I'll accept donations from anyone...... (I avoided putting Mrs Arq would accept donations from anyone).
I bet they'd have accepted it if the fundraisers had been gays in drag with pride badges on because that would have been celebrating diversity. But because the fundraisers were a bunch of ordinary blokes who in an effort to draw attention to their cause and raise more money for charity had dressed up in larky fancy-dress nurses costumes like they were off out on a stag night, that was somehow offensive. Pathetic. You can be sure they've raised far more money by looking harmlessly silly than they would have done if they'd stood there in normal clothes rattling tins. Which was surely the whole point...
Even the reason for the rejection is worrying in that she states "The presentation of men dressed as female nurses in a highly-sexualised and demeaning way is wrong, very outdated and insulting to the profession." Looking at the photo I wonder in what way is it "highly-sexualized" or "demeaning" (possibly demeaning to the people in fancy dress but they've chosen that and didn't have to take part). It probably is outdated...in the same way that carnivals and beauty queens are, but they are still viable fundraisers I believe? I would agree that highly sexualized and demeaning behavior should be considered as a potential reason to refuse donations, however I find it more worrying that someone in a position of power sees that in this case. Can anyone who understands "PC" please explain how this is "highly sexualized" or "demeaning"? If a guy dresses as a nurse it's demeaning to nurses, if they dress as monkeys is that allowed? If they dress as doctors is that allowed or is it sexist as they're all dressed as males. I don't get it, just doesn't make sense to me.
Is this thread about it being bad she said 'no thanks' or that it was good that she stood for to her principles?
This thread seems to be about a person in a responsible position who has been obliged to make a decision, has tried to do what was for the best as they saw it, as has then been sneered at in the usual way.
You know. The same way that responsible Brexiteers made a decision in the referendum, for the good of all. Some ingrates sneered at them, too. None so strange as "folk".
Voters in elections are responsible to nobody, do not have to explain or justify their decisions in any way, cannot be held to account for how they decide to vote in secret, and are entitled to vote foolishly or selfishly if they so choose. By contrast individuals who hold some kind of office or post of responsibility make their decisions publicly, are under obligation not to act foolishly or selfishly, and are held to account by being criticised, sacked, or even prosecuted afterwards. Chalk and cheese.
I can see Ms Ditheridge getting a load of well deserved stick for this from all quarters, then going on the sick citing stress and her victimhood.
Typical Progressive nonsense. "The people in charge have sole responsibility for everything ... I the individual have none and that's how I like it."
So..... If it was a group of women dressed as men would that be sexist and demeaning The money was raised for a particular reason I'm not aware of what it was and they dressed up to raise money for it not sure how that is sexist and demeaning Wards are desperate for equipment When I was last on my ward the microwave blew up and the nurses on the ward were told they would have to buy the replacement ! Does it really matter how the money was raised for goodness sake I think it's ridiculous thinking
Doesn't matter. Same as those that are insulted may not be offended: there are plenty who will happily (or miserably) be offended on their behalf. HTH
