Wall Street Strategically Isolating Women

[IMPress Polly]

Most rape cases don't wind up using hard evidence to render verdicts, it boils down to he said she said. A lot of men are afraid of being put in those predicaments. It's not just the nature of the metoo movement, it's also the nature of how the courts handle these cases in many respects and how the media covers them

I doubt that very much. If we as a society took sex offenses seriously in the legal arena, phenomenon like Me Too that attempt to circumvent its limitations with public shaming probably wouldn't exist. There wouldn't likely be a broadly-felt need for that if survivors felt well-served by the legal system as things presently stand. The fact is that we don't.

To highlight the findings of the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network on the particularity of rape that you single out:

"About 0.7 percent of rapes and attempted rapes end with a felony conviction for the perpetrator, according to an estimate based on the best of the imperfect measures available.

On the other side of the incident, at least 89 percent of victims report some level of distress, including high rates of physical injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and substance abuse."

Another, similar study found that only 2% of rape reports turned out to be false. While it's impossible to fully gauge what is well-known by experts to be the most under-reported crime in the world (and frankly, it's probably a lot more prevalent than what these stats suggest, if anything), these are some of the best estimations that we have as to rates, and what it all suggests is that the legal consequences that rapists face are largely non-existent and certainly not generally severe, while psychological damage to the victim is nearly always a result. The fact is that we are very lenient on sexual violence in ways that we are not toward other crimes. One would think that correcting this discrepancy would be considered a matter of some importance at least.

[Adelaide]

This is one of the problems that the #Metoo movement accidentally caused.

A lot of people cannot definitively identify a line between what is sexual harassment and what is not. Even members of the #Metoo movement have admitted that they do not know. Workplace relationships happen, as does flirtation. Is taking your female coworker out for a drink any different than taking your male coworker out for a drink (from a male perspective)? What jokes are alright and what jokes are not alright? What constitutes flirting? What if someone takes a person's behavior as flirtation or harassment but the other person was not actually doing anything "flirty" or harassing?

Unfortunately, this is going to result in some workplaces deciding they do not want to even take the chance. That does not make it okay to discriminate against women, but it is kind of inevitable. Maybe we need a legal/government/research panel to come up with some type of definitive guide and that would explain boundaries and what is or is not sexual harassment, but even you got the top 10 scholars or researchers on sexual harassment, you probably would not get them to agree.

[IMPress Polly]

This is one of the problems that the #Metoo movement accidentally caused.

A lot of people cannot definitively identify a line between what is sexual harassment and what is not. Even members of the #Metoo movement have admitted that they do not know. Workplace relationships happen, as does flirtation. Is taking your female coworker out for a drink any different than taking your male coworker out for a drink (from a male perspective)? What jokes are alright and what jokes are not alright? What constitutes flirting? What if someone takes a person's behavior as flirtation or harassment but the other person was not actually doing anything "flirty" or harassing?

Unfortunately, this is going to result in some workplaces deciding they do not want to even take the chance. That does not make it okay to discriminate against women, but it is kind of inevitable. Maybe we need a legal/government/research panel to come up with some type of definitive guide and that would explain boundaries and what is or is not sexual harassment, but even you got the top 10 scholars or researchers on sexual harassment, you probably would not get them to agree.

I don't make it a policy to blame women for the actions of men. No one has forced these business corporations to adopt these policies. That is a choice. I think these companies are reacting in a disingenuous way, claiming to face illegitimate problems that they are not.

What we need are public policy changes that render the formal processes for addressing these matters actually viable for survivors, such as:

-No more mandatory arbitration.
-No more nondisclosure agreements.
-No more statute of limitations on rape.
-In short, no more sweeping this $#@! under the rug.

Until those sorts of changes come into being, call outs will continue. That's a reality. Me Too exists because we DON'T take sexual harassment and abuse seriously, not because we do. Once normal processes cease to be so rigged and become more viable for survivors seeking justice, call outs will likely subside. But not until then.

I also feel that certain cultural changes would be helpful as well, but we will leave that for another discussion.

[Cthulhu]

Can you stick to your own topic Polly ? the topic is wallstreet, weve been trying to address the reason for this happening.

You want a remedy, at this point there is no remedy until theres trust put back in the equasion.

Right now men have every right not to trust any allegations at all at surface value. Men have been fired without trials and without any due process just on allegations some of these men were powerful media men. Im not saying they arent guilty, im saying they were fired before they were even proven guilty.

For a guy thats working and NEEDS the job to support his family and cant readily go out and get another, this crap scares the crap out of him.

Like I said polly and I know you HATE to hear it, women did this to themselves.

It's why I'm glad I don't work with women.

They are professional land mines.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

I doubt that very much. If we as a society took sex offenses seriously in the legal arena, phenomenon like Me Too that attempt to circumvent its limitations with public shaming probably wouldn't exist. There wouldn't likely be a broadly-felt need for that if survivors felt well-served by the legal system as things presently stand. The fact is that we don't.

To highlight the findings of the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network on the particularity of rape that you single out:

"About 0.7 percent of rapes and attempted rapes end with a felony conviction for the perpetrator, according to an estimate based on the best of the imperfect measures available.

On the other side of the incident, at least 89 percent of victims report some level of distress, including high rates of physical injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and substance abuse."

Another, similar study found that only 2% of rape reports turned out to be false. While it's impossible to fully gauge what is well-known by experts to be the most under-reported crime in the world (and frankly, it's probably a lot more prevalent than what these stats suggest, if anything), these are some of the best estimations that we have as to rates, and what it all suggests is that the legal consequences that rapists face are largely non-existent and certainly not generally severe, while psychological damage to the victim is nearly always a result. The fact is that we are very lenient on sexual violence in ways that we are not toward other crimes. One would think that correcting this discrepancy would be considered a matter of some importance at least.

It sounds like women should be very careful about the company they keep.

That doesn't justify the actions of predatory men. But if you know they exist - because they do, maybe you should take your own safety more seriously?

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Adelaide]

No, I don't think so. I think these companies are reacting in a disingenuous way, claiming to face problems that they are not. What we need are public policy changes that render the formal processes for addressing these matters actually viable for survivors, such as:

-No more mandatory arbitration.
-No more nondisclosure agreements.
-No more statute of limitations on rape.
-In short, no more sweeping this $#@! under the rug.

Until those sorts of changes come into being, call outs will continue. That's a reality. Me Too exists because we DON'T take sexual harassment and abuse seriously, not because we do. Once normal processes cease to be so rigged and become more viable for survivors seeking justice, call outs will likely subside. But not until then.

I also feel that certain cultural changes would be helpful as well, but we will leave that for another discussion.

None of those things address the line, though. Where is it? Where would you draw the line?

Large companies/industries are seeing that they are going to have to change how they do things due to public pressure and the easiest way to avoid it is to avoid mixing women and men.

[IMPress Polly]

None of those things address the line, though. Where is it? Where would you draw the line?

Large companies/industries are seeing that they are going to have to change how they do things due to public pressure and the easiest way to avoid it is to avoid mixing women and men.

Most people can identify a line between wanted relationships in the workplace and unwanted ones pretty easily. For example, most of the call outs that we have seen have not involved same-level co-workers. They have involved a boss and a subordinate most often. Surveying people on the subject reveals that most people believe those types of workplace relationships to be inappropriate. No one should be surprised that they are often exploitative in nature.

I don't feel that it's difficult to avoid sexually stalking people, groping people, demanding sex in exchange for a promotion, etc. I really don't. Nobody has ever accused me of such things and I don't fear being accused of them because I'm not guilty, do you? I'll leave the most subjective cases to people who know better than me because my experiences haven't been very subjective. But this $#@! needs to be addressed. I really, really don't sympathize with the kinds of hyperbolic reactions discussed in the OP.

[Common]

This is one of the problems that the #Metoo movement accidentally caused.

A lot of people cannot definitively identify a line between what is sexual harassment and what is not. Even members of the #Metoo movement have admitted that they do not know. Workplace relationships happen, as does flirtation. Is taking your female coworker out for a drink any different than taking your male coworker out for a drink (from a male perspective)? What jokes are alright and what jokes are not alright? What constitutes flirting? What if someone takes a person's behavior as flirtation or harassment but the other person was not actually doing anything "flirty" or harassing?

Unfortunately, this is going to result in some workplaces deciding they do not want to even take the chance. That does not make it okay to discriminate against women, but it is kind of inevitable. Maybe we need a legal/government/research panel to come up with some type of definitive guide and that would explain boundaries and what is or is not sexual harassment, but even you got the top 10 scholars or researchers on sexual harassment, you probably would not get them to agree.

Heres one of the huge problems, if a man and a woman flirt with each other insinuate or say off color things its all fine an dandy until the woman decides to say no and turns you in. Then you go through hell until its all over thats if you dont get screwed.

I was caught in two sexual harrassment cases on me, I was exonerated with both, the most important one to me could have ended my career.

I had a female officer than none of the males wanted as a partner, the first partner she had came in my office and said, I will not work with her and he told me that all she does is stand behind him and he knows she will not be there if he needs her. I paired her with another officer, let me note it was Dept Policy that two females were never to be paired alone. The second officer last 6 working shifts and said Im not going to work with her, I told him he was and to work it out, he said Im not working with her and If I have to ill ask for a departmental transfer, which in effect is going over my head, I didnt like his threat so I gave him a reprimand and told go get your transfer but until then you are going to work with her. I got a phone from brass 2 days later to remove her from patrol duties and bench her.

I called her in <my mistake> and told her I was reassigning her to the property dept, she immediately bristled raised her voice and said WHY because so and so lied about me. I said no thats not the reason it was my decision, she asked me why and I said for the good of the precinct, its temporary at this point until I work it all out. She got angry and started making accusations, one thing you dont do is pass the buck when youre a commander and say I didnt do it Brass did it, so I took the weight of her wrath.

Two days later I was ordered to internal affairs, where I was informed I was being investigated for telling Officer so and so if she gave me some I would leave her on patrol and that I walked her back against a wall and was grinding on her and touching her and laughing.

I was temporarily removed from command and it took almost a month to get my name cleared and the only way that happened was she finally relented and said it didnt happen. I could not "PROVE" it did not happen as we were alone in the office.

After that incident I never spoke to a female without her union rep present or a female supervisor if one was available.

[Adelaide]

Most people can identify a line between wanted relationships in the workplace and unwanted ones pretty easily. For example, most of the call outs that we have seen have not involved same-level co-workers. They have involved a boss and a subordinate most often. Surveying people on the subject reveals that most people believe those types of workplace relationships to be inappropriate. No one should be surprised that they are often exploitative in nature.

I don't feel that it's difficult to avoid sexually stalking people, groping people, demanding sex in exchange for a promotion, etc. I really don't. Nobody has ever accused me of such things and I don't fear being accused of them. I really believe that the only reason why someone would be is because they're guilty.

You did not address much of what I said, and I am not sure whether you think relationships are the only form of sexual harassment in the workplace?

Here is what I wrote:

This is one of the problems that the #Metoo movement accidentally caused.

A lot of people cannot definitively identify a line between what is sexual harassment and what is not. Even members of the #Metoo movement have admitted that they do not know. Workplace relationships happen, as does flirtation. Is taking your female coworker out for a drink any different than taking your male coworker out for a drink (from a male perspective)? What jokes are alright and what jokes are not alright? What constitutes flirting? What if someone takes a person's behavior as flirtation or harassment but the other person was not actually doing anything "flirty" or harassing?

Unfortunately, this is going to result in some workplaces deciding they do not want to even take the chance. That does not make it okay to discriminate against women, but it is kind of inevitable. Maybe we need a legal/government/research panel to come up with some type of definitive guide and that would explain boundaries and what is or is not sexual harassment, but even you got the top 10 scholars or researchers on sexual harassment, you probably would not get them to agree.

You addressed one aspect. Most people agree that relationships are not alright, but you are not going to get a complaint if two co-workers get married... you might if it ends in breaking up. Should the married couple be fired? It is not black and white, especially when a place of employment can sometimes be part of the dating pool for people whether that is right or wrong.

What about touching? If a male colleague accidentally touches a woman's breast with the side of his arm when he is walking past her and apologizes, is that sexual harassment/assault? What if someone does do it on purpose but says, "I'm sorry"? How would we know which one is lying? How would the woman know?

What about language? I had a professor recently who referred to someone as the "lady lawyer," and I laughed at how sexist that was especially coming from an "expert" in law. Most women can think of a million words they don't want to be used either in general or in reference to them, while men are generally less aware so long as you don't call them an $#@! or something.

[Chris]

I don't make it a policy to blame women for the actions of men. No one has forced these business corporations to adopt these policies. That is a choice. I think these companies are reacting in a disingenuous way, claiming to face illegitimate problems that they are not.

What we need are public policy changes that render the formal processes for addressing these matters actually viable for survivors, such as:

-No more mandatory arbitration.
-No more nondisclosure agreements.
-No more statute of limitations on rape.
-In short, no more sweeping this $#@! under the rug.

Until those sorts of changes come into being, call outs will continue. That's a reality. Me Too exists because we DON'T take sexual harassment and abuse seriously, not because we do. Once normal processes cease to be so rigged and become more viable for survivors seeking justice, call outs will likely subside. But not until then.

I also feel that certain cultural changes would be helpful as well, but we will leave that for another discussion.

And these reactions on Wall Street exist because #metoo went too far. Of course it's a choice, a protective one, a defensive one.

You're entire argument rests on an assumption of guilt. That puts the cart before the horse. Policy is what it is to determine guilt by evidence.