“There’s a very attractive girl in the second row. Dark and dusky … We’ll maybe put a wee word out for her. She’s very attractive, very nice, very slim. The heat’s getting to me. She’s got that Filipino look – the kind you’d see in a Gauguin painting. There’s a wee bit of culture.”
Thus spake Frank McAveety, Labour member of the Scottish Parliament … unaware the microphone was on. Mr McAveety thus ended his tenure as chairman of the petitions committee and the Labour spokesman for sport at Holyrood, and began his career as YouTube star.
Silly old fool. I bet his wife had words when he got home. He must be wondering whether the voters of Shettleston will punish him come the next election. That, and the YouTube, should be punishment enough. He should not have had to resign. Yes, the girl was fifteen (not seventeen as in earlier reports) – but he did not know that. He did not refer to her in explicit sexual terms. He just said she was attractive. I do not believe for a moment that his “put a wee word out for her” was a plan to arrange an assignation. The poor old boy just wanted to give her a tour of Holyrood and bask for a few moments in her proximity, as tubby middle aged men have tried to bask in the proximity of slim young women since the stone age. This is Benny Hill, for goodness sake, not Lavrenti Beria picking out rape victims from the lines of female gymnasts who performed before the politburo.
Yet according to the Guardian a Scottish National Party MSP, Sandra White, described the comments as “sexist, sleazy and racist” (er, why racist?) and said Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray’s failure to act as soon as the incident came to light showed an “appalling lack of judgment”. Oh, and we have spokesmen from Disclosure Scotland (er, why? Just why?) and the Scottish Parliament burbling on about the “The Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003″ as if the mere mention of that was not damn close to libel.
How did we get here? You know the world has got weird when you find yourself defending a Labour politician. You know the world has got weirder when his being Labour is not enough to protect him from the press. How on earth did we arrive at a place where someone as old-fashioned as me thinks this all has got a little bit crazy? I used to be fond of observing that puritanism had moved out of the bedroom and into the recycling bin, but now it’s back everywhere. It’s in the air we breathe, so that every wistful little fantasy, every bumptious little burst of bravado, is potential career disaster – at least for males. Females who do this sort of thing are demonstrating the rich, raunchy sexuality of the mature woman. Just so’s you know, boys.
Added later: A comment from CountingCats sparked a further thought: how come Frank McAveety’s mere words were enough to make him resign from a chairmanship but Chris Huhne’s actual adultery has not made him resign from anything? I speculate that sex comes under the old progressive rules whereas speech comes under the new progressive rules, which are much stricter. Also, he said “dusky.”
Well, depends on whether you follow strict Christianity or not. You know, something about he who commits adultery in his heart.
Sigh, but I am not a Christian, and I see absolutely nothing wrong in what he said. The young lady might have been a little embarrassed at being the object of his admiration, but so what?
What I do respect in the matter is the level of learning and culture Mr McAveety demonstrated in both his phraseology and comparisons.
Well, I am, and I do think that he committed adultery in his heart. He did wrong, but it is a wrong that is done a million times a day. I don’t know his own opinions on theology or sexual morality but I would hope he is annoyed with himself for more than getting caught, and has apologised to his wife and to the young lady in question.
The rules we seem to have now – where McAveety’s mere words are a resigning matter but Chris Huhne’s actual adultery is not – seem to have no rhyme or reason to them.
On a slightly different tack, I always took Jesus’s saying as being addressed to non-adulterers who might have regarded themselves as safely in a superior category to adulterers.
Natalie wrote:
“I don’t know his own opinions on theology or sexual morality but I would hope he is annoyed with himself for more than getting caught, and has apologised to his wife and to the young lady in question. ”
So what is he supposed to say “to the young lady in question” Natalie?
“I am very sorry I find you attractive but I could not help myself?”
Are you even a grownup? Are men not allowed to have heterosexual feelings anymore?
The whole point of the post was that men have made comments like this about attractive women (and vice versa) since time immemorial & the reaction to it was way out of proportion, Mike.
He should make a dignified but not grovelling apology to the young woman for causing her embarrassment.
Barf: “There’s a very attractive girl in the second row. Dark and dusky … We’ll maybe put a wee word out for her. She’s very attractive, very nice, very slim. The heat’s getting to me. She’s got that Filipino look – the kind you’d see in a Gauguin painting. There’s a wee bit of culture.”
Was she standing for some position that needed “A wee word?” How dare he impose his fantasies on others, in an official capacity? Talk of stereotyping of “dusky” people! What a moron and what a fool.
This has all been intentionally clouded, but it seems he made this statement in the Scottish Parliament (whatever you many think of it), which means, it was official and on the record. He didn’t say it in a pub, for example, or at a dinner party at which his wife was presiding. As far as I can gather from the cloudy report, he seems to have let his thoughts flow in an official capacity.
I can’t figure out from the report if this woman was standing for something, but if she was, then it would seem that she got “inappropriate” (favourite lefty word) help from the chair, if he was the chair.
Finally, the man needs not only to calm down, but to travel more. The Filipinos are nothing to do with Gaugin and islanders of the South Seas, a five hundred miles beyond.
The man’s a patronising fool and shouldn’t have been gumming off in an official arena. And what was the “wee bit of culture” he referred to? It was Gaugin who painted the S Sea Islanders, not them.
It’s about time we had a new round of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the Sixties. Screw the Tight Arsed Anti-Sexual Anti-Liberal Anti-Free Speech idjits.
I hope the up and coming generation give these strait-jacketed adults a good upraised finger and a bare-arsed salute.
Benny Hill Shall Rise Again!
What really irks me about this sort of thing is whenever it comes up in public life women (most women, anyway) hound a guy like that out of office. And then they complain because the men they know don’t act like men.
“Talk of stereotyping of “dusky” people!”
OK, why not? I’m quite intrigued by this choice of topic, since I can see no stereotyping in McAveety’s comments, unless you would like to argue that somewhere in there is the unspoken assumption that dusky equals attractive, or Filipino, or Tahitian. I quite like the word “dusky”, as did Hawthorne, a literary hero of mine, and use it often. I wonder if it recently got added to the PC Dictionary of Inappropriate Words and no one told me. Are we supposed to say “differently tinted” now?
As for “he made this statement in the Scottish Parliament (whatever you many think of it), which means, it was official and on the record”… I vote they install mikes in the toilets of the entire building and issue whatever noises are made therein to the general public in a Hansard-style bulletin. If “Ach, it’s christ freezen in here… Dammit, no bog roll… got another couple o’ them manifestos?” is an Official Statement, then the Public Has A Right To Know, seems to me.
Exactly. I suspect that if the woman in question was white, this wouldn’t have been made into half as big a deal as it has been.
Amazing. Did you even read the article you are commenting on? *roll eyes*
“…I vote they install mikes in the toilets of the entire building…”
No thanks!
What Mike said. There is a sensible reason why there are no microphones in the toilets. The man spoke in a room where there was a microphone and where it actually makes sense to have one. Still, he made a silly mistake, we all make them all the time: we occasionally bump into people, and we apologize – no big deal. So Natalie’s point about an apology is well made.
The world – or rather those who run it – is losing basic common sense, that’s our biggest problem.
“She’s got that Filipino look”
That would be Filipina, luv.
Why am I surrounded by fools and lunatics?
The difference in the reactions to Huhne and McAveety’s peccadiloes may well be, (and I haven’t done any research to back this wild accusation up), that McAveety is an irritant to his masters in Scottish Labour and his slight indiscretion allowed his removal, whereas Huhne is the flavour of the month to his masters, (and will screw us all, dusky or not, with his air taxes.)
I can see why Huhne is not asked to resign, and it is simply because his affair was not exposed publicly while “on duty”.
As to the words being “racist”? Well, if he had said “she’s pretty and slim but I wouldnaye touch her cos she’s dusky”, well, that might be, but she was admiring her.
Next it will be racist to say “wow, Hussein Bolt sure runs fast”.
I know Natalie dismisses it as a factor, but surely the key reason for McAveety’s dismissal (or at least the outrage leading up to up it) *is* the fact that the young lady is fifteen? Even if McAveety didn’t know her precise age it surely should have been obvious she was inappropriately young for a man of 48 to be leching over?
The difference between this and Huhne is surely down to the somewhat squicky air of borderline paedophilia that hangs around the sentiment? (Even if calling it paedophilia is OTT, I’ve always understood that the traditional rule of thumb is that the cut off point for squickiness is understood to be half the man’s age +7 years, and I don’t believe for a moment the girl could pass as 31.)
“Still, he made a silly mistake, we all make them all the time: we occasionally bump into people, and we apologize – no big deal. ”
Leaving your mike on is indeed a silly mistake, and if it results in anything infra the dig of that hallowed establishment, sure an apology is quite in order. Hell, I have often apologised for sneezing at meetings and wakes and such. No argument there. BTW, if anyone thought the suggestion about miked-up toilets was serious, your local Community College may be offering evening classes in irony detection. I still fail to appreciate that words are “official” just because of the precise geographical coordinates in which they are uttered, but let that pass. We are now entering the squicky (?) borderline paedophilia discussion zone. Personally, not being a Christian I do distinguish between thoughts, words and actions, the former two categories being essentially harmless in my view and never under any circumstances fit subjects for any kind of disciplinary or coercive action, but more importantly, I think back to innumerable similar comments heard from friends and colleagues in similar situations, with similar age differences in play, where my knowledge of the people concerned completely discounted any serious criminal intent. As my gran used to say, “a cat may look at a king”. In its cat language it may even admire the kinginess of same. Doesn’t mean it aspires to occupy the royal milk saucer.
The poor lad.
Who would people rather have in charge of this committe – a silly man with an eye for a pretty girl (and a desire to seem cultured).
Or a cold and cruel political fanatic – like errr me.
Borderline paedophilia? I have never seen a picture of the person in question but if she is indeed a hottie… well, is she? And if so, why is saying as much so shocking?
Even if she is under age… i.e. it is illegal in Britain to have sex with her… how is that actually relevant? He is just expressing a view on her beauty, not trying to lure her into his car with candy. There is something twisted in all but criminalising a casual remark which may for all I know be a reasonable statement of aesthetic judgement.
Loath those I am to ever defend a politico for anything, this whole thing is bogus.
Normally, Paul, I’d agree. But McAveety is of the Scottish Left. This is his world. He has been hoist on, if not his very own petard, one he did nothing to prevent his colleagues constructing. As we say up here, Hell mend him.
What catches my Yank eyes is not Mr. Mac’s admiring description of the dusky lady, but rather his position. Labor spokesman for sport!!!??! What the hell does he speak about? Demanding instant-replay appeals for fouls in the World Cup (like the debacle in the US/Slovenia game)? The dangers of steroids in international quoits tournies? We may have our own set of trivialities over here, but official political pronouncements on sport are rare and generally ignored.
“BTW, if anyone thought the suggestion about miked-up toilets was serious, your local Community College may be offering evening classes in irony detection. “
Indeed! They are given by me – I thought this week’s topic should be humorous word play, just for the pun of it…
Posted by Perry de Havilland at June 23, 2010 08:49 AM:
“Are you even a grownup? Are men not allowed to have heterosexual feelings anymore?
Amazing. Did you even read the article you are commenting on? *roll eyes*”
Amazing. Did you even read *the comment* I was commenting on?
[editor: then quote back the germane part or you might easily be mistaken to be replying to the original article and hence be unjustly mistaken for a dickhead]
Definitely dusky hurt. Wveryone was upset by Don Imus, but it was “nappy headed”, not “‘ho’s” that made the news.
To my mind this is bad because she’s a taxpayer. I know mt employees/masters in government are sexual beings, but I expect them to keep it to themselves on company time, whether she’s fifteen, fifty, dusky, snowy, or a man.
Gross, too, like spitting on the floor.
I apply my “assistant manager at the McDonald’s” standard to this sort of thing.
If I owned a McDonald’s, and he were the assistant manager and did this to a customer in front of me, would I fire him?
You bet, right this second.
Perry de Havilland wrote: “then quote back the germane part or you might easily be mistaken to be replying to the original article and hence be unjustly mistaken for a dickhead”
That was exactly what I did in the original post! You just did not take the time and trouble to read what I was replying to.
And now you need an ad hominem? Nice touch. To quote the relevant part of what I wrote earlier:
“Are you even a grownup?”
I hope I can make myself clear to you when we meet during some libertarian convention. Looking forward to that. 🙂
I’m not following you, staghounds. What did he “do” to a “customer”? If you’re using the McDonalds analogy, this is like two frycooks back in the kitchen talking to each other about a customer out front (who can’t hear them). Still want to fire him? If so, you’re not the manager of my McDonalds.
Mike (who I think I am right in assuming is not the same as “mike” who posts from mirrorsignalmove.blogspot.com),
You say in your post of 11.56 that you are in favour of taking the time and trouble to look carefully what a commenter is replying to. I shall try to do this.
How did you get the impression from my words (“I don’t know his own opinions on theology or sexual morality but I would hope he is annoyed with himself for more than getting caught, and has apologised to his wife and to the young lady in question”) that I thought that men should not be “allowed to have heterosexual feelings anymore”?
Particularly how did you manage to impute that view to me given that I had written a whole post defending McAveety – specifically on the grounds that men have been doing the same thing since the stone age. Furthermore I even said in the very comment you quoted that “it is a wrong that is done a million times a day.”
BTW, I thought your “Are you even a grownup?” sounded rude but was too tired at that hour to fight over it. But now I’m here, another thing I don’t see is what the thought process was that made you say that, either. What was specifically childish about my comment? I can already tell you didn’t like it, but I don’t see where the imputation of childishness came from.
How did my opinion that he should apologise translate in your head as meaning that I believed that men were not allowed to have heterosexual feelings? The thing he should apologise to his wife for is not the possession of heterosexual feelings, it’s having a chat with his mate about how attractive another woman is. And, as I said later, the thing he should apologise to the girl for is causing her embarrassment.
Natalie, I mostly agree with you, but where we part ways is your belief that McAveety somehow owes his wife an apology for “having a chat with his mate about how attractive another woman is.” That’s just silly. Men notice women, and they talk about it. So what? Women notice men, and they talk about it too. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. There’s nothing wrong with a little harmless window shopping, and as long as you don’t act on your fantasies there is nothing to apologize for.
If he owes her an apology for anything, it’s for causing her embarrassment by stupidly leaving the microphone open. But that’s all.
Laird, I too see where you are coming from. I didn’t phrase that precisely enough; “having a chat” can indeed be totally innocuous – in fact while writing that post my husband was next to me and in the course of talking about McAveety we ended up having a chat about, well, noticing attractive people of the opposite sex and how one talks about it to members of the same sex. I didn’t feel even slightly tempted to go after him with a broom like Norah Batty!
In contrast, the tone of Mr McAveety’s remarks – and the fact that he apparently proposed arranging to meet the girl precisely because she was so pretty – was the sort of thing that if, say, one spouse/partner was overheard by the other talking that way about another guest at a party, might be expected to cause pointed remarks in the car on the way home.
In other words, something to apologise for – but also something to accept an apology for gracefully.
When writing the post I didn’t intend to get so much into the question of whether he was guilty of much, little or anything. I was more interested in the unsustainably severe standard of public behaviour that seems to be demanded of males now.