12:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]selene_avis, 2009-11-03 12:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2009-11-03 12:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]plazmah, 2009-11-03 12:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2009-11-03 01:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]plazmah, 2009-11-03 01:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2009-11-03 01:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]plazmah, 2009-11-03 01:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]finchbird, 2009-11-03 01:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 01:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]adevyish, 2009-11-03 06:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-11-03 07:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]frau_eva, 2009-11-03 04:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 05:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frau_eva, 2009-11-03 05:07 pm UTC

[info]faultypremise
2009-11-02 10:30 pm UTC (link)
I DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING REASONS TO UNDERSTAND THAT HARASSING SOMEONE IS A BAD IDEA NO MATTER WHAT THE CONTEXT IS.

Jesus H. Christ in a taxi on a pogo stick.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]pathology_doc, 2009-11-02 11:06 pm UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 12:44 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]sneer, 2009-11-03 01:29 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 01:47 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]scifantasy, 2009-11-03 03:23 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 03:31 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]scifantasy, 2009-11-03 03:33 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 03:36 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]scifantasy, 2009-11-03 03:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2009-11-03 12:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 12:51 am UTC

[info]kittikattie
2009-11-02 10:36 pm UTC (link)
Do you consistantly insist on opening your mouth to let stupid fall out?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]wrenlet, 2009-11-02 10:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2009-11-02 11:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2009-11-02 11:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2009-11-02 11:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 12:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 01:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kumquat_of_doom, 2009-11-03 02:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 05:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frau_eva, 2009-11-03 05:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 05:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frau_eva, 2009-11-03 05:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2009-11-02 11:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kittikattie, 2009-11-02 11:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kittikattie, 2009-11-02 11:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2009-11-02 11:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]galletas, 2009-11-03 12:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]goblin, 2009-11-03 04:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2009-11-03 12:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 12:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 01:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 01:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 01:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyssa, 2009-11-03 12:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blue_penguin, 2009-11-03 12:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-11-03 01:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eleutheria, 2009-11-03 03:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cjk, 2009-11-02 11:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]inalasahl, 2009-11-03 01:04 am UTC

[info]notjo
2009-11-02 10:39 pm UTC (link)
Sure, if you can just point out the bit where anyone "flew off the handle" as opposed to expressing dismay, that would be awesome.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2009-11-02 11:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]notjo, 2009-11-02 11:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cyndra_falin, 2009-11-03 12:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:52 am UTC

[info]greenling
2009-11-02 10:55 pm UTC (link)
Good Christ, it's a one-line commentary. Why did you bother going from the occasional mildly-more-conservative-than-usual comment to huge rants asking the OP to engage in investigative journalism? Do you have some impression that this will accomplish something, or do you just think that people getting angry at you for little things is a good reason to make yourself a completely unsympathetic wackaloon?

And for goodness' sake, if she's been in the army twenty-two years, if you admit it's not likely they'd usually respond to something as stupid as regular teasing, if there's all sorts of good and understandable reasons people would outright resent her, have you bothered wondering what sort of harassment might have to come up for people to get justifiably sacked over it?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2009-11-02 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]duende, 2009-11-02 11:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fern_on_fen, 2009-11-02 11:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]duende, 2009-11-03 12:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]duende, 2009-11-03 04:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 05:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]duende, 2009-11-03 05:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 01:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 02:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2009-11-04 10:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 01:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]goblin, 2009-11-03 04:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 05:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fern_on_fen, 2009-11-03 01:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blue_penguin, 2009-11-03 02:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blue_penguin, 2009-11-03 02:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]duende, 2009-11-03 04:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-11-03 04:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 01:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fern_on_fen, 2009-11-03 01:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 01:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2009-11-03 01:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 01:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-11-03 03:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2009-11-03 03:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-11-03 03:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2009-11-03 04:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-11-03 04:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]witty, 2009-11-03 03:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]littlekitsch, 2009-11-03 06:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]witty, 2009-11-03 08:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 05:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenling, 2009-11-03 08:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 01:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]inalasahl, 2009-11-03 07:30 pm UTC

[info]chaootaku
2009-11-02 11:55 pm UTC (link)
I won't address your main point, because others have done it far more eloquently.

But if you're going to jump in to a thread and accuse everybody of doing something that hasn't even happened because you're so sure they will, don't try to act all shocked and offended when you're met with the same hostility.

Your sacred "opposing viewpoint" isn't being rubbished by any means, you're just being called out on your blazingly obvious bullshit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cyndra_falin, 2009-11-03 12:11 am UTC

[info]kumquat_of_doom
2009-11-03 12:56 am UTC (link)
...Oh, for fuck's sake. You again?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cat_mcdougall
2009-11-03 01:10 am UTC (link)
I uploaded this icon just for you. Can you mansplain it to me again?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sneer
2009-11-03 01:19 am UTC (link)
That is inequity and the male combat officers are justified in their outrage.

Nope, they're not.

They lose that respect when, for a given level of seniority, they shirk those risks

And now you're implying that by not being allowed to serve in combat, she was "shirking" her duty. Aren't you classy?

No position in the military is a guaranteed "safe ride." This is why when you go into the military, regardless of your gender, regardless of whether you're going to be stationed on the front lines or behind a desk, you are trained to use a weapon and defend yourself.

If you're going to use that logic, then you should agree that men who served in the same sorts of "safe" jobs Cameron served in should also be barred from serving as warders, right?

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING REASONS before you fly off the handle.

Underlying reasons: these men are sexist assholes. Period.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


ultimi_scopuli
2009-11-03 01:35 am UTC (link)
It's easy to see why a female officer might not be respected by her colleagues.

They're like horses, in a way.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]frequentmouse
2009-11-03 05:10 am UTC (link)
I know I'm extremely ex post facto here, but I strongly recommend you seek out and read Ginmar's LJ posts written during her deployment in Iraq.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]caffeine_fairy
2009-11-03 01:42 pm UTC (link)
IIRC, the British Army is still one of these

You don't. But thanks for playing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(no subject) - [info]mister_terrific, 2009-11-03 04:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kumquat_of_doom, 2009-11-04 02:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-04 04:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kumquat_of_doom, 2009-11-04 12:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-11-04 10:50 pm UTC

[info]malicealice
2009-11-02 10:09 pm UTC (link)
I...wish I had something profound to say, but I've got nothing. I met her a couple years ago when I went to England, and she was really cool. I thought it was neat that she was the first female warder. Guess I forgot (or rather, didn't know then what I know now - ah JornalFen, how you've enlightened me as to the shitty things people do) how much it must freaking suck to be the only girl in a job full of guys. :S

Assholes.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kumquat_of_doom, 2009-11-04 02:36 am UTC

[info]usagivindaloo
2009-11-02 10:13 pm UTC (link)
"I've had some comments," she said at the time. "I had one chap at the gate one day who said he was completely and utterly against me doing the job."

Her reply was quick and piercing: "I said to him, 'I would like to thank you for dismissing my 22 years' service in her majesty's armed forces'."


I think I'm in love with this woman. <333

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]brennalarose, 2009-11-04 08:00 pm UTC

[info]notjo
2009-11-02 10:45 pm UTC (link)
Eh. One person says he doesn't think this will affect the public perception of anything. I, on the other hand, am also part of the public, and I'm pretty irritated at the whole thing. What jackasses.

Most visitors are probably pretty ignorant of the whole thing, really.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]charamei, 2009-11-03 11:22 am UTC

[info]catmoran
2009-11-02 11:56 pm UTC (link)
The fact that the public doesn't care really makes me shake my head.

To be fair, that's the opinion of one guy -- who sounds like he's also of the opinion that the harassment is all in good fun, so he's obviously biased.

I'm not British, but I've been to the Tower twice and will be vacationing in London at the end of the month, so that sort of makes me part of "the public" for this purpose. And I'm really annoyed that some of the warders have been such jackasses.

(Reply to this)


[info]duende
2009-11-02 11:58 pm UTC (link)
I don't believe the article states or even implies anywhere that "the public doesn't care." The closest it gets is saying that visitors to the Tower are "not bothered" by... well, frankly, it's unclear to me what "this revelation" actually refers to.

A lot of visitors to the Tower are tourists -- of course they aren't well-read on matters of local news. Even if they are aware of the situation, I'm sure a lot of them don't care or "aren't bothered" by it for any number of reasons. Maybe whatever local news source they heard it from didn't make it out to be a big deal. Maybe it just doesn't matter because it doesn't affect their lives or their experience there. Maybe they come from differing cultural backgrounds where no woman would ever be allowed to hold such a position in the first place so another country doing it is that country's business. I'd also love to know exactly how many visitors to the Tower were asked and by whom in order to determine that they, as a collective group, aren't bothered by a piece of news.

And even if there was some rhyme or reason to the reporters' methods of asking around... what are they meant to be bothered by, exactly? That a female employee brought up a complaint which was promptly dealt with by her employers? I... well I mean... good for them? It says the investigation is incomplete. Good for "the public" for allegedly withholding judgment, then. And I say, good for the author of this article for presenting the "facts" of an ongoing investigation without implication of guilt on anyone's part.

Neutrality is important in ongoing cases. I'd RATHER "the public" not care until some conclusion is reached. I'd rather the public not KNOW until some conclusion is reached, since prior to that point, any "news" on the subject is nothing but shit-stirring, INVITING people to make unfair and uninformed assumptions.

Such as, for example, "the public doesn't care."

(Reply to this)


[info]cyndra_falin
2009-11-03 12:22 am UTC (link)
I was just reading about this. Ugh. Idiots.

(Reply to this)


[info]kumquat_of_doom
2009-11-03 12:55 am UTC (link)
Lovely.

On the other hand, at least things are clearly being done about it, which is good - suspensions, enquiries, suchlike. But if nothing concrete actually happens to these over-testosteroned knuckleheads...

(Reply to this)


[info]finchbird
2009-11-03 01:52 am UTC (link)
I'm happy they're handling this with all of the seriousness necessary which I hope will extend to the punishment these assholes deserve.

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map