All the parents of the child stars who have been fiddled with , Your as much to blame as the nonse who hurt your kids , you don’t trust no cnut where your kids are concerned. Where were you when these people were exploiting your children , I bet you were sitting there thinking of the $s
There is undoubtedly men that have abused their positions and power by acting in an inappropriate way
There are men that have acted on a vile way raping and assaluting men women and children and they need punishment
But there are also men and women who had no issue sleeping and performing acts for the chance of a movie role and who are now going to jump on the bandwagon and because their careers never panned out either politically , actor or actress, media postings
Who will now gain leverage from those incidents and earn well from it
Here's a scenario. You are a heterosexual, male MP. But you are not Sir Les Patterson's stunt double. You need a new government-sponsored research assistant. Three of the candidates are equally well-suited for the job. One is a married male, one a female, one an openly gay male. Who do you choose? It's a no-brainer isn't it? You choose the one that has the least chance of doing you harm some time in the future.
Are you suggesting that a married male cannot make accusations of harassment or are you suggesting that the gay man (you don't say whether he is married or not) or single woman (you don't say whether she is gay or not) are likely to, to the extent that you should not hire them because of their gender and sexual preferences? Or are you suggesting that you may accidentally harass one of them in the future so best to go for the one you are least likely to harass?
I'm suggesting none of that at all. I'm suggesting that being cautious and a political operator, you'd play the odds and make a decision which has the best chance to give you the least prospect of an unfounded allegation being made. I'm also not suggesting that any of the current matters are without foundation, merely that a knee-jerk (pun intended) reaction to this unedifying brouhaha has the prospect of making matters of equality in the workplace worse rather than better.
I would add as a side issue that in this day and age there can be no rationale for an organisation to encourage drunken behaviour by having subsidised bars (or any bars at all) on the premises. Eric Joyce being an example of someone who could well have done without the temptation in the House of Commons.
Fair points, especially about the running of HOP as a men's club.
I'm not sure that fear of potential harassment allegations would significantly affect recruitment or that that should be a consideration.
Well, I agree with you entirely. But I'm also, among other things an old cynic, well used to the frailties of us humans, (guilty of some of them) and can readily see employers taking what they hope would be the easier (and safer) path in the future. Especially when the said employer is no more than a one-man-band operation: which is what MPs are.
The problem with this debate is that there are no clear cut truths, everyone sees the situation differently and acts differently.
Working very close to national politics myself I can absolutely say hand-on-heart that there are young females that use their looks/sexuality in their favor in the workplace - this is completely indisputable.
I have seen this at the highest levels, where an extremely attractive but mediocre female performer often goes much further up the ladder than a plain looking superior operator - these women unashamedly use their looks to get where they want to be and that's just a fact.
At the same time there are plenty of other women who I know have got to the top the hard way and would be appalled at the mere thought of flirting with anybody to get there.
The women in the former category would doubtless argue that since the system is loaded against them anyway that they have every right to use their looks and desirability to get where they want to get to and would be absolutely unashamed of doing so.
Let me give you an example of this, I was involved with a global conference a couple of years ago and the chief organizer was a drop dead gorgeous 27 year old Aussie girl who was an outrageous flirt and lured some seriously high powered male execs to speak at her events free of charge.
Of course from time to time these blokes would try it on with here but she handled them no problem and extracted all that she needed from them professionally.
When she left for a much better job she was replaced by a succession of hapless males who had no hope of exerting the same influence and the conference rapidly slid downhill in terms of quality until this year when another young, attractive female came on board and what would you know....the middle aged male speakers came flooding back.
None of this sits comfortably but this is just the way the world works, it may not be ideal and it certainly isn't fair but it is the way it is because ultimately it's a dog eat dog world and people will do whatever it takes to succeed.
Always back self-interest - because you know it's trying.
All good points, but if the power balance was more diverse, and not just men, then women are surely less likely to get by on looks alone. As you say, a woman who got to the top on merit alone isn't going to fall for that, likewise an attractive man wouldn't be able to flutter his eyelashes to the top either (not if ugly bastards like me can help it). Having a diverse mix of people at every level is what will make a difference.
Most of the recent cases have been powerful men, abusing their position, with men also being the victims (like Kevin Spacey's victims allegedly). As women become more powerful and take more senior jobs, will they start behaving in a similar way? It seems less likely, but could still happen I suppose...
Reading this thread reminds me of a job I briefly had 20 years ago, where many of the younger women in other departments disliked/refused to go in the lift with my boss. I don't recall hearing specific allegations, and it could have been for other reasons, but thinking back he did seem the type...
I find it incredible that people seriously think that success in business or real politics (not the personality parade that is the electoral system) is down to fluttering eyelashes or that the hapless males who failed in the example above did so because they are men rather than because they were not competent. What this adds up to is this idea that women are playing a game and men who harass them are somehow being unfairly penalised for playing along. FFS if men kept these fantasies to themselves this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is the failure to manage their own behaviour, and how that manifests as an abuse of power. Of course people respond to power with compliance.
I find it incredible that people seriously think that success in business or real politics (not the personality parade that is the electoral system) is down to fluttering eyelashes or that the hapless males who failed in the example above did so because they are men rather than because they were not competent. What this adds up to is this idea that women are playing a game and men who harass them are somehow being unfairly penalised for playing along. FFS if men kept these fantasies to themselves this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is the failure to manage their own behaviour, and how that manifests as an abuse of power. Of course people respond to power with compliance.
With respect, it does no such thing.
The point being made is that there is a desire among some folks to turn the workplace into a completely sterile environment in which there is nothing but professionally functioning relationships - this is simply a flawed concept because we are all human and we are all fallible.
Firstly, we spend more time at work than anywhere else (more's the pity) so it is no surprise that a very large percentage people have met their partners at work.
Given that reality any expectation that you can somehow stop people from finding their co-workers attractive and from sometimes making unwanted advances towards them is simply ridiculous, it is never going to happen unless you have a zero tolerance rule which would be absurd.
I mean, let's say you have 10,000 employees, are you really saying you are going to fire two of them if they get into a relationship together?
Of course, it is important the people are respectful and don't abuse their positions of power etc, but men and women have been finding each other attractive for thousands of years and I suspect that may well continue to be the case for a while yet.
You cannot expect humans to behave like computer programs, at times people are going to make mistakes and misjudgments when dealing with other people.
There is a world of difference between rightly nailing a serial pervert like Weinstein for years of abuse and treating some poor middle-aged manager like the Yorkshire Ripper just because he occasionally puts his arm round Barbara in accounts.
Well said @Ormiston Addick . I was hesitating to put it as plainly as you have, because of the rather weird social climate I find in the UK (and the US).
As women become more powerful and take more senior jobs, will they start behaving in a similar way? It seems less likely, but could still happen I suppose...
There is a "test market" for that question. Norway. I know something about this, since one of my best mates is a CEO in Norway, (but not a Norwegian national). He's got some opinions on this. Later...
Did just want to drop this in briefly, a story the BBC are running today
A former Conservative Party activist who informed the House of Commons authorities of an alleged rape says her complaints were completely ignored. The woman, who alleges she was attacked in her own home by someone senior in the party to her, says the incident "destroyed her". Commons leader Andrea Leadsom has said she was not told about the rape claim. The allegations come as Prime Minister Theresa May is expected to call for a "new culture of respect" when she meets other party leaders to discuss the Westminster sexual misconduct scandal.
All good points, but if the power balance was more diverse, and not just men, then women are surely less likely to get by on looks alone. As you say, a woman who got to the top on merit alone isn't going to fall for that, likewise an attractive man wouldn't be able to flutter his eyelashes to the top either (not if ugly bastards like me can help it). Having a diverse mix of people at every level is what will make a difference.
I'm not sure that's really the case. For example, Mrs cafcfan held a senior role. She much preferred having young men working for her than young women. I used to rib her mercilessly about her "pets" and said she had an unreasonable attitude and was too tough on her female employees. She just reckoned the blokes worked harder and longer. (Ooh err missus.)
I find it incredible that people seriously think that success in business or real politics (not the personality parade that is the electoral system) is down to fluttering eyelashes or that the hapless males who failed in the example above did so because they are men rather than because they were not competent. What this adds up to is this idea that women are playing a game and men who harass them are somehow being unfairly penalised for playing along. FFS if men kept these fantasies to themselves this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is the failure to manage their own behaviour, and how that manifests as an abuse of power. Of course people respond to power with compliance.
With respect, it does no such thing.
The point being made is that there is a desire among some folks to turn the workplace into a completely sterile environment in which there is nothing but professionally functioning relationships - this is simply a flawed concept because we are all human and we are all fallible.
Firstly, we spend more time at work than anywhere else (more's the pity) so it is no surprise that a very large percentage people have met their partners at work.
Given that reality any expectation that you can somehow stop people from finding their co-workers attractive and from sometimes making unwanted advances towards them is simply ridiculous, it is never going to happen unless you have a zero tolerance rule which would be absurd.
I mean, let's say you have 10,000 employees, are you really saying you are going to fire two of them if they get into a relationship together?
Of course, it is important the people are respectful and don't abuse their positions of power etc, but men and women have been finding each other attractive for thousands of years and I suspect that may well continue to be the case for a while yet.
You cannot expect humans to behave like computer programs, at times people are going to make mistakes and misjudgments when dealing with other people.
There is a world of difference between rightly nailing a serial pervert like Weinstein for years of abuse and treating some poor middle-aged manager like the Yorkshire Ripper just because he occasionally puts his arm round Barbara in accounts.
I don't understand why you are conflating people finding one another attractive (acceptable) with making "unwanted advances" (unacceptable).
In 2017 the two things are very different - you can't control finding Barbara attractive but you are completely in control of whether or not you put your arm around around her, if she doesn't want you to then don't.
There is a world of difference between rightly nailing a serial pervert like Weinstein for years of abuse and treating some poor middle-aged manager like the Yorkshire Ripper just because he occasionally puts his arm round Barbara in accounts.
Bit of a strawman this. I know what you're saying and you have a point, but this sort of language only serves to minimise what's happening in Hollywood, in Parliament, and across the board when those in positions of power choose to abuse the fact.
All the parents of the child stars who have been fiddled with , Your as much to blame as the nonse who hurt your kids , you don’t trust no cnut where your kids are concerned. Where were you when these people were exploiting your children , I bet you were sitting there thinking of the $s
This is a bit much.
Firstly saying kids have been fiddled with is disrespectful
They are not an inanimate object that was 'fiddled' with, they were/are young human beings that were/are being sexually assaulted.
Blaming the parents for thinking a person in a position of authority would be trustworthy and safe for their kids to be around is ludicrous, whilst it might seem obvious now, it was apparently less obvious historically. I do however agree that it is messed up that some parents trusted someone with rumours that they were dodgy.
No you're right instead they should have just said "No, I know you want to be an actor and you have an amazing opportunity, but unless I can be by your side 24/7 it's not going to happen"
The only people at fault in any of these situations is the one carrying out the assaults and those that protect/ed that person.
I find it incredible that people seriously think that success in business or real politics (not the personality parade that is the electoral system) is down to fluttering eyelashes or that the hapless males who failed in the example above did so because they are men rather than because they were not competent. What this adds up to is this idea that women are playing a game and men who harass them are somehow being unfairly penalised for playing along. FFS if men kept these fantasies to themselves this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is the failure to manage their own behaviour, and how that manifests as an abuse of power. Of course people respond to power with compliance.
With respect, it does no such thing.
The point being made is that there is a desire among some folks to turn the workplace into a completely sterile environment in which there is nothing but professionally functioning relationships - this is simply a flawed concept because we are all human and we are all fallible.
Firstly, we spend more time at work than anywhere else (more's the pity) so it is no surprise that a very large percentage people have met their partners at work.
Given that reality any expectation that you can somehow stop people from finding their co-workers attractive and from sometimes making unwanted advances towards them is simply ridiculous, it is never going to happen unless you have a zero tolerance rule which would be absurd.
I mean, let's say you have 10,000 employees, are you really saying you are going to fire two of them if they get into a relationship together?
Of course, it is important the people are respectful and don't abuse their positions of power etc, but men and women have been finding each other attractive for thousands of years and I suspect that may well continue to be the case for a while yet.
You cannot expect humans to behave like computer programs, at times people are going to make mistakes and misjudgments when dealing with other people.
There is a world of difference between rightly nailing a serial pervert like Weinstein for years of abuse and treating some poor middle-aged manager like the Yorkshire Ripper just because he occasionally puts his arm round Barbara in accounts.
I don't understand why you are conflating people finding one another attractive (acceptable) with making "unwanted advances" (unacceptable).
In 2017 the two things are very different - you can't control finding Barbara attractive but you are completely in control of whether or not you put your arm around around her, if she doesn't want you to then don't.
I think I was completely in control of that in 1977 too. Then, as now, if she didn't want me to, I would expect a similar response to that made by @Chippycafc 's admirably bolshy wife.
I have no desire to diminish or trivialise the importance of genuine sexual assault and harassment but all this does seem conveniently timed to distract the media from proper analysis of important constitutional issues.
How much incompetence / bad news is being 'buried' while this issue is dominating column inches both printed and electronic?
All good points, but if the power balance was more diverse, and not just men, then women are surely less likely to get by on looks alone. As you say, a woman who got to the top on merit alone isn't going to fall for that, likewise an attractive man wouldn't be able to flutter his eyelashes to the top either (not if ugly bastards like me can help it). Having a diverse mix of people at every level is what will make a difference.
I'm not sure that's really the case. For example, Mrs cafcfan held a senior role. She much preferred having young men working for her than young women. I used to rib her mercilessly about her "pets" and said she had an unreasonable attitude and was too tough on her female employees. She just reckoned the blokes worked harder and longer. (Ooh err missus.)
Well, I actually know of a similar example... let's be totally honest and say that given the opportunity, women can be every bit as shallow and pervy as men. You certainly can't ascribe certain characteristics in the office place to either gender exclusively (I am reliably informed that also applies to pissing over the floor of the office bogs. The mind doth boggle). However, the point I was trying (and failing) to make is that more diverse and inclusive (the missing word) workplaces are more likely to take out the worst behaviours. And that doesn't mean the workplace suddenly becomes sterile and boring. It is perfectly possible to have a laugh at work without upsetting anyone.
I thought I'd add some random observations to an interesting debate.
When the Fallon thing started I immediately recalled that there is a photograph of me at an office party about 20 years ago with my hand on my female bosses knee - I now feel I am unfit for public office and will not stand again.
The second example involves one of my wife's friends who holds a very senior position - a few years ago she fancied someone who worked for her. She asked my wife if it would be ok to ask the guy out. In no uncertain terms my wife told her that it would be totally inappropriate to do that. The friend is not British, hence she wanted to be sure of the "rules" here. I'm being careful with what I say for obvious reasons.
What I'm saying with my second (more serious) point is that women can be tempted to abuse power too, although I accept that it is more common for men to do so.
I thought I'd add some random observations to an interesting debate.
When the Fallon thing started I immediately recalled that there is a photograph of me at an office party about 20 years ago with my hand on my female bosses knee - I now feel I am unfit for public office and will not stand again.
The second example involves one of my wife's friends who holds a very senior position - a few years ago she fancied someone who worked for her. She asked my wife if it would be ok to ask the guy out. In no uncertain terms my wife told her that it would be totally inappropriate to do that. The friend is not British, hence she wanted to be sure of the "rules" here. I'm being careful with what I say for obvious reasons.
What I'm saying with my second (more serious) point is that women can be tempted to abuse power too, although I accept that it is more common for men to do so.
Presumably, though, asking him out (in a respectful way) wouldn't have been an abuse of power? As long as he felt comfortable saying no (if he so wished) without the fear of reprisals is that not ok?
I thought I'd add some random observations to an interesting debate.
When the Fallon thing started I immediately recalled that there is a photograph of me at an office party about 20 years ago with my hand on my female bosses knee - I now feel I am unfit for public office and will not stand again.
The second example involves one of my wife's friends who holds a very senior position - a few years ago she fancied someone who worked for her. She asked my wife if it would be ok to ask the guy out. In no uncertain terms my wife told her that it would be totally inappropriate to do that. The friend is not British, hence she wanted to be sure of the "rules" here. I'm being careful with what I say for obvious reasons.
What I'm saying with my second (more serious) point is that women can be tempted to abuse power too, although I accept that it is more common for men to do so.
More good points which I was reluctant to make. You don't need to confirm it but I would not be surprised to learn that your wife's friend is Scandinavian. In Norway legislation ensures that companies have to have a certain number of female directors. There are various other aspects of Scandi society which have progressively enhanced the woman's role. One of the bi-products of this is that women assume "predatory" roles in social situations, particularly after a few drinks. Believe me I have experienced it, and it takes some getting used to. Anyone who wants to try it in full Monty form should book the overnight Stockholm - Helsinki ferry. Apparently. Is that good, or bad? Not sure. However it reminds us that men and women (and of course people from the same sexes) are programmed to seek intimate relationships. So I think it's pretty naive to imagine that a workplace could ever be a 100% neutral place where people just get on with their work. If, in the necessary effort to stamp out abuse of power people start to argue that it should be, there will be confusion, unhappiness and greater loneliness among entirely innocent people, male and female.
I thought I'd add some random observations to an interesting debate.
When the Fallon thing started I immediately recalled that there is a photograph of me at an office party about 20 years ago with my hand on my female bosses knee - I now feel I am unfit for public office and will not stand again.
The second example involves one of my wife's friends who holds a very senior position - a few years ago she fancied someone who worked for her. She asked my wife if it would be ok to ask the guy out. In no uncertain terms my wife told her that it would be totally inappropriate to do that. The friend is not British, hence she wanted to be sure of the "rules" here. I'm being careful with what I say for obvious reasons.
What I'm saying with my second (more serious) point is that women can be tempted to abuse power too, although I accept that it is more common for men to do so.
Presumably, though, asking him out (in a respectful way) wouldn't have been an abuse of power? As long as he felt comfortable saying no (if he so wished) without the fear of reprisals is that not ok?
Hmm... he was a junior member of staff who had just joined the organisation, 10/15 years younger than her and she was at director level - could he say "no"? Personally I think my wife's advice was right.
Ah, the ever-spurious argument put forward by apologists everywhere. "But I know some women who pinch bloke's arses on a night out when they're pissed". Like that's somehow even remotely related to men using their position of power and influence to sexually assault and rape women. An argument often out forward by the same people who get upset about ensuring a certain number of minorities are interviewed for specific jobs, conveniently forgetting that it's only about 25 years ago that black kids were still called Chalky at school...
I thought I'd add some random observations to an interesting debate.
When the Fallon thing started I immediately recalled that there is a photograph of me at an office party about 20 years ago with my hand on my female bosses knee - I now feel I am unfit for public office and will not stand again.
The second example involves one of my wife's friends who holds a very senior position - a few years ago she fancied someone who worked for her. She asked my wife if it would be ok to ask the guy out. In no uncertain terms my wife told her that it would be totally inappropriate to do that. The friend is not British, hence she wanted to be sure of the "rules" here. I'm being careful with what I say for obvious reasons.
What I'm saying with my second (more serious) point is that women can be tempted to abuse power too, although I accept that it is more common for men to do so.
More good points which I was reluctant to make. You don't need to confirm it but I would not be surprised to learn that your wife's friend is Scandinavian. In Norway legislation ensures that companies have to have a certain number of female directors. There are various other aspects of Scandi society which have progressively enhanced the woman's role. One of the bi-products of this is that women assume "predatory" roles in social situations, particularly after a few drinks. Believe me I have experienced it, and it takes some getting used to. Anyone who wants to try it in full Monty form should book the overnight Stockholm - Helsinki ferry. Apparently. Is that good, or bad? Not sure. However it reminds us that men and women (and of course people from the same sexes) are programmed to seek intimate relationships. So I think it's pretty naive to imagine that a workplace could ever be a 100% neutral place where people just get on with their work. If, in the necessary effort to stamp out abuse of power people start to argue that it should be, there will be confusion, unhappiness and greater loneliness among entirely innocent people, male and female.
Ok, I was being careful but seeing as you ask, she is Scandinavian.
I thought I'd add some random observations to an interesting debate.
When the Fallon thing started I immediately recalled that there is a photograph of me at an office party about 20 years ago with my hand on my female bosses knee - I now feel I am unfit for public office and will not stand again.
The second example involves one of my wife's friends who holds a very senior position - a few years ago she fancied someone who worked for her. She asked my wife if it would be ok to ask the guy out. In no uncertain terms my wife told her that it would be totally inappropriate to do that. The friend is not British, hence she wanted to be sure of the "rules" here. I'm being careful with what I say for obvious reasons.
What I'm saying with my second (more serious) point is that women can be tempted to abuse power too, although I accept that it is more common for men to do so.
Presumably, though, asking him out (in a respectful way) wouldn't have been an abuse of power? As long as he felt comfortable saying no (if he so wished) without the fear of reprisals is that not ok?
Hmm... he was a junior member of staff who had just joined the organisation, 10/15 years younger than her and she was at director level - could he say "no"? Personally I think my wife's advice was right.
Saga, I wasn't suggesting that your wife's advice was wrong, just cautious. You also hadn't mentioned that he was 10-15 years younger and very junior.
I do think, though, that as soon as we tell people that they are not allowed to initiate relationships with colleagues it makes what can be totally innocent, and lead to a long term relationship (marriage and children) seem 'perverted'. It also tends towards secret relationships in the office that I'm sure can't be that healthy.
I do agree that one needs to act with caution in the scenario you were talking about but let's not make all Directors unable to date anyone not on the board. Also would it have been unacceptable had the young man asked out your wife's friend? Not that it matters but it could well have led to the same situation, i.e.they were in a relationship.
Ah, the ever-spurious argument put forward by apologists everywhere. "But I know some women who pinch bloke's arses on a night out when they're pissed". Like that's somehow even remotely related to men using their position of power and influence to sexually assault and rape women. An argument often out forward by the same people who get upset about ensuring a certain number of minorities are interviewed for specific jobs, conveniently forgetting that it's only about 25 years ago that black kids were still called Chalky at school...
Well I would be disappointed if you put me in that last category, but I fear you think I am making the argument you refer to. I think rather than trying to explain myself to you, I'd best just refer you to this fascinating discussion on BBC1's Sunday Morning Live, where two of the three women on a panel of 4 (plus, embarassingly, Edwina Currie) make some of the same arguments I am trying to make here.
(The link is to i Player. Recommended to everyone interested in this discussion)
I thought I'd add some random observations to an interesting debate.
When the Fallon thing started I immediately recalled that there is a photograph of me at an office party about 20 years ago with my hand on my female bosses knee - I now feel I am unfit for public office and will not stand again.
The second example involves one of my wife's friends who holds a very senior position - a few years ago she fancied someone who worked for her. She asked my wife if it would be ok to ask the guy out. In no uncertain terms my wife told her that it would be totally inappropriate to do that. The friend is not British, hence she wanted to be sure of the "rules" here. I'm being careful with what I say for obvious reasons.
What I'm saying with my second (more serious) point is that women can be tempted to abuse power too, although I accept that it is more common for men to do so.
Presumably, though, asking him out (in a respectful way) wouldn't have been an abuse of power? As long as he felt comfortable saying no (if he so wished) without the fear of reprisals is that not ok?
Hmm... he was a junior member of staff who had just joined the organisation, 10/15 years younger than her and she was at director level - could he say "no"? Personally I think my wife's advice was right.
Saga, I wasn't suggesting that your wife's advice was wrong, just cautious. You also hadn't mentioned that he was 10-15 years younger and very junior.
I do think, though, that as soon as we tell people that they are not allowed to initiate relationships with colleagues it makes what can be totally innocent, and lead to a long term relationship (marriage and children) seem 'perverted'. It also tends towards secret relationships in the office that I'm sure can't be that healthy.
I do agree that one needs to act with caution in the scenario you were talking about but let's not make all Directors unable to date anyone not on the board. Also would it have been unacceptable had the young man asked out your wife's friend? Not that it matters but it could well have led to the same situation, i.e.they were in a relationship.
For me, what you say highlights the complexities of the situation. In a similar scenario I know of the co-workers who became a couple were told that one of them had to leave because it was inappropriate for them to work together. One of the main reasons for that was they weren't getting any work done as they were too busy gazing into eachother's eyes. Every situation is unique which is why I think it's difficult to make hard and fast rules.
I thought I'd add some random observations to an interesting debate.
When the Fallon thing started I immediately recalled that there is a photograph of me at an office party about 20 years ago with my hand on my female bosses knee - I now feel I am unfit for public office and will not stand again.
The second example involves one of my wife's friends who holds a very senior position - a few years ago she fancied someone who worked for her. She asked my wife if it would be ok to ask the guy out. In no uncertain terms my wife told her that it would be totally inappropriate to do that. The friend is not British, hence she wanted to be sure of the "rules" here. I'm being careful with what I say for obvious reasons.
What I'm saying with my second (more serious) point is that women can be tempted to abuse power too, although I accept that it is more common for men to do so.
Presumably, though, asking him out (in a respectful way) wouldn't have been an abuse of power? As long as he felt comfortable saying no (if he so wished) without the fear of reprisals is that not ok?
Hmm... he was a junior member of staff who had just joined the organisation, 10/15 years younger than her and she was at director level - could he say "no"? Personally I think my wife's advice was right.
Saga, I wasn't suggesting that your wife's advice was wrong, just cautious. You also hadn't mentioned that he was 10-15 years younger and very junior.
I do think, though, that as soon as we tell people that they are not allowed to initiate relationships with colleagues it makes what can be totally innocent, and lead to a long term relationship (marriage and children) seem 'perverted'. It also tends towards secret relationships in the office that I'm sure can't be that healthy.
I do agree that one needs to act with caution in the scenario you were talking about but let's not make all Directors unable to date anyone not on the board. Also would it have been unacceptable had the young man asked out your wife's friend? Not that it matters but it could well have led to the same situation, i.e.they were in a relationship.
For me, what you say highlights the complexities of the situation. In a similar scenario I know of the co-workers who became a couple were told that one of them had to leave because it was inappropriate for them to work together. One of the main reasons for that was they weren't getting any work done as they were too busy gazing into eachother's eyes. Every situation is unique which is why I think it's difficult to make hard and fast rules.
Absolutely agree. I just think it's sad that some people feel scared to approach someone that might be interested for fear of getting into trouble if they are not.
I find it incredible that people seriously think that success in business or real politics (not the personality parade that is the electoral system) is down to fluttering eyelashes or that the hapless males who failed in the example above did so because they are men rather than because they were not competent. What this adds up to is this idea that women are playing a game and men who harass them are somehow being unfairly penalised for playing along. FFS if men kept these fantasies to themselves this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is the failure to manage their own behaviour, and how that manifests as an abuse of power. Of course people respond to power with compliance.
With respect, it does no such thing.
The point being made is that there is a desire among some folks to turn the workplace into a completely sterile environment in which there is nothing but professionally functioning relationships - this is simply a flawed concept because we are all human and we are all fallible.
Firstly, we spend more time at work than anywhere else (more's the pity) so it is no surprise that a very large percentage people have met their partners at work.
Given that reality any expectation that you can somehow stop people from finding their co-workers attractive and from sometimes making unwanted advances towards them is simply ridiculous, it is never going to happen unless you have a zero tolerance rule which would be absurd.
I mean, let's say you have 10,000 employees, are you really saying you are going to fire two of them if they get into a relationship together?
Of course, it is important the people are respectful and don't abuse their positions of power etc, but men and women have been finding each other attractive for thousands of years and I suspect that may well continue to be the case for a while yet.
You cannot expect humans to behave like computer programs, at times people are going to make mistakes and misjudgments when dealing with other people.
There is a world of difference between rightly nailing a serial pervert like Weinstein for years of abuse and treating some poor middle-aged manager like the Yorkshire Ripper just because he occasionally puts his arm round Barbara in accounts.
I don't understand why you are conflating people finding one another attractive (acceptable) with making "unwanted advances" (unacceptable).
In 2017 the two things are very different - you can't control finding Barbara attractive but you are completely in control of whether or not you put your arm around around her, if she doesn't want you to then don't.
It could also be incredibly intimidating for Barbara if there are say a dozen or so blokes that are trying to put their arm around her every day.
It's often not just one event in isolation. How hard is it to respect people's personal space?
All of this has actually made me look back at some of my past behaviour and actually cringe.
AFKA that time I snuck up behind you going through the barrier at Cannon Street and smacked your arse. I am sorry.
I know I've put this jokingly... and I don't mean to make fun of the real victims.
I think if someone did that to me at a station/football ground I would be very pissed off. Very shamefaced.
Don't beat yourself up Curb_It. Due to the power dynamics of the relationship you did nothing wrong. AFKA actually owes you an apology for forcing his ass onto your hand. The assault you've clearly suffered and the recent cock pic scandal don't paint those running this site in a good light. I dread to think what shocking revelations we're going to be subjected to next.
I find it incredible that people seriously think that success in business or real politics (not the personality parade that is the electoral system) is down to fluttering eyelashes or that the hapless males who failed in the example above did so because they are men rather than because they were not competent. What this adds up to is this idea that women are playing a game and men who harass them are somehow being unfairly penalised for playing along. FFS if men kept these fantasies to themselves this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is the failure to manage their own behaviour, and how that manifests as an abuse of power. Of course people respond to power with compliance.
With respect, it does no such thing.
The point being made is that there is a desire among some folks to turn the workplace into a completely sterile environment in which there is nothing but professionally functioning relationships - this is simply a flawed concept because we are all human and we are all fallible.
Firstly, we spend more time at work than anywhere else (more's the pity) so it is no surprise that a very large percentage people have met their partners at work.
Given that reality any expectation that you can somehow stop people from finding their co-workers attractive and from sometimes making unwanted advances towards them is simply ridiculous, it is never going to happen unless you have a zero tolerance rule which would be absurd.
I mean, let's say you have 10,000 employees, are you really saying you are going to fire two of them if they get into a relationship together?
Of course, it is important the people are respectful and don't abuse their positions of power etc, but men and women have been finding each other attractive for thousands of years and I suspect that may well continue to be the case for a while yet.
You cannot expect humans to behave like computer programs, at times people are going to make mistakes and misjudgments when dealing with other people.
There is a world of difference between rightly nailing a serial pervert like Weinstein for years of abuse and treating some poor middle-aged manager like the Yorkshire Ripper just because he occasionally puts his arm round Barbara in accounts.
I don't understand why you are conflating people finding one another attractive (acceptable) with making "unwanted advances" (unacceptable).
In 2017 the two things are very different - you can't control finding Barbara attractive but you are completely in control of whether or not you put your arm around around her, if she doesn't want you to then don't.
It could also be incredibly intimidating for Barbara if there are say a dozen or so blokes that are trying to put their arm around her every day.
It's often not just one event in isolation. How hard is it to respect people's personal space?
Quite. I'm pretty surprised by some of the attitudes on this subject from some people.
Comments
All the parents of the child stars who have been fiddled with , Your as much to blame as the nonse who hurt your kids , you don’t trust no cnut where your kids are concerned. Where were you when these people were exploiting your children , I bet you were sitting there thinking of the $s
There is undoubtedly men that have abused their positions and power by acting in an inappropriate way
There are men that have acted on a vile way raping and assaluting men women and children and they need punishment
But there are also men and women who had no issue sleeping and performing acts for the chance of a movie role and who are now going to jump on the bandwagon and because their careers never panned out either politically , actor or actress, media postings
Who will now gain leverage from those incidents and earn well from it
Working very close to national politics myself I can absolutely say hand-on-heart that there are young females that use their looks/sexuality in their favor in the workplace
- this is completely indisputable.
I have seen this at the highest levels, where an extremely attractive but mediocre female performer often goes much further up the ladder than a plain looking superior operator - these women unashamedly use their looks to get where they want to be and that's just a fact.
At the same time there are plenty of other women who I know have got to the top the hard way and would be appalled at the mere thought of flirting with anybody to get there.
The women in the former category would doubtless argue that since the system is loaded against them anyway that they have every right to use their looks and desirability to get where they want to get to and would be absolutely unashamed of doing so.
Let me give you an example of this, I was involved with a global conference a couple of years ago and the chief organizer was a drop dead gorgeous 27 year old Aussie girl who was an outrageous flirt and lured some seriously high powered male execs to speak at her events free of charge.
Of course from time to time these blokes would try it on with here but she handled them no problem and extracted all that she needed from them professionally.
When she left for a much better job she was replaced by a succession of hapless males who had no hope of exerting the same influence and the conference rapidly slid downhill in terms of quality until this year when another young, attractive female came on board and what would you know....the middle aged male speakers came flooding back.
None of this sits comfortably but this is just the way the world works, it may not be ideal and it certainly isn't fair but it is the way it is because ultimately it's a dog eat dog world and people will do whatever it takes to succeed.
Always back self-interest - because you know it's trying.
Reading this thread reminds me of a job I briefly had 20 years ago, where many of the younger women in other departments disliked/refused to go in the lift with my boss. I don't recall hearing specific allegations, and it could have been for other reasons, but thinking back he did seem the type...
The point being made is that there is a desire among some folks to turn the workplace into a completely sterile environment in which there is nothing but professionally functioning relationships - this is simply a flawed concept because we are all human and we are all fallible.
Firstly, we spend more time at work than anywhere else (more's the pity) so it is no surprise that a very large percentage people have met their partners at work.
Given that reality any expectation that you can somehow stop people from finding their co-workers attractive and from sometimes making unwanted advances towards them is simply ridiculous, it is never going to happen unless you have a zero tolerance rule which would be absurd.
I mean, let's say you have 10,000 employees, are you really saying you are going to fire two of them if they get into a relationship together?
Of course, it is important the people are respectful and don't abuse their positions of power etc, but men and women have been finding each other attractive for thousands of years and I suspect that may well continue to be the case for a while yet.
You cannot expect humans to behave like computer programs, at times people are going to make mistakes and misjudgments when dealing with other people.
There is a world of difference between rightly nailing a serial pervert like Weinstein for years of abuse and treating some poor middle-aged manager like the Yorkshire Ripper just because he occasionally puts his arm round Barbara in accounts.
@killerandflash
As women become more powerful and take more senior jobs, will they start behaving in a similar way? It seems less likely, but could still happen I suppose...
There is a "test market" for that question. Norway. I know something about this, since one of my best mates is a CEO in Norway, (but not a Norwegian national). He's got some opinions on this. Later...
Did just want to drop this in briefly, a story the BBC are running today
A former Conservative Party activist who informed the House of Commons authorities of an alleged rape says her complaints were completely ignored. The woman, who alleges she was attacked in her own home by someone senior in the party to her, says the incident "destroyed her". Commons leader Andrea Leadsom has said she was not told about the rape claim. The allegations come as Prime Minister Theresa May is expected to call for a "new culture of respect" when she meets other party leaders to discuss the Westminster sexual misconduct scandal.
In 2017 the two things are very different - you can't control finding Barbara attractive but you are completely in control of whether or not you put your arm around around her, if she doesn't want you to then don't.
Firstly saying kids have been fiddled with is disrespectful
They are not an inanimate object that was 'fiddled' with, they were/are young human beings that were/are being sexually assaulted.
Blaming the parents for thinking a person in a position of authority would be trustworthy and safe for their kids to be around is ludicrous, whilst it might seem obvious now, it was apparently less obvious historically. I do however agree that it is messed up that some parents trusted someone with rumours that they were dodgy.
No you're right instead they should have just said "No, I know you want to be an actor and you have an amazing opportunity, but unless I can be by your side 24/7 it's not going to happen"
The only people at fault in any of these situations is the one carrying out the assaults and those that protect/ed that person.
How much incompetence / bad news is being 'buried' while this issue is dominating column inches both printed and electronic?
When the Fallon thing started I immediately recalled that there is a photograph of me at an office party about 20 years ago with my hand on my female bosses knee - I now feel I am unfit for public office and will not stand again.
The second example involves one of my wife's friends who holds a very senior position - a few years ago she fancied someone who worked for her. She asked my wife if it would be ok to ask the guy out. In no uncertain terms my wife told her that it would be totally inappropriate to do that. The friend is not British, hence she wanted to be sure of the "rules" here. I'm being careful with what I say for obvious reasons.
What I'm saying with my second (more serious) point is that women can be tempted to abuse power too, although I accept that it is more common for men to do so.
More good points which I was reluctant to make. You don't need to confirm it but I would not be surprised to learn that your wife's friend is Scandinavian. In Norway legislation ensures that companies have to have a certain number of female directors. There are various other aspects of Scandi society which have progressively enhanced the woman's role. One of the bi-products of this is that women assume "predatory" roles in social situations, particularly after a few drinks. Believe me I have experienced it, and it takes some getting used to. Anyone who wants to try it in full Monty form should book the overnight Stockholm - Helsinki ferry. Apparently. Is that good, or bad? Not sure. However it reminds us that men and women (and of course people from the same sexes) are programmed to seek intimate relationships. So I think it's pretty naive to imagine that a workplace could ever be a 100% neutral place where people just get on with their work. If, in the necessary effort to stamp out abuse of power people start to argue that it should be, there will be confusion, unhappiness and greater loneliness among entirely innocent people, male and female.
I do think, though, that as soon as we tell people that they are not allowed to initiate relationships with colleagues it makes what can be totally innocent, and lead to a long term relationship (marriage and children) seem 'perverted'. It also tends towards secret relationships in the office that I'm sure can't be that healthy.
I do agree that one needs to act with caution in the scenario you were talking about but let's not make all Directors unable to date anyone not on the board. Also would it have been unacceptable had the young man asked out your wife's friend? Not that it matters but it could well have led to the same situation, i.e.they were in a relationship.
(The link is to i Player. Recommended to everyone interested in this discussion)
It's often not just one event in isolation. How hard is it to respect people's personal space?
AFKA that time I snuck up behind you going through the barrier at Cannon Street and smacked your arse. I am sorry.
I know I've put this jokingly... and I don't mean to make fun of the real victims.
I think if someone did that to me at a station/football ground I would be very pissed off. Very shamefaced.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-41904161