Tuesday, 13 February 2018

Oxfam - And The Rest

Oxfam is without doubt only the start of this one.  Distressing to relate, the whole sector is riddled with abuses, of money as well as people, but it's always been "all too difficult" for anything to be done.  The UN agencies are the worst, particularly the ones carrying guns:  across the world the famous light blue beret - as worn by rag-tag armies acting as UN "peacekeepers" - brings bad news for the womenfolk.  And we now learn the Oxfam scandal extends even to children serving in their charity shops!

Fitting material for a mighty new global #MeToo2 ...  but are we really holding our collective breath for it?  Any more than we are expecting the corps of saintly feminist-activists to launch a meaningful campaign against FGM, or the US entertainment industry to initiate a major exposé of the behaviour of hip-hop artists towards young ladies.  No; all too difficult.  We had better just keep our social commentary to ourselves.

ND 

27 comments:

hovis said...

The Yes-but-ism is already in full flow in the Guardian, I paraphase but the implicit message is : an attack on Oxfam is an attack on aid.. (both sound like decent ideas to me.)

Corruption, abuse of power seems par for the course, this is hardly the first time this has been done by those involved in Charity NGOs, they are after all the inheritors of the sanctimony of the Clapham sect, if not their morals.

Also remeber professional widower of Jo Cox has long been accused of sexually abusing his staff. Funny how there are so many Nelsonian blind eyes in the sector, but none of his leadership.

david morris said...

Hovis : Spot on & a particularly well phrased last para

Sobers said...

Which is why the correct response to the SJW twitter mob et al in full flow is 'Yes and?' in the manner of the maestro himself, Donald Trump.

No one in public life attacked for some perceived breach of PC rules by the usual suspects should give an inch. Never apologise, double down if necessary. They have nowhere to go if the victim doesn't crumple and start begging for mercy.

Steven_L said...

Granted, if it turns out the prostitutes were children, then people should be locked up. But why is "some middle-aged European men used prostitutes" news? Is it much different to a director of a German charity spending some of his salary in an FKK club?

Is there an agenda? I always had the May government down as complete prudes. She'll probably try to criminalise paying for sex soon.

pen seive said...

"Is it much different to a director of a German charity spending some of his salary in an FKK club?"
If you had ever been to one, which I did several times when living in Germany, sex is not the main reason for going to such a club. Seeing middle aged, or even elderly, men and women walking around nude is not a sexual turn on. Children are closely monitored and guarded and even a suspicion of inappropriate behaviour is dealt with swiftly. As far as I know, prostitutes rarely attend these places as they are so family orientated. However, middle aged men, using the 50pence donations from the pensions of thousands of elderly women, to abuse those they are supposed to be helping is quite different. Oxfam derives almost 50% of its income from government which makes these people close to being civil servants. Sack 'hem, or jail 'hem, but get rid of 'em.

Steven_L said...

Nope, I've been to Germany three times. Once aged 14 (just passing through on my way skiing), once to Berlin in 2010 on a backpacker crawls drinking binge and once to Frankfurt in 2013 with her indoors. I've never visited any German nudist clubs or brothels.

But I have it on good authority that the FKK clubs I am talking about are very much brothels. There are no children and no old women in them.

Unless the women were underage or non-willing, the only difference I can see is that prostitution is illegal in Haiti. But prostitution is illegal in Thailand, the Philippines and in most poor countries where marriage and sex are more often than not transactional arrangements.

I fail to see how sex = abuse. A lot of people think sex is fun and have a very relaxed attitude to it. Why should the promiscuous be forced to kowtow to the prudish?

E-K said...

The real scandal is executive pay, expenses and the merciless targetting of elderly people for donations.

E-K said...

No better than a pikey doing your Mum's drive while you weren't looking.

Anonymous said...

First off, given Oxfam's pious moralising over the 1%, it's good to see their well paid execs spreading the wealth - albeit via the medium of spreading the legs of the poor and physically doing to them what they like to accuse the world of doing to them financially.

And there's sudden re-emergence of the moralising right, who've been hiding under the bed of their favourite dominatrix/rent-boy/choir-boy/sister/gerbil during the latest episode of Thing That Outrages the Internet and the Media Must Play Along Lest Irrelevance Pays a Visit.

So yes, one of those scandals where you just wish most of those involved would take a nice cruise on the SS Robert Maxwell around the Bermuda Triangle, and their entire estate being mysteriously left to the people of Haiti.

Anonymous said...

I know a few aid workers and they aren't the most continent people, tend not to be married-with-kids-by-40, rather visited-57-countries-by-40 types. Not terribly surprised that an aid workers compound is a hive of sexual activity.

Funnily enough no one seems bothered by all the nice lady volunteers in the Calais 'jungle' getting to close quarters with the 'child refugees'.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/18/refugees-calais-friends-need-help

followed closely by

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4119040/Married-Calais-Jungle-charity-chief-insisted-volunteers-not-sex-migrants-year-long-affair-toyboy-Tunisian-bodyguard-met-camp.html

Steven_L said...

Funnily enough no one seems bothered by all the nice lady volunteers in the Calais 'jungle' getting to close quarters with the 'child refugees'.

So any theories as to why this is? It's easy to simply dismiss it as 'because the woman is always in the right'. But what are the deeper reasons for such double standards? Why does feminism promote the right to a career and the right to be promiscuous, but usually draw the line at prostitution? Many would conclude this is just a logical combination of the two aforementioned rights.

What's their problem with men being able to procure sex from women?

Anonymous said...

Because modern feminism is about female supremacy, anything that benefits a man is bad. The only thing that is good is that which benefits a woman over a man.

Feminist Logic - Prostitution benefits man. Male dominance and privilege are therefore forcing women to prostitute to fulfil patriarchal needs, therefore it's bad.

Lesbian prostitution however is simply empowering and liberating and such a brave and powerful thing a woman could do.

Steven_L said...

I'd always thought that although empowering for a small fraction of one per cent of women - the prostitutes themselves - it harmed the interests of the majority of women with men by making the withholding of sex a more futile exercise. Then again the outlet probably reduces male levels of sexual frustration and animosity toward women in general from men they reject.

There's the more logical reasons women would hate prostitutes too. The spread of diseases. His sperm going to waste. The loss of financial resources. Then there is the emotional. What's the one thing that will drive women to punch and kick one other in the street? When they are both interested in the same man. Prostitutes basically invite all men to "come cheat on your other half".

In evolutionary terms, up until very recently divorced women were stigmatised, and single mothers got little support. In really ancient times a women being abandoned my her man may have even meant starvation. So she probably has a hard-wired emotional response to any perceived risk of losing him.

Anonymous said...

So she probably has a hard-wired emotional response to any perceived risk of losing him.

Dream on ...

Steven_L said...

You've never seen two women fight in public over a man? Maybe it's just geordie women who do that.

Raedwald said...

This isn't equivalent to some sales exec in a 4* hotel in Munich sampling one of the hotel-bar Natashas. This is about nonces abusing very young children from the poorest and most vulnerable societies in return for food or essential medical supplies.

A filthy UN or Oxfam dog of 50 raping a girl of 13 or 14 is not prostitution; sex with children is rape. Even if they give her some rice after. These men need to be jailed.

It's now emerging that these nonces have been joining the UN and NGOs in droves; no police checks, and open access to young and vulnerable children where the nonces are also in many cases the only civil power on the ground.

Abuses by African UN troops - savage, unmanaged thugs - are just as bad due to the widespread African belief that sex with very young girls - virgins - is good protection against AIDS. Real men don't wear condoms when raping children.

And shit on a world in which grid girls and darts dollies trigger outrage from the bien-pensants but a torn, bleeding child thrown aside after being raped by bien-pensant aid workers excites no compassion. Shit on them. Yes, Nick, too difficult.

CityUnslicker said...

hard to disagree Raedwald with that. This is totally about paedophilia and nothing to do with stand-issue use of hookers. The groups have been open to infiltration and clearly turned a blind eye.

The actual comparison should be made with the catholic church - do-gooders not able to prosecute their own.

E-K said...

Hard hitting there, Raedwald

Anonymous said...

Steven_L - "What's their problem with men being able to procure sex from women?"

As someone once said, the aim of modern feminism is to maximally liberate female sexuality and maximally suppress male sexuality. Hence on the one hand slutwalks and on the other, shaming some unattractive nerd who makes a clumsy pass.

The guy who runs (I think) OK Cupid runs a data blog, apparently women rate 80% of male photos "below average attractiveness", males rate 50%.

There's a cartoon doing the rounds showing how and how not to approach a woman in the workplace. Safe for work unless filters have advanced to detect sarcasm.

http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/know-the-work-rules-aprropriate-vs-inapropriate-looking-good-susan.jpg

Steven_L said...

@ anon 12:42

and this chimes in the the US mysogyny movements thesis that human are starting to mate less like birds (most healthy breeding age specimens mate and mate for the long term) and more like primates (only a small fraction of 'alpha' males get to mate with all the females).

I'm not convinced. When I look around the office, at dance classes, at facebook how young men and women behave I'm seeing the majority of young attractive women still seem to prefer monogamous long term relationships, even if they are delaying childbirth.

These online dating experiments (and there are some great false profile tinder experiments out there) probably just focus attention on a small sample of very prosiculous / shallow people.

Anonymous said...

Is there any evidence that children were involved in this particular orgy ?

I saw one interview of a woman said that a few may have been as young as 16 or 17. That's teenagers, not children. Very much borderline, I think, and not paedophilia.

Raedwald said...

Anon 4.27 reports say 14 - 16.

For rabid amoral nonces such as Van Hauwermeiren your distinction is irrelevant - or do you see nothing wrong with powerful men in their 50s exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable children? Even if they are 16?

I suppose your next point will be "she may be 13 but she looked older" - that doesn't hold water either.

Old men who want to fuck teen girls are sick perverts. End of story. Old men in positions of power who abuse that power and trust to sexually abuse vulnerable young girls are beyond sick - they are rapists.

Anonymous said...

Raedwald - while I agree these UN/Oxfam types are probably exploiting their access to food and clothing to get girls (just as some Brits and Yanks did in occupied Italy and Germany 1944/5), I'm afraid men of all ages have always wanted teenage girls. That's just male biology, and something one has to look out for as a father of daughters. The good news is the girls don't usually want them, preferring young men nearer their own age. That's just female biology.

Anonymous said...

16 year olds are not children, they are teenagers.

There is an enormous difference between a paedophile who abuses children below the age of puberty, and an adult man who likes women younger than himself, and even those who have only recently become adults. A decent man doesn't force himself on a young woman, but it is not abnormal or perverted to be attracted.

Throwing words like "pervert" or "rapist" around too freely leaves you no words for those who really are perverted or rapists. Language should be used carefully.

Steven_L said...

The age of consent is 18 in Haiti.

Electro-Kevin said...

I've never understood it.

I've always like women older than me.

E-K said...

No. I don't volunteer for Help the Aged.