"For girls eyes only"

[ChrisH]

WQ I'm trying to work out whether you are playing some particularly boring form of devils advocate, a complete muppet or just trolling. By your logic unless every girl (or boy depending upon your proclivities) you've ever been out of a night with has specifically and publicly stated you aren't a nasty boy it is perfectly OK for the rest of us to cast aspersions as to your conduct. Because after all people who are violated often don't speak up.

The Athletic Association isn't the University. Simples. Given some of the posters produced and events held, by various affiliated societies, sports clubs, and sundry organisations over the years, if everything that was potentially sexist was condemned then pretty much nothing would ever happen and a Dalek would be AP as an equal opportunities tyrant.

I didn't realise that even if the University did pass on the message they were somehow endorsing it's contents. I seem to recall plenty of single sex (often for the fairer sex at that) scholarship opportunities being passed around in my time, are they wrong for not being open for my application? Given we have several branches of the Armed Forces present at either fresher's fayres recruiting for OTC type units, or at the careers fairs - all of which practise some form of sex based discrimination - should they be banned? Men have plenty of opportunity to go and hang out with the Royal Marines, it's called an acquaint course if you're interested in making a career of it.

The key thing that probably offends you is that a sufficient number of adult women decided when presented with the choice that it wasn't some misogynistic act whereby they were consenting to be assaulted but instead the opportunity to have a fun evening with a bunch of people with similar interests and went along. Much like the proverbial protestant you seem to have a haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having fun in a possibly gender inappropriate way.

[Al]

The aims and motives of the people who issued the original invitation may have been perfectly innocent. That is not the point. It's not that many years since the Students' Association ran long campaigns to try to get students - female students especially - to be aware of potential dangers after a night out: don't go off with people you don't know, stick together in a group to walk home, stick to well-lit areas, etc.. And yet here is the other major student-led organisation encouraging women to go far from home to party with people they don't know. It's just not responsible.

[wild_quinine]

WQ I'm trying to work out whether you are playing some particularly boring form of devils advocate, a complete muppet or just trolling.

I'm a philosopher. It's all three, with a superiority complex. And I'm just so comfortable with that, so settle in.

By your logic unless every girl (or boy depending upon your proclivities) you've ever been out of a night with has specifically and publicly stated you aren't a nasty boy it is perfectly OK for the rest of us to cast aspersions as to your conduct.

I don't think that follows.

There's a difference between casting aspersions and being cautious, and if I haven't made that clear enough, then my apologies go out to 45 Commando, who I'm sure are decent chaps to a last man, and have never ended a night with fighting among themselves, obstructing police officers, giving unwanted attention to women and general, unacceptable rowdy and drunken behaviour. Marines would simply not do that sort of thing.

The issue here is whether it's appropriate for 45 Commando, the local TA, the cast of Cats, or, fuck it, the Women's Institute, to get access to potential mates by soliciting through an official branch of the University. Show me the justification, and I'll show you three reasons why it shouldn't have been done.

And one of the big ones is that if anything did go wrong, the University would have shouldered some of the responsibility and it would not have been pretty.

Because after all people who are violated often don't speak up.

One person says that their experience of X was OK. Nobody says that their experience of X was not OK, which is the most likely outcome whether it was OK or not.

This is not sufficient grounds to judge that X was OK for everyone. That is all. Nothing to dwell on there.

The Athletic Association isn't the University. Simples.

This is a good point, although if it works the way that I think it does, then there is certainly more of a bridge between the AU and the University than with most societies. I think it's fair to think of it as an 'arm', as David described it. It is not completely unreasonable to expect that their official emails would be subject to the same expectations and regulations as the University proper, and - arguably - carry the weight of an authority within the University.

Given some of the posters produced and events held, by various affiliated societies, sports clubs, and sundry organisations over the years, if everything that was potentially sexist was condemned then pretty much nothing would ever happen and a Dalek would be AP as an equal opportunities tyrant.

You may be confusing me for someone who would fall on the sword of political correctness. When I talk about appropriateness as it relates to gender-specific invites, I am judging the University by its own standards.

I don't think it's appropriate for the University to invite girls to meet externally solicting men, that's true. But I would think it was just as inappropriate the other way around.

I might think there would be less danger for the men than for the girls in those two situations, and I'll hold my hand up to that as being an outmoded and sexist viewpoint, and I'll try to improve myself in that regard. But that's not exactly political correctness gone mad, is it?

I didn't realise that even if the University did pass on the message they were somehow endorsing it's contents.

Come back to me when you've had a job with any amount of responsibility.

Much like the proverbial protestant you seem to have a haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having fun in a possibly gender inappropriate way.

What I'm haunted by, and it's every bit as much a character flaw, is people who think they're right when they're wrong.

[RedCelt69]

I'm a philosopher...

I'm not a huge fan of lol-posts, but... your entire reply induced a big cheesey grin.

Inside my head, the Thought Police have equipped ra-ra skirts and are currently flouncing about with pom-poms.

[donpablo]

I didn't realise that even if the University did pass on the message they were somehow endorsing it's contents.

Come back to me when you've had a job with any amount of responsibility.

WQ! Bravo sir! That was hilarious.

Bullet dodged by the sounds of it but I would guess due more to luck than anyone responsible for forwarding the email actually making any effort to guarantee a safe night. It was pretty irresponsible and ill advised. It was from an @st-andrews.ac.uk account so the University can be seen as endorsing it if it was aware of it and didn't act. I can only imagine that no one put a formal complaint in about it in the first place so nothing happened further up probably because no-one was aware of it.

And, just to be clear this isn't about sexism - I'd have the same misgivings about the thing if it was a guys only invitation... even more so actually...

[DACrowe]

I'm told that the yah girls who sell programmes for the KK parade refer to themselves as 'the Kate Kennedy Kittens'. I'm not sure what made me think of that.

I don't think it's appropriate for the University to invite girls to meet externally solicting men, that's true. But I would think it was just as inappropriate the other way around.

Hmmmm.

I'm guess I'm not all that clear as to why it wouldn't have been okay for the university, or the Students Association to have advertised it. There must be an intuition here I'm lacking. I mean, yes, it strikes me as a bit off that they chose specifically the AU to target but....

Suppose they had written to Andrew Keenan to say 'hi, we're fit young men starved for female company; we're having a party and would like to invite St Andrews students to come along'. Would that have been okay? Is it something to do with the targetting of athletic women which makes it unacceptable? Or is it something to do with them being external? Or them being in the military?

Thought experiments:

a) Would it have been okay for the President of Mermaids to have sent round an e-mail saying that the mens' AU are having a party and want the female members of Mermaids to come?

b) Would it have been okay for the SA President to have sent round an e-mail inviting people to the military party but without reference to gender preference (though with the implication it would be a sausage fest)?

c) Supposing the party went ahead as it did and it turned out a girl in attendance was raped. Would this vindicate the claim that it was unacceptable to pass on the e-mail invitation?

d) Supposing that the party described in (a) went ahead and a girl in attendance was raped. Would this vindicate the claim that invitations to parties hosted by the AU should not be advertised?

...external...

...Kate Kennedy Kittens...

I can't quite figure out the link there... but there's something....

[David Bean]

This is a good point, although if it works the way that I think it does, then there is certainly more of a bridge between the AU and the University than with most societies. I think it's fair to think of it as an 'arm', as David described it. It is not completely unreasonable to expect that their official emails would be subject to the same expectations and regulations as the University proper, and - arguably - carry the weight of an authority within the University.

Not the same, surely. An email sent by the Principal is in my opinion qualitatively different in its status as an official communication of the University to one sent by an AU VP. That isn't to say the latter shouldn't be subject to any expectations or regulation (as distinct from 'regulations'), but it strikes me as quite dangerous to the functional independence of student-led groups to consider them accountable in matters such as this to the University and its hierarchy. Better on all levels to consider the accountability of the AU leadership to be to its members.

Come back to me when you've had a job with any amount of responsibility.

That's the other problem: students very often haven't had such experience, and can't be expected to have. Even if, which I don't for a moment believe, the original email - or any such invitation - was a mistake, it would be wrong to place it on a level with someone working as a professional.

DACrowe, the problem with your thought experiment is that it takes no account of the circumstances of what actually happened. We don't know, for instance, what assurances the VP might have sought or received as to the personal safety of those accepting the invitation. By the one first-hand account we have, generous provisions for their safety were made, and in the second email it's suggested that this was something the AU went to some effort to ensure (despite DonPablo's apparent intention to disbelieve any such thing). Had there been no such precautions, had the VP made no attempt to ascertain whether or not there would be any and had something gone wrong, this would be a very different discussion, but as it is I really don't see where the complaint can remain.

[fluffy]

Yawn. I only wondered how it went. This has all become rather pedantic.

For the record - *its* only has an apostrophe when short for *it is*. For example, "the dog is wagging its tail" does not need an apostrophe. Whilst this has become a board for pedants, I thought I'd just add my eggs to that particular basket.

[RedCelt69]

This has all become rather pedantic.

Welcome to the internet.

For the record - *its* only has an apostrophe when short for *it is*. For example, "the dog is wagging its tail" does not need an apostrophe.

Bah! You didn't specify who you were correcting. Nor (more blatantly) that "For girls eyes only" should read "For girls' eyes only".

Whilst this has become a board for pedants

Welcome to the internet.

[DACrowe]

DACrowe, the problem with your thought experiment is that it takes no account of the circumstances of what actually happened. We don't know, for instance, what assurances the VP might have sought or received as to the personal safety of those accepting the invitation.

Huh. See I was assuming the intuitive answers were yes, yes, not necessarily and no leading one to the conclusion that it is at least impelled by consistency to think that it was acceptable to send the e-mail, safety considerations or not. But I guess you went your own way on that one.

[donpablo]

An email sent by the Principal is in my opinion qualitatively different in its status as an official communication of the University to one sent by an AU VP. That isn't to say the latter shouldn't be subject to any expectations or regulation (as distinct from 'regulations'), but it strikes me as quite dangerous to the functional independence of student-led groups to consider them accountable in matters such as this to the University and its hierarchy. Better on all levels to consider the accountability of the AU leadership to be to its members.

Completely and utterly wrong. If it comes from an official university account, it may as well be from the principal . When you act in any capacity under a company, institute or whatever, you represent that entity. Are you familiar with the views expressed disclaimer? There are countless people that seem to be incapable of grasping these simple concepts that have lost their jobs and positions for misuse of emails and other company/group/university systems. It's by pure fluke this hasn't happened here.

By the one first-hand account we have, generous provisions for their safety were made, and in the second email it's suggested that this was something the AU went to some effort to ensure (despite DonPablo's apparent intention to disbelieve any such thing). Had there been no such precautions, had the VP made no attempt to ascertain whether or not there would be any and had something gone wrong, this would be a very different discussion, but as it is I really don't see where the complaint can remain.

What precautions?

To clarify to anyone who has misunderstood the intentions of the evening,
several members of the AU Executive have previously met with the organisers of
the night and have no doubt that their intentions are entirely honorable and
that it will be a fun night for all involved.

As far as the 2nd email tells us, they all had a big chat and the organisers promised nothing bad would happen. Great risk assessment there. That said, good on 45 for being true to that word.

What botheres me still is, what was in it for the AU? Why take this risk for an event that seems to benefit them in no way and is only open to half the members of the AU?

[DACrowe]

Why take this risk for an event that seems to benefit them in no way and is only open to half the members of the AU?

I don't think it's appropriate for the University to invite girls to meet externally solicting men, that's true. But I would think it was just as inappropriate the other way around.

'the Kate Kennedy Kittens'.

[donpablo]

Homer: [sarcastically] Oh, I see! Then I guess everything's wrapped up in a neat little package!
[after a pause]
Homer: Really, I mean that. Sorry if it SOUNDED sarcastic.

[David Bean]

Completely and utterly wrong. If it comes from an official university account, it may as well be from the principal . When you act in any capacity under a company, institute or whatever, you represent that entity. Are you familiar with the views expressed disclaimer? There are countless people that seem to be incapable of grasping these simple concepts that have lost their jobs and positions for misuse of emails and other company/group/university systems. It's by pure fluke this hasn't happened here.

I do not accept that for one moment: not legally, nor socially, nor morally. A person who writes an email, unless it is made explicit that they represent some other party, is writing on behalf of no-one but him or herself; the 'views expressed' disclaimer is in my opinion an unnecessarily risk-averse adjunct, but in any case where it is present it invalidates your argument completely. If you tried to argue that anyone who writes an email from a GMail address is automatically writing on behalf or in a representative capacity of Google, you would rightly be thought mad; the same situation applies to @st-and.ac.uk accounts belonging to students, to whom they are supplied purely for the sake of giving them a university email address and allowing them access to the internal network, not so that they might be thought to represent the university in every trivial email they ever wrote. Your argument about dismissals proves nothing, either: if a student were expelled, say, for emailing pornographic material from their university account, they would have been so for violating the rules of what may be transmitted over the network, not because anyone imagined that by their action they had made the dissemination of pornography a University policy. I can assure you, during my many years' service to the university in a whole range of positions and using a slew of different email accounts, the only bodies I was ever considered to represent were the ones named or implied by the titles I appended after my name at the end.

Your argument violates the basic tenet of Kant's categorical imperative: if its understanding became universal, the result would be insanity.

What precautions? ...

As far as the 2nd email tells us, they all had a big chat and the organisers promised nothing bad would happen. Great risk assessment there. That said, good on 45 for being true to that word.

The ones that were actually taken - the buses, the escorts, the food provision, the looking after, all of which, from the evidence we have, helped make the event perfectly safe.

What botheres me still is, what was in it for the AU? Why take this risk for an event that seems to benefit them in no way and is only open to half the members of the AU?

What makes you think they expected to get anything out of it? They were asked for their assistance; they obliged. If you're the sort who suspects ulterior motives in every act of altruism you come across, you'd better cease interacting with people who've freely volunteered their time to work for the good of others, else the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing will only worsen.

[Senethro]

thats a lot of words to say derp derp freedom individual responsibility

it was from a usniversity email address using the mailing list of a university organ. that looks a lot like endorsement and association

[DACrowe]

...the only bodies I was ever considered to represent were the ones named or implied by the titles I appended after my name at the end.

And as the AU Vice-President appended her title after her name that was the case here. Are you engaged in very elaborate trolling or something?

Your argument violates the basic tenet of Kant's categorical imperative: if its understanding became universal, the result would be insanity.

I wonder if Jens ever feels like Sisyphus.

What botheres me still is, what was in it for the AU? Why take this risk for an event that seems to benefit them in no way and is only open to half the members of the AU?

What risk? Why does a party organised by 'external' people carry more 'risk'? I'm just not seeing it.

[David Bean]

...the only bodies I was ever considered to represent were the ones named or implied by the titles I appended after my name at the end.

And as the AU Vice-President appended her title after her name that was the case here. Are you engaged in very elaborate trolling or something?

Precisely: her title indicated that she was representing the AU, not the University; we've already discussed the difference. No, I'm trying to engage in a non-ulterior discussion; why would you assume otherwise? If you didn't take my meaning, that's fine, please allow me to clarify, but there's no need to go accusing me of bad faith because of it.

[RedCelt69]

I'm not a huge fan of lol-posts, but...

Fuckit...

Your argument violates the basic tenet of Kant's categorical imperative: if its understanding became universal, the result would be insanity.

I wonder if Jens ever feels like Sisyphus.

...LOL

[donpablo]

I do not accept that for one moment: not legally, nor socially, nor morally. A person who writes an email, unless it is made explicit that they represent some other party, is writing on behalf of no-one but him or herself;

Well what party do you think the AUVP was representing if it wasnt the AU? They have perfectly functional personal email accounts themselves.

the 'views expressed' disclaimer is in my opinion an unnecessarily risk-averse adjunct, but in any case where it is present it invalidates your argument completely. If you tried to argue that anyone who writes an email from a GMail address is automatically writing on behalf or in a representative capacity of Google, you would rightly be thought mad; the same situation applies to @st-and.ac.uk accounts belonging to students, to whom they are supplied purely for the sake of giving them a university email address and allowing them access to the internal network, not so that they might be thought to represent the university in every trivial email they ever wrote.

I am not arguing or suggesting that anyone with a gmail account represents google, but it would be safe to assume those with an official account such as support[at]gmail.com do and would not get away with that sort of bs email. Same should apply for st-and.ac.uk in my opinion.

Do what you like with your own email within the rules. But with official accounts, have a bit of tact at the very least.

Your argument about dismissals proves nothing, either:

It was a generalisation, not proof of anything. An illustration that it does happen. Maybe I gave you too much credit for assuming that.

if a student were expelled, say, for emailing pornographic material from their university account, they would have been so for violating the rules of what may be transmitted over the network, not because anyone imagined that by their action they had made the dissemination of pornography a University policy.

Kind of irrelevant that now since you misunderstood my original point.

I can assure you, during my many years' service to the university in a whole range of positions and using a slew of different email accounts, the only bodies I was ever considered to represent were the ones named or implied by the titles I appended after my name at the end.

That's pretty inconsistent with the rest of the world view that you are representing the email address you use and not the cute little sign off at the bottom. [citation needed]

Your argument violates the basic tenet of Kant's categorical imperative: if its understanding became universal, the result would be insanity.

I must admit, I kinda like your moxy for firing in that piece of random trivia in the hope it somehow will add weight to your argument by looking really deep, whilst remaining totally off topic and taking us down the highly revered and uncriticised route of metaphysics. I shall respond from this point on using the highly regarded field of lulz.

The ones that were actually taken - the buses, the escorts, the food provision, the looking after, all of which, from the evidence we have, helped make the event perfectly safe.

Were they magic anti-rape buses and anti-rape food? Maybe we should send some of those buses and food out to Iraq and Afghanistan to make our troops perfectly safe out there too or perhaps just some escorts. Infact, I propose the government should spend more money on this kind of technology to make our streets safer at home. I've seen events that ended up badly with buses and food put on, but maybe they were using the wrong kind. Let us not pass up this opportunity to press for further research into the field of magic-buses and such.

What makes you think they expected to get anything out of it? They were asked for their assistance; they obliged. If you're the sort who suspects ulterior motives in every act of altruism you come across, you'd better cease interacting with people who've freely volunteered their time to work for the good of others, else the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing will only worsen.

Sorry I took so long to reply 'cause I've been volunteering a lot lately. Not because I just randomly felt like it but because I was kinda secretly doing it for my own benefit. Shit, I know you aren't supposed to say that but it's true... I did it for the feel good brain chemicals! I have a problem OK, I admit it!