For more than half a century, tropical neurasthenia gained great traction. It’s easy to see its appeal. It harnessed anxiety about masculinity and the purity and superiority of the white race, and put failures in the supposedly moral project of empire down to the local climate and population, rather than colonials themselves.
The theory fell out of fashion after the second world war, but to this day our understanding of countries that receive humanitarian assistance is still deeply grounded in the same colonial thinking. We see the still struggling countries of Europe’s former empires as short of “civilised” values, where “most of us would not tread” – as classicist Mary Beard controversially tweeted at the weekend regarding the Oxfam sexual abuse scandal.
The cultural crossover between the New Labour SPAD (and Lad) culture is so fucking obvious, and the fervent trust that good communications advice can get around any problem (Campbellism, you might call it).
I was looking at the stats on prostitution and apparently somewhere between 8-10% of men in the United Kingdom have paid for sex. The numbers within charities/NGOS mentioned are nowhere near that - presently - so is the issue that they are men in positions of power within supposedly altruistic organisations or that the women in these countries are more vulnerable than those involved in prostitution here?
I was looking at the stats on prostitution and apparently somewhere between 8-10% of men in the United Kingdom have paid for sex. The numbers within charities/NGOS mentioned are nowhere near that - presently - so is the issue that they are men in positions of power within supposedly altruistic organisations or that the women in these countries are more vulnerable than those involved in prostitution here?
I would expect the incidents of men using their positions to gain sexual favours would exceed those paying for sex. I am sure many men would see this as a perk of their jobs.
Much like Hollywood producers of yore.
I think TonTon has been objecting throughout to the framing in the thread title and by several posters that the scandal is being magnified by political opponents of charities for tactical reasons and thus his post should not be read literally.
I think TonTon has been objecting throughout to the framing in the thread title and by several posters that the scandal is being magnified by political opponents of charities for tactical reasons and thus his post should not be read literally.
Yeah, I get that. But I think it's possible to hold both positions - believing both that the attacks are opportunistic/tactical and that the charities have been appallingly negligent in allowing/enabling these things. And I think even those who are acting tactically would be putting something like this in place. Of course, the devil will be in the detail of the conditions.
I just didn't think it was advancing the argument in any way.
Because it frames a story of the exploitation of vulnerable women and indeed possibly children in Haiti (and, as revealed since and as must surely be bloody obvious to anyone with half a brain, around the bloody world) as instead being one about some petty internal politics in the UK.
Because it frames a story of the exploitation of vulnerable women and indeed possibly children in Haiti (and, as revealed since and as must surely be bloody obvious to anyone with half a brain, around the bloody world) as instead being one about some petty internal politics in the UK.
It's shameful. Absolutely shameful.
Yes, I am aware that this attack on the Charities is politically motivated to get them on code lest their funding be cut.
Personally, I have my issues with western aid to 3rd world countries and my assumption is that the independent'ness of these charities will be reigned in even further as a result of these revelations.
Comment