Men -v- Women in the Workplace

[old man emu]

Yet another well-known male has been found guilty in a trial by Media of alleged offensive behaviour having a sexual connotation.

 

No investigation of the allegations, which date the behaviour to a time four years ago, has been completed. No properly constituted tribunal has examined and adjudged the allegations. Yet this man has been forced to stand down from his current workplace, and his employment elsewhere this year has been, at best, postponed.

 

On what basis? The words of several females who, having said nothing at the time of the alleged behaviour, have now jumped on the Weinstein bandwagon. One of these women had the temerity to say "I didn't even know it was sexual harassment." Another said that she spoke up despite the risk of not working "in a musical" again.

 

Four years to realise what some action was? C'mon! What grade of thespian misses a cue by four years?

 

But let these claims, belated though they are, be a danger warning to all men, in all occupations. No male can defend himself against a woman's allegation of misconduct towards her. The System is so heavily weighted towards acceptance of anything a woman says, to the detriment of any counter claim a man says.

 

I strongly support equality in the workplace, especially as the tough physical work has almost been eliminated from it. Yes to equal pay for equal work. But for equal pay, expect equal treatment.

 

Can a man complain about bullying actions by women? Not on your Nelly. Can a man complain about a woman wearing alluring clothing? Not a chance.

 

I wonder what would happen if a man refused to work with women on the basis that working with women left him liable to indefensible complaints from women?

 

 

[facthunter]

A few good points there OME. If you aren't in the water, the shark won't get you True.. On thing occurred to me IF the ladies weren't aware it was sexual harassment at the time, perhaps the fella didn't either. I'm not for taking advantage of anyone . Sexual predators affect boys too.. Some "play up" a bit in a situation quite voluntarily. If they later regret it that may be their right , but a later review must be in context to be fair. You are in the court of popular opinion with this stuff in the Papers. I'm NOT comfortable with that as newspaper owners wish to sell their papers and do it on sensation mostly. with headlines that get your attention. If they coincidently ruin your life I doubt they care a fig. unless someone sues them successfully. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

It's a power thing OME.

 

I don't think it took 4 years to figure out it was sexual misconduct... if the allegations are true, it's pretty damn obvious - I think it was fear of reprisal in the form of losing a hard-fought battle to be in a major musical that was the factor that held the alleged victims back.

 

Let's face it, if it was a lowly stage hand or roadie that molested a cast member, they'd be out on their ar*se before the end of the day. But to point the finger at the main money-spinner (and apparently one of the alleged victims did report the behaviour to the head of the production company) - you run the risk of them covering it up and quietly putting the word about that you're a trouble-maker and shouldn't be in any other shows.

 

One of my mates has a daughter that has worked in the theatre scene. While she hasn't been the subject of any unwanted sexual contact, she said that it's pretty rife in that particular industry.

 

I understand your point - that in this Weinstein-era of finger-pointing, there may be some innocent men falsely accused as it's an opportunity to settle scores. But equally if the allegations ARE true (and multiple unrelated complainants coming forward would weight the balance of probability that way) - then they've had to go through something that no-one should have to suffer in the workplace.

 

As to a man complaining about a woman wearing alluring clothing, what sort of idiot would he be?? "Look but don't touch (unless invited)" is my advice.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Even if invited, don't touch - allegedly some women have been known to change their minds. But then again, if you ARE invited, and decline, some males have had to bear severe (untrue and damaging) reprisals. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned (or rejected).

 

 

[coljones]

Yet another well-known male has been found guilty in a trial by Media of alleged offensive behaviour having a sexual connotation.

No investigation of the allegations, which date the behaviour to a time four years ago, has been completed. No properly constituted tribunal has examined and adjudged the allegations. Yet this man has been forced to stand down from his current workplace, and his employment elsewhere this year has been, at best, postponed.

 

On what basis? The words of several females who, having said nothing at the time of the alleged behaviour, have now jumped on the Weinstein bandwagon. One of these women had the temerity to say "I didn't even know it was sexual harassment." Another said that she spoke up despite the risk of not working "in a musical" again.

 

Four years to realise what some action was? C'mon! What grade of thespian misses a cue by four years?

 

But let these claims, belated though they are, be a danger warning to all men, in all occupations. No male can defend himself against a woman's allegation of misconduct towards her. The System is so heavily weighted towards acceptance of anything a woman says, to the detriment of any counter claim a man says.

 

I strongly support equality in the workplace, especially as the tough physical work has almost been eliminated from it. Yes to equal pay for equal work. But for equal pay, expect equal treatment.

 

Can a man complain about bullying actions by women? Not on your Nelly. Can a man complain about a woman wearing alluring clothing? Not a chance.

 

I wonder what would happen if a man refused to work with women on the basis that working with women left him liable to indefensible complaints from women?

There are quite a few power relationships you might examine and ask if the behaviours are fair and reasonable. The Telegraph invents news but most of the rest see some fire among the smoke. There have been enough convictions recently that would suggest that silence among the victims is self preservation and it is only with an active press and support for the victims is justice, mediocre as it tends to be, is acheived. I hope that justice for the innocents is acheived.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

As with most things in life, there is usually more to things than meets the eye. I probably would have had much the same mindset as the OP on these sorts of things until I was personally involved in a sexual harrasment case. No, you can rest assured, I was not alleged to be the perpetrator - as nice as she is - she isn't my type. Oddly, I was her moral support through the ordeal of the internal investigation.

 

I won't go into great detail, suffice to say there was no actual physical violation other than a push. The woman in question was not of small stature, though not carrying much, if any excess. Let's say she is not one to pick a fight with, which was probably one thing that prevented a more physical issue than it was. Also, this woman was a senior manager in the organisation; probably mid 40's and had experienced a pretty successful career previously (although she was senior where she was, this was her stepping down from a loftier positon at a competing organisation to have less pressure). Everyone who worked for or with her held her in high regard/respect, both professionally and socially. She was not flirtatious and when she had a few, she was loud, but not in anyway indicating any level of promiscuity. To sum up, a self-confident and assured woman who had climbed the career pole and really could pick and choose what she wanted to do.

 

One night, some close work colleagues (myself and her included) convened for a few libations... I was regalling previous work nostalgia with someone I had more or less lost contact who chanced upon our gathering, when I got a tap on my shoulder accompanied with a, "oi! Have a listen to this." She recalled the story she had just told other colleagues of an event that recently happened to her. I won't go into specifics, but if true (and I had no reason to duobt it), it was clearly sexual harassments, desiigned to either earn the perpetrator his gratification or huniliate her in front of her professonal colleagues. When I was wasked by another work colleague what I would do, my immediate response was to report it.

 

Now, this woman is self-assured, successful and her career is pretty well set, yet she was fearful of reporting it. As a man, I could not work out why, but the reality is that she feared reprisals by the perpetrator as well as the damage it could do to her career because of the clique the perpetrator was in. In the end, we were gobsmacked that this thought would cross her mind, but there you have it - it did. We suggested a few reasons why she should report it to have it properly investigated as, given he was prepared to have a go at her, he would certainly be prepared to have a go at one or more of the grads or younger females who may be more easily pressued into simply succumbing. She agreed, and I agreed to be her moral support - so daunting a proposition it was for her.

 

Now, I know the perpetrator - we all did. I did not work directly with him (which is one reason why I was her moral support as it could not affect me professionally). Although he was a fun bloke to have a drink with, he is an aggressive bar steward in every since of the word. He is selfish, has climbed the corporate ladder by stepping on people (and while brilliant technically, has shown his incompetence in applying it to the real world - so his career is actually under threat). His behaviour after a few drinks or other substances towards women in totally unacceptable - even they way he talks about them... Makes the vikings look like SNAGs.. So lesson number one - genuine pereptrators are generally not nice guys and use overbearing/overpowering and fear tactics to wreak their havoc. BTW - even though my manager had never worked in the team of the perpetrator, although I couldn't disclose who it was, it was the first person he named as potential.

 

It's an important point, because, as you could guess, the investigation took its time. The victim had to be heard and so did the alleged perpetrator as well as gathering of wtiness statements, etc. During some of the information gathering sessions she had to attend to provide her side of the story, she was genuinely distressed and it transpired that this was not the first time she had been subjected to harassment - one time I suggested afterwards, if true, may be cause to report to the police - and witnesses (male and female) were provided to corroborate. These sessions were decidedly uncomfortable affairs and after two of them, we retreated to the nearest pub for a couple of glasses of wine just to settle down. I was horrified at the toll it was taking on a person to whom I aspired to in terms of self confidence, assuredness and assertion.

 

The whole investigation lasted a few weeks - maybe 4 - I can't recall. Thankfully, for most of it, the assailant was out of the office anyway. He returned within two weeks of the completion of the investigation - and their desk is not only on the same floor, but in the same banmk of desks. Noone thought to separate them, despite the potential for reprisals and intimidation - not to mentioned the possibility of the risk of them inadvertently being in confined spaces together by themselves for short periods of time (which can be made longer) - i.e. the lifts. So how does one prevent issues that can occur as a result - well, if. like us, we have multiple buildings that have very different business functions and no requirement for anyone to go to another building, then separation is the easist way - otherwise it really has to be standing down (suspension) for the period of time it takes to investigate the allegations. This applies to any sort of allegation around harassment, bullying, etc whether it is male to male, male to female, female to male or female to female..

 

It's a difficult and vexiong question that is utlimately a balance between the rights of the accused and accuser. The key is to be able to quickly get any investigation done so that the truth can be established as quicjly aas possible and everyone can move on.

 

Also note, the Black Cab rapist is looking like being released. At the time, one of the women who reported it was told by police that "black cab drivers don't do that sort of thing!"

 

Of course, there are situations that go theother way - in recent weeks, there have been two high profile rape cases thrown out as the Met police have withheld vital evidence that would have shown the accused innocence.

 

 

[facthunter]

Your last sentence shows the reason why we should be very slow to judge by media. I don't condone the way some men deal with, regard, talk to/ about some women. Abuse of a power relationship is a serious matter and completely unacceptable.. Even women abuse women in such relationships.

 

. It happens and probably will continue to. Whistleblowers are not welcome, more than ever, so the perpetrators get away with it.

 

When some women make the statement "all men are rapists" I'm not impressed either with that or the behaviour of many men who provoke such comment. Blokes behaving badly don't do a service to blokes behaving properly. Nev

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I agree that there is dramatsation/sensationalism and the press do not help to educate in this regard. After that great waffle, the point is that these cases, whether perpertrated by men/women on men/women (or children) are often complex and it is difficult to not provide some degree of separation betweent he accused and accuser. Unfortunately, the press dumb things down to sell papers and internet pages to simpletons (be desire rather than design mostly).

 

The last sentence is about the miscarriage of justice that stops the real facts coming out. This is not the press fault, though.

 

I found it unbelievable the MET woudl do such a thing. There were high profile cases, I think in the 70s that highlighted such miscarriages of justice (Guilford 4, Birmingham 6 or the other way around) that led to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act designed to mitigate such travesties of justice.

 

I also find unbelievable the direction to police, which was recently reversed, that they believe without establishng the facts, females reporting domestic violence and abuse agianst their husbands. Only recently has that advice been changed to ensure that they are protected while the investigation searches for the truth.

 

This, IMHO, is caused by overtly political correctness and over-lobbying (I do not use the term lefites as I identify with being left of centre, and there is no way I, or others I know share my political views would condone such political expediency over justice).

 

[yet another edit] Another political expediency I abhor is Lord Justice Auld's reform that allows the past convictions of an accused to be introduced, only at the direction of the judge, to help determine guilt. I cannot find any justification for this; in fact, to my mind, it seals the verdict as the judge has deemed it necessary to intervene to ensure a guilty verdict. I have heard jurors being quoted as saying if they knew the accused did it before, they would have found them guilty - despite not being able to be shown to be guilty on the facts. History is littered with overturned convictions based on strong circumstantial evidence. As I understand, Victoria has introduced something similar. We should focus on providing the resources and training to police and prosecutors as well as overhauling dated evidence lawts rather than use some band-aid approach that may cause inncoent people to be locked up.

 

I agree with the abolition of the double jeapoardy rule when there is new evidence. One of his better reforms.

 

[/edit]

 

 

[old man emu]

Interesting tale, Jerry.

 

How PC it was to follow protocols to deal with this " aggressive bar steward ".

 

Where were the knights in shining armour? Everyone knew "He is selfish, has climbed the corporate ladder by stepping on people . His behaviour after a few drinks or other substances towards women in totally unacceptable". Why didn't any blokes front him and tell him what he really was, and then send him to Coventry?

 

Sometimes the Law of Civilization has to be abandoned in favour of the Law of the Jungle. He may have been "brilliant technically", which is fine in a civilised situation, but mentality he is a troglodite. Treat him as he really is.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Well, for "brevity", I did not include all facts.. However, since you ask (take note, I have has some Wolfie tonight):

 

1. During the event in particular (I wasn't there), other male colleagues did in fact intervene to the point that they asked the victim if she wanted them to do anything; it calmed down for a while but he followed her after she left.

 

2. Large corporate culture rewards talkers rather than doers and when mgt realises they have taken on a dud, they promote them out to another cost centre to get rid of them (EU employment laws are stifling - ask Mr. Perry).

 

3. Although I was a lower "rank" than the perpetrator, I had the guts to tell him to his face he is the receptacle of one's posterior and had not yet delviered anything tangible (one of my many career limiting discussions which is why I prefer to be self employed).

 

4. I was offered a few programs to manage in a restructuring, one of which included the project he was running, which was a complete failure. I quipped that I would take it on only if one of my annual review criteria was to exit him without the golden handshake. The response from the senior exec was along the lines of how the hell did he even get to where he is and why is he still employed by us. Again, EU employment laws, which assume all employees ar beyond reproach don't help.

 

 

[facthunter]

I recall the senior staff member giving at the opening to each Executive meeting always producing a couple of really crude jokes each time to set the "mood" of the meeting . A sort of condensed "bonding" male thing.. Disgusting actually. Have we moved on?. I don't know. I hope women CEOs don't feel they have to emulate that but their dirty jokes are even worse in some cases, amongst their own group, (secret women's business). Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

As I alluded to, sometimes civilized behaviour sometimes has to take a step back in order to deal with uncivilized behaviour. Are we too concerned with the "rights" of perpetrators? Male apes will fight to protect breeding females. Is PC such a director of our lives that following protocols supersedes summary justice?

 

However, once again we have drifted off topic. My point is: "Have so skewed our pursuit of Justice in male/female interactions that the word of a woman is worth the word of two men?" Are we bound to believe every claim of a woman and dismiss a man's counter claim? Don't forget that the Oldest Profession is predominantly practised by females, and its variants are taught to them from birth.

 

 

[robinsm]

I repeat my mantra....Who stands to gain the money...??? Yes it is wrong, but 4 years, please....lets jump on the bandwagon...money. Sexual or any other type of harrassment is never acceptable, albeit male to female or female to male (or to those who care....one gender neutral to another gender neutral...lol).

 

 

[old man emu]

[Marty_d]

"Have so skewed our pursuit of Justice in male/female interactions that the word of a woman is worth the word of two men?"

In the current allegations you mention, it's the word of 3 women against one man.

 

Anyway it's not only women vs men... same thing happened with Kevin Spacey, but his alleged sexual misconduct was aimed at younger men (and boy in the case of one complaint). It's not about gender, it's about a power imbalance.

 

 

[coljones]

As I alluded to, sometimes civilized behaviour sometimes has to take a step back in order to deal with uncivilized behaviour. Are we too concerned with the "rights" of perpetrators? Male apes will fight to protect breeding females. Is PC such a director of our lives that following protocols supersedes summary justice?

However, once again we have drifted off topic. My point is: "Have so skewed our pursuit of Justice in male/female interactions that the word of a woman is worth the word of two men?" Are we bound to believe every claim of a woman and dismiss a man's counter claim? Don't forget that the Oldest Profession is predominantly practised by females, and its variants are taught to them from birth.

There are all sorts of bias in evidence. Your years as a cop should have shown you that. They used to call it verballing in the old days and very few women used to endulge.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

As I alluded to, sometimes civilized behaviour sometimes has to take a step back in order to deal with uncivilized behaviour. Are we too concerned with the "rights" of perpetrators? Male apes will fight to protect breeding females. Is PC such a director of our lives that following protocols supersedes summary justice?

Maybe, but it maybe that fairness and due process has been taken to extremes by self-centred, pocket lining members of the profressions that profit from these situations. However, I would personaly fear summary justice for all but very minor issues where a miscarriage will have no effect whatsoever on my life. As in the collapsed rape tirals of late and many other isntances of miscarriages of justice, it has been the desire of some to see sumamry justice dispensed that has led to such miscarriages. Ironically, the day of my exam on the English Legal System many years ago, of which I was not terrily well prepared, I desperately searched a daily newspaper for any reports of a ase I could use to support or rebuke the jury system (lecturers said using recent examples would earn more points). That day, there was a report where the police, expert witnesses and even the defence counsel believed the accused had stolen some money from his employer based on CCTV footage where the cash was somewhat obscured and when the accused left, not apparently visible. Wasn't that much money (though for some reason, went to the crown court rather than magistrates) and a simple theft, so no big deal, unless you are the one that is falsely accused and summary justice in the face of evidence is dispensed. However, in this case, the case was halted aburptly because a juror, on examining the CCTV footage wondered what all the fuss was about as the cash was still visible although a little more obscured as it appears the accused knocked it as he got up.

 

I understand that you could point to a litany of cases where a clear perpertrator got wawy with whatever it was, and probabaly henous, based on some legal technicality or failure to fiollow some redudant due process that has no effect on the propriety or integrity of the evidence, case, etc. I agree there has to be a mechanism to deal with these cases, but dispensation of summary justice is a politicial or economic expediency and shoudl be reserved for minor travesties - not something such as sexual harassment allegations that could destory someone's career.

 

However, once again we have drifted off topic. My point is: "Have so skewed our pursuit of Justice in male/female interactions that the word of a woman is worth the word of two men?" Are we bound to believe every claim of a woman and dismiss a man's counter claim? Don't forget that the Oldest Profession is predominantly practised by females, and its variants are taught to them from birth.

I don't think we had drifted off topic as I read the OP as basically saying why, at the slightest accusation of harassment by a woman, is a man judged and metaphorically executed by the press. I was making the point that where there is an accusation, the nature of the alleged infraction is such that it is untenable for the accused and accuser to be working together pending an investigation. One can't dismiss an accusation because it originated from a woman, can they? Also, the high profile press cases are usually restricted to those where the alleged assailant is a public or some other way high-profile figure (such as CEO of TV stations, etc). How many do we not read about. And why, in the case of McLaughlan (which is the case I assume the OP refers to) does it call into doubt his future engagements - well, it's sowbiz and getting replacement actors of suitable quality and stature to attract the crowds is difficult enough and then the time required to get them into character can be quite long at times. I don't think we have skewed the justice system on that basis - I think what they have done over here where they had instructed police and effectively the legal system to believe accuser (i.e. dispense the summary justice) over the accuser and not properly investigate the allegation to get to the truth is where things went to political expediency. Easier to get a conviction and the public want their convictions.

 

 

[octave]

Of course, people should be given the presumption that they are telling the truth. Although of course the testomony of 3 or 4 women obviously less belivable than 1 man. I do know a liittle about this. I guess the stage hands or liers too

 

 

[octave]

The notion that these women are making this up seems not very likely to me yes SOME of these events happened 4 years ago. Of course a relatively junior member of a prodiction is going to be very wary of bringing down the big drawcard of this musical production and ruining one's own career, Consider how long ago somw of the church abuse victims gavre taken to talk about their experiences. Is there any evidence tharr these women gave colluded to concoct these stories? I spent the first 12 of my working life in the military and I have many disgusting stories, not about ordinary men but the worst specmens that appear in small numbers. Perhaps these women thought quite rightly that people would think that they were sluts or gpld diggers. Just give me one poece of evidence that these women are seeking money. As a man I don not thonk that these allegations are in any wau aomed at me. Iam a decent man and I work mostley with females and I have norhing to fear re allegations. Do you dismiss ALL allegations or just these one. Are there any allegations that can be tajen seriously or should we just dismiss all of the

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Apart from the London Met's directions where they started not believing the accuser and then believing the accuser and now told to investigate to find the truth, I don't think it is guilty until proven innocent - although I agree that once an accused's name is brandished about in headline news, regardless of the outcome of the case, their reputation is pretty well done - especially not helped when pollies and public figures seem to draw conclusions of guilt before due process and investigations/trials are complete. I still maintain though, that in the face of such allegations, where the nature of the role cannot provide separation between accuser and accused or a potential risk to people around the accuser while waiting to determine the facts, or where there is a potential conflict of interest, then the accused has to be suspended (like they do to police officers pending some misconduct allegation).

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

To me, they're all in their prime!

 

 

[old man emu]

They are all past their prime because a lot of these allegations are years old.

 

What "fair comment" does the Media make when claims are shown to be groundless? Has anyone seen the front page story or video clip telling us that the allegations against Sir Cliff Richards were groundless?

 

It once was taken that "early complaint" of rape (and I suppose any 'crime against the person') was circumstantial evidence of the truth of the allegation. That's why these complaints of things which happened years ago should be heeded with caution.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Mate, I agree that the sensationalisation of such cases by the press, in the eyes of the public, condem the accused whether the allegations have ground or not. My personal belief is that, in the absence of an enforceable industry code of conduct, there should be legistaltion that either bans reporting until the facts are established, or preveents the sensationalism that publicly lynches the accused before the complain has been received by the appropriate authorities.

 

 

[facthunter]

The press love this sort of stuff. It sells papers SEX SEX, gets everybody's attention. Polarises opinions Everyone has a take on it.. In the end the Courts should decide or the individuals reconcile. Why are newspapers/ opinion shaping organisations owned by rich people. Because they then have power and INFLUENCE. Power of persuasion...Gives you lot's of opportunity to get things done YOUR WAY.. Its not there to keep you, ( the average person) informed. It's the for the gatekeeper to exaggerate , distort, knowingly lie about or not mention.. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

Recent events in OZ have the politicians and police lining up the media to be present during a raid of a very dubious nature. In other cases the politicians and police refuse to listen and it is only through the media does an action get investigated.