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]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)


[info]wrenlet
2009-11-02 10:48 pm UTC (link)
Based on recent observations... I'mma go with "Yes."

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]agent_hyatt
2009-11-02 11:04 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)


[info]pathology_doc
2009-11-02 11:33 pm UTC (link)
HIS job, to clarify.

If you don't want to hear opposing viewpoints, go form your own dictatorship. A lot of what's unfunny on this comm is stuff no sane person could defend, excuse, or explain rationally - Jaycee Dugard's kidnapper, for example, or those teen pack-rapists at the school dance, or the marriage celebrant who wouldn't marry the biracial couple.

Some of it, though, deserves a look below the surface outrage at why people are reacting the way they are; and to equate an attempt to explain their inner thought processes with justifying or excusing their "unfunny" suggests intellectual laziness at best and knee-jerk intolerance at worst.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]agent_hyatt
2009-11-02 11:55 pm UTC (link)
Was trying not to assume gender, so thanks for the definite.

Some stuff deserves a deeper look, sure. But to label yourself as the only person to bring it up, among all the knee-jerk reactions, is just obnoxious arrogance. And playing devil's advocate with the distinct undertone of "Let me enlighten you poor blind fools" is only going to get true knee-jerk opposition.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]snarkhunter
2009-11-03 12:50 am UTC (link)
Actually, I've really come to believe that it's not "let me enlighten you poor blind fools" so much as "let me mansplain to you poor, silly wimmins."

In other words, HIS (since he's so insistent) whole purpose here is to make sure the wimmins don't get too uppity with their insistence on having opinions.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]faultypremise
2009-11-03 12:52 am UTC (link)
Exactly, someone has to put us in our place and let us know the 'context' of these situations so we understand things from the penis side of the fence.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]snarkhunter
2009-11-03 01:02 am UTC (link)
I honestly don't know how I get through the day without men telling me how to think and do my job.

It's why I'm so appreciative when total strangers (always men) approach me in coffee shops and tell me how to grade my students' papers.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(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

[info]pathology_doc
2009-11-02 11:21 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)


[info]kittikattie
2009-11-02 11:47 pm UTC (link)
Why yes, Alan Rickman is hot.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kittikattie
2009-11-02 11:48 pm UTC (link)
Also, You totes deleted a comment:

pathology_doc (pathology_doc) replied to your JF comment in which you said:

Do you consistantly insist on opening your mouth to let stupid fall out?

Their reply was:

YES YOU FUCKING DO, you anvilicious jerk.

STOP being so FUCKING BLIND, and READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN.

This doesn't excuse the bullshit,

Try harder next time.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]agent_hyatt
2009-11-02 11:57 pm UTC (link)
Ooh, breaking the no-deletion unspoken rule. [info]pyratejenni said he was on thin ice; think this will break it?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]galletas
2009-11-03 12:34 am UTC (link)
We can hope.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]goblin
2009-11-03 04:23 pm UTC (link)
please please please

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]agent_hyatt
2009-11-03 12:14 am UTC (link)
Ah, apparently he replied to the wrong person. Why he didn't go "oops, replied to the wrong comment", I don't understand. Maybe common politeness would undermine his image?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]faultypremise
2009-11-03 12:56 am UTC (link)
He was replying to me I think. Because I REFUSED TO GET THE CONTEXT!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]snarkhunter
2009-11-03 01:05 am UTC (link)
CONTEXT IS ALL THAT MATTERS IN HARASSMENT CASES! IF YOUR SUPERVISOR KEEPS GRABBING YOUR ASS AT WORK, YOU'D BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT HIS CONTEXT ALLOWS SUCH THINGS.

The fact that your context and the context of society does not allow such things, well, that's beside the point. It's all about the menz.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]faultypremise
2009-11-03 01:09 am UTC (link)
*cackle* I love you, you know. And your icon, too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]snarkhunter
2009-11-03 01:11 am UTC (link)
Likewise!

This icon makes me smile every time I use it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lyssa
2009-11-03 12:16 am UTC (link)
I'd have a lot more respect for your devil's advocacy if it was better formed and not so adversarial, tired, and patronizing. Men aren't only resentful of women in the military because of disproportionate risk versus promotion (which is silly, as my military experience involves taking written exams and other similar criteria to advance, it has nothing to do with combat experience). It's more muddy than that, and trotting out some bullshit about men protecting women more often to the detriment of the unit is just very, very bad just-so logic, the sort of stereotype that always comes up in these debates with little grounding in reality.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]blue_penguin
2009-11-03 12:53 am UTC (link)
Yeah, exactly -- it's not that he has a dissenting opinion, it's that he has an underinformed dissenting opinion and comes in stating it like it's the absolute categorical truth that's been handed down to him from on high and he's here to enlighten all of us poor idiots who don't get it. Not to mention that he has a bad habit of speaking for groups to which he doesn't belong and who may not want him to speak for them.

He doesn't come across as someone who wants to have a rational, intelligent discussion. He comes across as someone who at best expects that stating his opinion will be enough to make us all bow down and see the error of our ways, or at worst just wants to stir shit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sneer
2009-11-03 01:28 am UTC (link)
I've tried to address the reasons why male soldiers would have good reasons to feel resentful of a female colleague

Which you have yet to do, considering female soldiers are NOT EXEMPT FROM RISK.

I haven't attempted to justify their behaviour towards her

Uh huh.

That is inequity and the male combat officers are justified in their outrage.

the male combat officers are justified in their outrage

the male combat officers are justified

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eleutheria
2009-11-03 03:56 am UTC (link)
Which you have yet to do, considering female soldiers are NOT EXEMPT FROM RISK.

Yeah, that's what gets me about his "explanation". What with roadside bombs, mortar attacks, and IEDs in general, the jobs that deployed women do are plenty hazardous. It's not like they're sipping tea in a fancy tent miles from the battlefield while the grunts do the fighting.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cjk
2009-11-02 11:49 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 01:04 am UTC (link)
Yes, he does. Pick any post of the last two months.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map