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. :(



(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]pathology_doc
2009-11-02 08:54 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 09:07 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)


[info]usagivindaloo
2009-11-02 09:11 pm UTC (link)
*aren't the people who are refusing them... the ones to blame?

Wow, I fail grammar. Or at least fail at typing one thing, then rethinking the wording, then not changing it properly. XD

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]usagivindaloo
2009-11-03 01:11 am UTC (link)
Also, in light of other comments, I should add that my wording was wrong. I am not saying that women do NOT risk their lives on the front line, or indeed do not risk their lives period, as it is obvious they do. What I meant to say - badly - was that if there is some sort of "inequality" in terms of the dangerous assignments vs. men and women (ie that if women are not allowed to do certain dangerous things that men are expected to do), then that in no way is the woman's fault. Thus, resenting HER (or women in general) is totally uncalled for, unless in the highly unlikely scenario that she was running around saying HA HA YOU HAD TO GO TO THE FRONT LINES AND I DIDN'T, NEENER NEENER NEENER (and even then, the resentment would have nothing to do with gender and everything to do with being a prat).

Also, many people make good points about there not being the same lines between non-combat and front-line positions anymore, thanks to how modern warfare is carried out.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]chikane
2009-11-02 09:24 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)


[info]pathology_doc
2009-11-02 09:58 pm UTC (link)
No, women are barred from the front line because male soldiers would spend their lives futilely in huge numbers to ensure that just one woman isn't taken alive by the enemy, and would routinely put themselves at unacceptable risks to protect them, way beyond what they'd take for a male colleague.

That's the way Western society works.

If you want to have female combat troops, you have to raise all-female battalions.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

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

[info]faultypremise
2009-11-02 09:30 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 10:06 pm UTC (link)
YES YOU FUCKING DO. And maybe if you weren't so fucking blind, you might not have stated what you did about "understanding".

From my post:

This doesn't excuse the bullshit,

Try harder next time.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-02 11:44 pm UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]sneer, 2009-11-03 12:29 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 12:47 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]scifantasy, 2009-11-03 02:23 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 02:31 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]scifantasy, 2009-11-03 02:33 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 02:36 am UTC
Re: Reposted for mispost under wrong thread level. - [info]scifantasy, 2009-11-03 02:37 am UTC

[info]agent_hyatt
2009-11-02 11:26 pm UTC (link)
Though, in this case, looking at the context makes the whole thing worse. If the men are harassing her because she doesn't have combat experience... well, there's no way for a woman to get combat experience, because the system is stacked against her with very patronizing "justifications". Thinking about it that way also detracts from the positive steps the Tower officials are taking in response to the harassment, because they're still part of the system that's the underlying cause.

Wow. Way to make the whole situation even more depressing, [info]pathology_doc, in an attempt to make us more "even-handed".

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-02 11:51 pm UTC

[info]kittikattie
2009-11-02 09:36 pm UTC (link)
Do you consistantly insist on opening your mouth to let stupid fall out?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]wrenlet
2009-11-02 09:48 pm UTC (link)
Based on recent observations... I'mma go with "Yes."

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]agent_hyatt
2009-11-02 10:04 pm UTC (link)
It's hir job to show us blind sheep where we go wrong. Until the mod swings the banhammer for being a glorified troll telling truths we don't want to hear.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2009-11-02 10:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2009-11-02 10:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-02 11:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-02 11:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kumquat_of_doom, 2009-11-03 01:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 04:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frau_eva, 2009-11-03 04:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 04:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frau_eva, 2009-11-03 04:39 pm UTC

[info]pathology_doc
2009-11-02 10:21 pm UTC (link)
Do you consistently insist on opening your mouth to rubbish an opposing viewpoint?

I've tried to address the reasons why male soldiers would have good reasons to feel resentful of a female colleague accorded the same privileges as them while being exempt from the worst risks. I haven't attempted to justify their behaviour towards her (as I specifically state in the last paragraph of my post), and if you think I have, then I invite you to demonstrate where.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kittikattie, 2009-11-02 10:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kittikattie, 2009-11-02 10:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2009-11-02 10:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]galletas, 2009-11-02 11:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]goblin, 2009-11-03 03:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2009-11-02 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-02 11:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 12:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyssa, 2009-11-02 11:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]blue_penguin, 2009-11-02 11:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-11-03 12:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eleutheria, 2009-11-03 02:56 am UTC

[info]cjk
2009-11-02 10:49 pm UTC (link)
I always thought it was just a troll. Don't tell me that idiot's serious.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]inalasahl
2009-11-03 12:04 am UTC (link)
Yes, he does. Pick any post of the last two months.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]notjo
2009-11-02 09:39 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 10:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]notjo, 2009-11-02 10:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cyndra_falin, 2009-11-02 11:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-02 11:52 pm UTC

[info]greenling
2009-11-02 09:55 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 10:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]duende, 2009-11-02 10:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fern_on_fen, 2009-11-02 10:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]duende, 2009-11-02 11:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-02 11:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]duende, 2009-11-03 03:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 04:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]duende, 2009-11-03 04:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-03 01:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2009-11-04 09:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]goblin, 2009-11-03 03:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 04:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fern_on_fen, 2009-11-03 12:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blue_penguin, 2009-11-03 01:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blue_penguin, 2009-11-03 01:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]duende, 2009-11-03 03:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-11-03 03:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fern_on_fen, 2009-11-03 12:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2009-11-03 12:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-11-03 02:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2009-11-03 02:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-11-03 02:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2009-11-03 03:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-11-03 03:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]witty, 2009-11-03 02:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]littlekitsch, 2009-11-03 05:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]witty, 2009-11-03 07:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 04:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenling, 2009-11-03 07:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-03 12:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]inalasahl, 2009-11-03 06:30 pm UTC

[info]chaootaku
2009-11-02 10:55 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, 2009-11-02 11:11 pm UTC

[info]kumquat_of_doom
2009-11-02 11:56 pm UTC (link)
...Oh, for fuck's sake. You again?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cat_mcdougall
2009-11-03 12:10 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 12:19 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)


[info]ultimi_scopuli
2009-11-03 12:35 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 04:10 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 12:42 pm UTC (link)
IIRC, the British Army is still one of these

You don't. But thanks for playing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mister_terrific
2009-11-03 03:13 pm UTC (link)
My goodness but you certainly make a lot of assumptions about the soldiers in question, both the bullies and the victim.

I don't care about the underlying reasons. Wrong is wrong. They knew it was wrong, and they went ahead and did it anyway.

Please stop. You are making my gender look stupid.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kumquat_of_doom, 2009-11-04 01:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-04 03:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kumquat_of_doom, 2009-11-04 11:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-11-04 09:50 pm UTC

(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map