[Closed] Sexual harrassment - a different perspective

What is there to reconcile?

I suspect he meant the desire for a man to be ‘direct’ (for example asking for a massage) versus the sense of grievance and harassment experienced when a man you have no interest in does this. I think you can be direct but still polite (they aren’t mutually exclusive terms), and of course, being direct to a stranger is entirely different to being direct with someone on say a second, third or subsequent date.

The most challenge situation I ever found myself in was a woman who was into being slapped about. That was right out of my comfort zone and I thought she was joking when she asked me to do it right at the critical moment. It was when she slapped me in frustration and I refused that I knew things were pretty serious.

I've got say I'm enjoying watching and hearing men getting confused, and questioning their assumptions over the last few weeks. 😆

"what? You mean it's not ok to randomly touch someone even if I don't know them?"

If you're on a date, it's probs ok to bit touchy feely and flirty, if it's in an office, probs not, Simply really. I don't mind being touched by people when we're more or less equal, there's a bloke on a make up stand in a shop I go to regularly and he's the most touchy person in the world, but neither of us has "power" so it's not really a problem. If my boss did the same it would be super-creepy.

True the Scots get away with all kinds of anti-English comments but any hint of the other way round and down comes the hammer inappropriately

Like a dog with a bone 😆

I've got say I'm enjoying watching and hearing men getting confused, and questioning their assumptions over the last few weeks. 

emsz - Member

I've got say I'm enjoying watching and hearing men getting confused, and questioning their assumptions over the last few weeks.

I agree. Its been entertaining watching them try to explain stuff away that is inexcusable. Its nice to see them running scared

I suspect he meant the desire for a man to be ‘direct’ (for example asking for a massage) versus the sense of grievance and harassment experienced when a man you have no interest in does this. I think you can be direct but still polite (they aren’t mutually exclusive terms), and of course, being direct to a stranger is entirely different to being direct with someone on say a second, third or subsequent date.

The comment was about an alleged rapist and serial abuser vs a partner who was "over sensitive", and suggesting that there was a need to "reconcile" different opinions on these very different cases. Again, what is there to reconcile?

"what? You mean it's not ok to randomly touch someone even if I don't know them?"

We're not talking about walking up to a person and touching them in an unwanted sexual manner though emsz. That's obviously bang out of order. I think we all understand that.

We're talking about where the line is.

Is workmate massage okay as per the OP? (My wife thinks so) Is reassuring a distressed colleague okay? (many said yes) Is being alone with a colleague at a cafe/pub okay? (hh45 says no) Is shaking hands okay? (chewkw says no)

Soon we will all need to wear personalised t-shirts with checkboxes for what is and isn't ok.

some one earlier in the thread said behave around women like you would behave around other men.

that's pretty much it really.

chewkw's weird though 😆

some one earlier in the thread said behave around women like you would behave around other men.

A good rule. But I have no problem touching male colleagues if the situation fits. Or being alone in a pub with them.

And TJs actions in the OP would have been unlikely to cause any issue with a male colleague.

Soon we will all need to wear personalised t-shirts with checkboxes for what is and isn't ok.

I liked the recent episode of The Orville where everyone wears approval badges that show the number of Like/Dislike votes they had.

A nice commentary on trial by social media.

Emsz - I wish that was true, but not a chance especially if you work for a US firm. I have seen two bosses fined (big £££) and one lady win a multi $m payout in a trumped up case, so I would never offer that advice to a male work colleague.

Given that law is based in how your actions are perceived there is no room for error. Never, ever touch a female employee. Just don't and be very, very careful with what you say, especially when guving complements. Simply not worth the risk.

Again, what is there to reconcile?

The desire for a dominant alpha male and the behaviour usually associated with it. It's really not hard to grasp.

I touched my female employees twice most days, cheek to cheek. Find ladies touching my arm or thigh if I'm paying less tha 100% attention to what they're saying (though I definitely wouldn't touch their thigh however distracted they seemed). I got a friendly bear hug on parting from a man I'd only met a day before last week (British and Irish nationality, entertainment business).

There are cultural normes wherever you go; corporate cultures, business sector cultures, national and regional cultures, religious cultures. Observe what the normes are, learn what the limits are, stick well within them and you'll do fine. If you have to ask yourself "should I? Because others don't", the answer is probably "better not".

The world is still sexist, some sexist things are still acceptable in some places, law even if you go to some countries. Do any of the males on here barge through doors in front of women? When serving food or drink to colleagues, who do you serve first? Would you comment if a male colleague/employee turned up in a tailleur, skirt and high heels?

Getting it right is a social skill that you learn and have to constantly revise. Deviate from the norme at your peril.

Edit: and when you get in a car with a member of the opposite sex, who drives? Next time you drive anywhere observe who is in the driver's seat of on-coming cars if there are a male and female in the front seats. Edit two: now make the same obervation after 23:00 on a Saturday night.

I don't hold doors open for women. Working in a female dominated world I would never get thru a door if I did.

There are cultural normes wherever you go; corporate cultures, business sector cultures, national and regional cultures, religious cultures. Observe what the normes are, learn what the limits are, stick well within them and you'll do fine.

I was in Sweden on business 2 weeks ago and had lots of hugs from colleagues old and new, male and female. I like hugs and was happy with it, but a couple of people back home in the UK said it sounded awful.

But do you go through doors before your wife, TJ?

and when you get in a car with a member of the opposite sex, who drives

So if your boss repeatedly touched your knee in meetings, called you babe in the office, casually remarked as you left the pub at the same time 'do you think we'll cause some gossip, what action would you take?

I know someone this has happened to recently and they've shrugged it off without thinking much of it.

Edukator - Reformed Troll

But do you go through doors before your wife, TJ?

Yes - if I reach the door first. I really am a true believe in equality and do my very best to treat people as people not men and women. Mrs TJ would think I had gone bonkers if I opened doors for her

If I'm walking with someone and we get to a door I hold it open for them. Gender is irrelevant. It's just good manners.

Edit: plus if it's the door to the pub, it means they'll be first at the bar and have to get the first round in.

I used to get a lift home with my boss at least once a week (as they stayed near me) and I often ended up in the pub or going back to theirs for a few drinks or even dinner.

He never called me "babe" though 🙁

I suspect the same actions with a female boss may have caused issues.

So who drove most on yur last holiday journey, Junkyard? You or your female companion (I seem to remember you having one, apologises if this doesn't apply). Most couples are insured to drive each others' cars. Here any driver can drive any insured car with the owners permission.

Back when I lived in the UK I don't remember any wife, girlfriend or female colleague ever driving unless the male was too drunk, ill or exhausted to steer.

Have you ever offered a male colleague a shoulder massage, TJ? And was the offer accepted?

Every picture of you and your good lady on a tandem has you up front. Who fixed the last puncture?

Have you ever offered a male colleague a shoulder massage, TJ? And was the offer accepted?

Edit: plus if it's the door to the pub, it means they'll be first at the bar and have to get the first round in.

Back when I lived in the UK I don't remember any wife, girlfriend or female colleague ever driving unless the male was too drunk, ill or exhausted to steer.

We quite often do long car journeys as the various grandparents are all several hours away. I drive some, mrs drives some, sometimes we split the journey.

She always drove at the start of our relationship as I didn't learn till after we were married.

Have you ever offered a male colleague a shoulder massage, TJ? And was the offer accepted?

[img] [/img]

Gender is irrelevant. It's just good manners

Well said sir and how very apt

Ed, the same thought about bike positions must have been going through many minds 😉

Edukator - Reformed Troll

Have you ever offered a male colleague a shoulder massage, TJ? And was the offer accepted?

Yes and yes. done it loads for folk

Every picture of you and your good lady on a tandem has you up front.

Who fixed the last puncture?

So who drove most on yur last holiday journey, Junkyard? You or your female companion

In general we both tend to drive our own car unless long trips where we split the driving.FWIW I think your point is probably true for more couples* than it false its just that I/we are one of the false one.

* all the ones I know the answer for the man does most of the driving.

The desire for a dominant alpha male and the behaviour usually associated with it. It's really not hard to grasp

An alpha male is not the same thing as a sexual predator or a rapist. Suggesting there is a need to reconcile disgust at Weinstein with the desire for a "dominant partner" is just trying to normalise abuse.

We both have our strengths and weaknesses and a like a good partnership complement each other

This is where the whole sexism lark started. And roles were often defined by strength, speed and dexterity with the female jobs being considered socially inferior (unless you go back to the stone age when women wore the trowsers or whatever women wore back then). The social order was turned over when women were found to be better at more business critical things than men. Except it wqasn't turned over because men still get paid more for doing the same job and women still get discrimated against for promotion (I know there are exceptions to prove the rule).

Our household is unusual in that Madame makes the money but totally normal in that I fix the punctures unless she's out on the own - and then she flags down the first male cyclist to pass. We blame our sexist roles on our parents and the school system, and every book, film, TV show, record, work place, club, social activity, sport... we've ever come into contact with.

I've seen one tandem couple with the lady up front, he was nearly blind. Tandems are built bigger up front, why? Logically you'd put the bigger person behind so they could get a better view - the big strong bloke goes on the back on race tandems for two blokes. Recumbent tandem trikes are so easy to ride it doesn't matter who is up front - but it's invariably the male.

Mrs TJ can fix punctures and does if she is out on the bike on her own. Its just I am quicker and have stronger hands to get the tyres on.

We really do live as a partnership of equals

Edit - our strengths and weaknesses are not the typical sex roles tho.

I bet she is a good listener 😉

An alpha male is not the same thing as a sexual predator or a rapist. Suggesting there is a need to reconcile disgust at Weinstein with the desire for a "dominant partner" is just trying to normalise abuse.

Well the person who posted that statement originally almost certainly wasn't conflating those two things and neither was I; I was just trying to explain what is pretty obvious to most people which is that social dominance is something that women tend to look for in a partner and men tend to use as a way of exerting power in these types of problematic situations such as we are witnessing now. Maybe Weinstein was a poor example because he's been accused of rape, but there is some research to suggest a relationship between men with high social status and their propensity to commit these acts.

It's also interesting to note that not one of these socially dominant men in positions of power are single; they're all married or have long terms partners. That's interesting don't you think?

The social order was turned over when women were found to be better at more business critical things than men.

tjagain - Member
I don't hold doors open for women. Working in a female dominated world I would never get thru a door if I did.

Except it wqasn't turned over because men still get paid more for doing the same job

Sorry but this is just not factually true. Like for like there is little difference and where one exists, it's actually the woman that gets paid more.

Yes, there is a difference between all men and all women but that's a different issue.

https://hbr.org/2016/02/study-firms-with-more-women-in-the-c-suite-are-more-profitable

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/oct/04/bbc-gender-pay-gap-male-staff-earn-9-more-than-female-colleagues

Sorry but this is just not factually true.

I bet there is one survey that shows what you say but we all know men get paid more both as an average and within sectors

One only needs to look at the BBC wages as the most recent example.

Geetee - unfortunately it is true.

Slight correction, the gap is well within the margin of error at 1.6%. Some age demongraphics, those between 20 and 30, do have women earning more than men but this is a general figure not a like for like figure. The disparity emerges after about 30 usually when children come along.

Research debunking the idea that men are paid more for the same work is here:

[url= https://www.aesc.org/insights/thought-leadership/diversity-inclusion/korn-ferry-hay-group-real-gap-fixing-gender-pay ]Korn Ferry research paper[/url]

BBC research was not like for like and not remotely representative.

The earnings gap exists, just not as is suggested.

When we compare pay for men and women—first by job level; then by job level and company; and finally by job level, company, and function—the[b] “gap” gets smaller and smaller until it all but disappears[/b]; in other words, a man and a woman doing the same job, in the same function and company,[b] get paid almost exactly the same[/b].

My bold

so even that shows it exists

You really are clutching at straw here as your own link refutes your position

Geetee - sorry dude you are speaking utter nonsense on this one and you really should know it

9% according to Le Monde on the bassis of same job, same hours.

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2016/11/08/a-meme-emploi-meme-temps-de-travail-l-ecart-de-salaire-entre-hommes-et-femmes-est-d-environ-9_5027455_3224.html

In this report, we answer three questions:
1. What’s the reality of the pay gap, and
why should we try to close it?
2. What caused this pay disparity, and why does it still exist?
3. How can organizations, line managers, and
women level the playing field?

AESC.ORG "https://www.aesc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents-2015/KFHGGenderPayGapMay2016.pdf"

full report is here an there is no explanation [ though I skimmed to be fair] of their methodology they use for manipulating the raw data to make the comaprisons that reduce the % rate.

1.6% isn't enough of a gap to prove anything; it's within the margin of error.

The earning disparity is far more significant that a superficial 'let's pay women less for the same job' trope. It reflects more complex and nuanced issues that do need to be talked about and resolved. I'm not saying otherwise.

But the data on a like for like, or more accurately within the exact same role, just does not show there to be a problem.

Perhaps you were thinking of like work rather than the same role?

For years we’ve read bold headlines about the gender pay gap, reporting that around the world men are paid an average of 20% more than women. Our global research confirms this gap but also shows that when compared “like for like”, the gender pay gap reduces to 1.6%.

Put simply a man and a woman doing the same job in the same function and company, get paid almost exactly the same. But one thing remains true: as a demographic group, women get paid less than men. It’s time for a new approach. It’s time to see things differently.

So you cherry pick one paper GT, I can cherry pick another:

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/mass-general-harvard-study-shows-big-pay-gaps-between-female-male-doctors

ONS figures here clearly show the following:

22-29 0.8
30-39 1.5
40-49 13.4

This is by age and the decimal figure is the ratio between men and women's earnings for full time employees across all industries in 2016.

The gap only emerges in the age range of 40-49. It is insignificant before that and the year before (2015) 22-29 year old women were earning more than men.

As I said, in the exact same role there is no gap and between 20 and 40, irrespective of industry, there is no gap.

The gap emerges after 40. That should tell us something. Again these are ONS figures.

This was the same data for 2015:

22-29 -0.8
30-39 0.6
40-49 12.4

Again same pattern. Indeed, if you go back a few more years, the pattern that men earn less than women in their early careers is even more marked:

22-29 -1.8 -2.4 -3.0 -0.7
30-39 2.7 2.5 0.7 1.0
40-49 16.1 16.9 15.4 15.7

So how do you explain that?

If you want to look at the ONS data, it's right here:

[url= https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/adhocs/006411annualsurveyofhoursandearningsasheestimatesofthegenderpaygapformediangrosshourlyearningsexcludingovertimebyageukapril2015to2016 ]ONS data for gender pay gap[/url]

So how do you explain that?

Sex discrimination against women. There is no other plausible answer. You have just proven what you deny, GT, which ever way you look at your number the total differnce come out at over 4% and I'm sure the difference over 49 is even greater thus giving an overal differenc of 9%, not 1.6%

How did this get to pay discrimination against women ?
There isn't even a tenuous link between this and the title of the thread ..

How did this get to pay discrimination against women ?
There isn't even a tenuous link between this and the title of the thread ..

Look at who is posting. Thread titles don’t matter...

KCR, there is a strong link between alpha males and rape.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201105/alpha-males-and-sexual-abuse-women

.6% isn't enough of a gap to prove anything; it's within the margin of error.

Your views on sex and gender are at odds with reality, your own data you cite TWICE and are as someone said earlier today nuts. I will feed your delusion no more as your are way past he rational realm. I wish you the best of luck in getting closure but lying to yourself is not going to be helpful IMHO

Considering how easy statistical significance is to deduce, I'm not sure GeeTee would make that up.

To be honest, he has a point in that the ONS data when broken down provides a more interesting nuanced picture than the 9 percent figure does.

I bet Adam Sandler's getting paid a shitload.

It seems like people are trying to describe an algorythm for how to behave around members of the opposite sex

Judgement
noun
the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.

Use it.

Also - in defence of the OPs manager, the fact that she didn't raise it with you directly might indicate that she didn't give it too much credence, or that maybe the lady in question specifically told her that she didn't want it taken any further?

A customer of mine once slagged me off to my boss, made all sorts of outrageous accusations (nothing related to sexual harrassment obvs - I'm not a perv). I knew they'd had a conversation, so I asked for feedback. My boss refused to share the feedback because she said she knew it wasn't true, and hearing it would just upset/annoy me. Chatting to my wife - a similar thing has happened to her in the past as well.

I guess only you will know if that could plausibly be the case here

Weak manager. She ( the manager) did tell me about it a year later as an aside in another conversation. She told me about it as if it had happened

To be honest, he has a point in that the ONS data when broken down provides a more interesting nuanced picture than the 9 percent figure does.

Exactly, and if we want to ensure that there is equality of opportunity above the age of 40 we need to understand the dynamic that drives that pattern. It’s not simply about all em-lovers paying women less than men in like for like rolls. Why aren’t more women taking higher paid jobs later in their career; is that about discrimination and if so why does it only happen at the age of 40 and not before; is it about choice; if it is, why do women make that choice and is it genuinely done freely or is there an element of social coercion involved?

These are important questions we need to ask and it’s almost certainly not as simple as jus directt discrimination, indirect and social pressures will also play a part.

As a husband who has done precisely the this I’m a strong advocate for an equal number of men taking a backseat in their career development to help balance the demands of child rearing in order that their partners can pursue their own careers. For some reason though that doesn’t happen above 40, at least not in significant numbers.

batfink: how does using judgement help?
As discussed, lots of people have [i]very[/i] different boundaries.

Applying judgement I wouldn't think twice about touching an arm in reassurance as TJ describes. To me that is a basic humane response, to others it is sexual harassment worthy of report to a manager.

The solution, that some have suggested, of being completely cold to all female workmates, avoiding socialising with them, possibly even refusing to shake hands with them just doesn't feel right to me.

geetee1972 - Member

It's also interesting to note that not one of these socially dominant men in positions of power are single; they're all married or have long terms partners. That's interesting don't you think?

That's right, blame the women...

That's right, blame the women...

No that's not what I meant, not remotely and I think you know that.

I meant its interesting that despite who they really were there was still a woman who wanted to be with them. And I am not suggesting that these women knew they were 'monsters' and chose to be with them anyway. But you have to try and understand the pathology between the behaviour of these men and their personality type; those two things are not unrelated or indeed uncorrelated, quite the opposite. Highly dominant alpha men in positions of power are more likely to be abusers than those that aren't.

Sop if we know this and if we can to some degree guess that this might be going on (which we can because no one has expressed surprise about the behaviour of Weinstein et al) why then are women still attracted to them; why do women chose to be with men like that?

This is not about blame. It's about asking the important questions so that we can learn more about the issue and then try to solve it.

At the very least, we can start to redefine how we ascribe power and success in society because ALL the data shows us that in order to be successful, you have to fit a fairly narrow profile of personality type. More men than women fit that profile, which is why more men than women occupy positions of power, but it's not exclusively so. Thatcher is your archetypal example; a woman who behaved 'more like a man', or at least more like a high alpha male.

That's our problem right there - society rewards that type of person and punishes the rest.

At the very least, we can start to redefine how we ascribe power and success in society because ALL the data shows us that in order to be successful, you have to fit a fairly narrow profile of personality type. More men than women fit that profile, which is why more men than women occupy positions of power, but it's not exclusively so. Thatcher is your archetypal example; a woman who behaved 'more like a man', or at least more like a high alpha male.

Bollocks.

What data? (references please)
How is "successful" defined?
What is this profile of personality type?

Sorry buddy what exactly are you disputing?

Sorry buddy what exactly are you disputing?

The bit that I quoted.

The bit that I quoted.

OK but there are several elements in that. Which of the following:

- that successful high achievers (as defined by career attainment) tend to have a fairly common personality type/profile
- that that profile frequently tends to display traits we might otherwise associate with psycopathy or sociopathy (those two things shouldn't be conflated though they frequently are).
- that more men than women demonstrate these traits
- that women who also demonstrate these traits are likely to be as successful as men who also do

Yep, all of that. It's all bollocks.

Yep, all of that. It's all bollocks.

Oh ok well if you say so.

What's your qualification in this field that makes you so sure?

What's your qualification in this field that makes you so sure?

What's yours?

I'm still waiting for ALL the data you have on the subject.

This all depends on how one defines 'success'

A Mercedes on finance?
Happy family life?
Minimal responsibility?
Power over others?
Respect?
Money?

Why aren’t more women taking higher paid jobs later in their career; is that about discrimination and if so why does it only happen at the age of 40 and not before; is it about choice

Two thoughts on that:
Firstly it could be that the gender gap in pay is closing, but it is being addressed most actively for younger women, so women over 40 in established careers aren't seeing much change.

Secondly, I'm 49 and have fairly well paid job, but throughout my career the salaries across individuals doing the same job at the same level have been deliberately obscure. The pay bands are unclear and no one will say what they earn, so it's hard to say whether I'm affected by a gender pay gap. I do know that I've always been at the lower end of the market rate and I'm rubbish at salary negotiation. It shouldn't be about who is bullish enough to demand higher pay.

This all depends on how one defines 'success'

Even on the very narrow parameters that I think we're talking about here, it's still bollocks.

What's yours?

Well since you ask I have an MBA with Distinction from Manchester Business School with a specialisation in Organisational Psychology and have worked in the field of Industrial Organisational Psychology for 15 years. As part of my job I review a lot of research and white papers on the subject of leadership and management.

There are way too many topics in my original list for me to start breaking it down into individual papers. If you would like to be more specific I could probably help you with some initial reading.

This all depends on how one defines 'success'

I could not agree with you more. For me, success is defined by being a great father, husband and person and I feel that this is what we should be judging people by.

The problem is we don't as a society tend to do that. We tend to equate 'success' with career success.

Let me put it like this. If we can all agree that actuall how much you earn has no bearing on any kind of status or success, why would the existing of any kind of gender pay gap be a problem?

The mistake you're making here, Geetee, is that, whilst some sociopaths tend to do well in business, most people who are successful in business are no more a sociopath than anybody else. I think it's more of a structural problem. The higher up a system a person climbs, the more impactful their decisions tend to be on the people below them, while their exposure to those people lessens. This naturally leads to the person in the position of power behaving in a less empathetic way towards those below them, it's the only way a lot of people can deal with the decisions they have to make.

Let me put it another way. Autistic people tend to be good at IT, but you don't have to be Autistic to have a successful career in IT. You do probably have to be a man, though...

Firstly it could be that the gender gap in pay is closing, but it is being addressed most actively for younger women, so women over 40 in established careers aren't seeing much change.

So you mean that redressing the imbalance has only been happening at the start of a career rather than correcting mid-career and has therefore only been happening for about the last 20 years? Yes, that would seem plausible; that would then mean that the gap in the over 40s is the hangover of past inequality.

You could test that hypothesis by looking back further over the ONS data. You should see the 12-20% gap moving back in time as well if that were true.

The pay bands are unclear and no one will say what they earn, so it's hard to say whether I'm affected by a gender pay gap. I do know that I've always been at the lower end of the market rate and I'm rubbish at salary negotiation. It shouldn't be about who is bullish enough to demand higher pay.

This is so true - that no one talks about pay. It's interesting that this part of our culture and I suspect that it is because the way our economy tends to work means that almost by default you will have big differences in what people earn. By this I am referring to the notion that Anglo Saxon economies rely in part on a highly fluid workforce to be successful. Companies compete for talent in order to gain advantage and that means poaching people for which you will have to pay a premium (it's something like 15-20%) on their current salary.

One thing that is certain is that you only ever get one chance to negotiate your salary and that's when you join. After that, your chances are slim to zero unless you have a very powerful bargaining chip, i.e. you've just resigned to go to another job and your emplopyer wants to keep you.

Your comment that pay should not be about negotiating ability is really interesting. On the one hand, you have to ask what other mechanism you would use in our economic structure (i.e. where companies rely on being able to poach talent); on the other, yes I agree entirely that this is at least part of why the pay gap exists in those over 40s. Testosterone makes you more aggressive and more likely to take risks, which is a big part of what negotiation is about (taking calculated risks that your hand is stronger than your oponents).

But the problem is also compounded by the frequency of job changing. By the time a man gets to 45, he will likely have changed jobs five times (average is every three years for men). By the time a woman gets to 45, that figure is only three times. If each time you move you get the chance to negotiate a 15% pay rise, then up to a point over 25 years the person who has moved more will earn more.