'Honey Trap' : Guilty By Association
Analysing the pitfalls of Male fraternal 'Solidarity' amidst British Westminister 'Honey Trap' scandal.
Art imitates life
In 2014 blockbuster ‘The Riot Club’, Scherfig explores the themes of accountability, toxic masculinity, moral decay, privilege and class as he retells an all too familiar story, taking inspiration from real-life events that were said to have occurred decades ago amongst some of the most powerful in Britain – Members of our own conservative party. Specifically, in a scene towards the end of the film following the clubs violent assault of a pub and restaurant owner, the sentiment of ‘guilty by association’ reveals itself, as character Allister Ryle takes centre stage and articulates this principle, drawing a parallel between their privilege and the consequences of their actions. In his speech, Allister invokes the notion that their affiliation with the Riot Club implicates each member in the violent act perpetrated against the pub owner, where their shared bond and participation in the club bind them together in culpability, regardless of individual involvement in the assault itself. Here we are given a sober reminder of the consequences of privilege and entitlement. But in addition to providing us with a class-related analysis, the scene lays bare the insidious nature of complicity that has been well documented as existing within male friendship groups. We of course must question the toxicity of peer pressure here, with the implication being that those within the club might feel scared about the consequences of forsaking their fellow members.
Even still, I can’t seem to shake the feeling that this was about more than just fear. A warped sense of loyalty to fellow brethren is often exhibited in instances like these. Other cultural references include the normalisation of ‘locker room talk’ or the culture of complicity fostered in older, traditional American fraternities which speak to the same prioritisation of loyalty over morality. After all, there will always be that ‘loose cannon’ present amongst the group, who’s need for self-preservation might outweigh his fear. Subsequently, loyalty has always proven itself fickle in times like these, and in the event that one might ‘go down’ for his reprimandable behaviour, we can bet good money that the rest will go down with him.
Hive Minded
In a recent scandal in British politics, senior Conservative MP William Wragg has confessed to leaking personal phone numbers of colleagues after being manipulated by an individual he encountered on the dating app Grindr. Admitting his remorse to The Times, Wragg disclosed that he exchanged numbers with the person, who subsequently harassed him for more contacts. This revelation comes in the wake of a phishing scandal wherein MPs, staffers, and journalists in Westminster received enticing WhatsApp messages, escalating to explicit images in some instances. While Wragg claims not all the targeted individuals were known to him, at least 13 men reported receiving messages. The disclosure by Wragg coincided with revelations of a police investigation into malicious communications following a complaint from a serving MP. The Parliamentary Security Department, in collaboration with government partners, is actively analysing the messages to assess ‘security risks’. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle urged affected individuals to report such incidents, underscoring Parliament's commitment to cybersecurity measures and providing support to those affected.
I find interesting the emphasis on cyber security here. I’m sat here asking myself whether or not the focus on ‘security risks’ is a camouflage for the embarrassment felt by conservative MP’s or whether it’s a deflection from behaviour unbecoming of British politicians. I’m willing to assume it’s the latter, but what’s almost laughable to me is the misunderstanding of the British public by the British government. People love a good scandal, and people especially love to laugh at a good scandal. But more importantly, the unfavourable view of British politicians by their constituents washes over any concerns for the safety and security of those in parliament. In fact, most of us would rather see their downturn and exposure of a certain hypocrisy rather than seeing their reputations protected, with the slate wiped squeaky clean. We’d sooner thank the so-called ‘Russian spy’ for his public service, than cry out against a foreign security breach.
Too common for concern?
I was first made aware of the scandal following a video I’d seen from British content creator Isabel (aka ‘dumbbirchtree’), who rightfully questioned the lack of rage at what’s happened. “Have we fallen so far that this isn’t a top story?!”
she says, and I’ve been wondering the same thing. Aside from the fact that powerful, privileged men (specifically those who are white) often escape accountability, I had theories about other reasons as to why this happens.
For citizens living in most western nations, we’ve come to accept the corruption present within our own governments, which of course is entirely abnormal (or should be). I for one haven’t seen much coverage of this at all. Of course, there’s a very good chance that this is entirely intentional because if you emphasise the immorality of British leaders, then the general public may question their authority, and proceed to question the reliability of their voices when they speak. But nonetheless, the absence of criticism signifies a normalisation of governmental distrust. As a result, we’ve also developed feelings of powerlessness, because those with a sketchy past always seem to find their hands on social and economic capital.
What women already knew
Analysing the co-dependent and toxic culture found within male spaces through the lens of feminism, we can see more clearly why this scenario seems to continuously repeat itself. I’ve already mentioned how feminist arguments highlight how male friend groups, entrenched in patriarchal structures, often prioritize loyalty to each other over holding each other accountable for harmful actions, perpetuating a culture of silence and complicity, but there is more to be said here.
In "The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love," Bell Hooks reflects the ways in which men are socialized to prioritize their own interests and the interests of their male peers above all else. She argues that this loyalty stems from societal expectations of male solidarity and dominance, discouraging men from challenging each other's behaviours or holding each other accountable for harmful actions towards women, marginalized groups, or even within the group itself. But further than this, the reluctance of men to call out the problematic behaviours of other men can be attributed the need for validation using friendships as a facilitating tool. Last April, I wrote an article about this issue in the context of dating ‘The Male Pursuit of Male Validation’, where I outlined the ways in which the male gaze affects both women and men, urging men to reflect on its influence.
Outside the realms of dating however, the pursuit of male validation might be seen as a need to affirm masculinity in men, where the adoption of toxic values is portrayed as being central in the discussion of what it means to be a man. As a result, the notion of group accountability, responsibility and loyalty ultimately serves an effort against ostracization from male dominated spaces.
Nevertheless, It’s entirely possible to understand one of causes for this kind of behaviour and recognise that perpetuating toxicity questions one’s ability to be absolved from behaviour they might feel ‘pressured’ into. A very common, damaging perspective says that even well-intentioned men may struggle to speak out against injustices or engage in meaningful conversations about masculinity and gender equality within their friend groups. But I’ll be entirely honest in saying I don’t feel bad for these ‘lesser players’. After all, there are those that choose to remove themselves from circles which actively perpetuate immoral, indecent, and violent behaviour. In William Wragg’s case, his decision to throw his fellow club members under the bus was not well intentioned, as to expose secrecy and questionable behaviour, but to cast everyone under his same shadow. He’s no hero. The shock of watching a man betray other men instead of continuing to betray the women around him mustn’t be confused with admiration of his actions. Even if this is unlikely in this case specifically, we’ve simply become far too used to the cowardice often born out of a toxic fraternity.
I also find the term ‘Honey Trap’ to be extremely revealing as it is abhorrent. First and foremost, the metaphor helps to perpetuate harmful stereotypes about women for being inherently deceptive and manipulative, with men simply falling victim to their attractiveness out of some sort of primitive helplessness. But between blaming women for their cunning tactics, or blaming other ‘better intentioned’ men for feeling pressurised into engaging in questionable behaviours, I wonder if this all comes down to an effort to avoid taking responsibility. As a matter of fact, there’s no need to wonder, because it literally does all come down to an effort to avoid taking responsibility.
So as far as things go with Wragg and his band of sexually deviant brothers, I can only hope they’re held accountable by public, sending a message there there is no safety to be found in mutually assured destruction. But it appears my wishes are being granted! As MP’s continue to be exposed back to back, rumour has it that one by one they’re dropping like flies,
Or bees.
…
Asisa
Sources
https://www.politico.eu/article/westminster-honey-trap-scandal-uk-tory-mp-admits-sharing-numbers/ Politico - Westminster ‘honey trap’ sexting scandal
So so good, made an account just to comment 🤣
Now I need to watch the movie🤭