Re: Trial by media
 

Ever been to British hen party in full flow, Kiwi? Do we sack every drunken fool for every drunken outburst? It's all about context. Nobody is defending his behaviour. Whether he should be fired or not has nothing to do with his gender.

What speaks volumes to me is the general public braying for some young nobody to lose his job when no real threat took place. It's the politics of being offended. The guy should have been verbally slapped down by the reporter (which he was) possibly slapped down by the media (which he was) asked to apologise (which he did) end of story.

Re: Trial by media
 

Lucky u is a lady writing this, imagine if a guy wrote it. Oh my, and then they found out where he worked oh my oh my :ohmy:

Re: Trial by media
 

But here's the major difference relevant to this situation.

Outside of work and in private with other consenting adults is one thing. Outside of work but in public and harassing other folk trying to get on without hindrance in their lives is something else.

I would expect the same rules to apply as in other situations where some may expect employer action.

This isn't really the same as exercising freedom to go on a demo or take part in some other kind of protest. People are not free to be obnoxious just because they want to be. There are consequences.

Re: Trial by media
 

it's official. You just don't get it.

In spite of all of the women on this thread telling you that this behaviour IS threatening and demeaning and lets other women know, by being allowed to continue, that treating us like crap and making sexual jokes at us because of our gender is okay. You just don't get it. And this, my fellow women, is why we're still in this position.

Re: Trial by media
 

What position?

Re: Trial by media
 

wut?

Re: Trial by media
 

You must spread some rep etc. But I think you were hoping for too much.

Re: Trial by media
 

Yes.

She was just trying to do her job.

I'd rather have seen the Police caution and fine this guy. I think it's something that should have been handled by the authorities.

I can understand why the employer severed ties too. You can't be seen to condone that behaviour in anyway. The tragedy here is that the guy who originally shouted into the microphone has never been named or shamed. He is living his life quite happily with no doubt some notoriety amongst his bro's.

Re: Trial by media
 

I want to know what position you are still in?

Re: Trial by media
 

In the kitchen cooking duh :eek:

Re: Trial by media
 

The position of being subjected to sexual harassment and abuse in public or at work by men who think it's no big deal, I should imagine.

Re: Trial by media
 

Firing, or not hiring, someone because they are a woman, or not white, or are gay is discrimination.

Firing, or not hiring, someone because they are an arsehole isn't.

Re: Trial by media
 

If she has that in her work place she should speak up in line with her company policy, call in the police or a lawyer or work somewhere else.

Ranting on a forum anonymously will not solve the issue.

Re: Trial by media
 

"Somewhere else" being another country?

(Note that my belief that sexist behaviour is rampant in Canadian workplaces should not be construed as an endorsement of such behaviour. Nor should it be taken to mean that I think specific other countries are necessarily better. Still, I think there's little an individual victim in Canada can do about it).

Re: Trial by media
 

A dose of reality, regarding employment in the US military:

US: Military Whistleblowers At Risk | Human Rights Watch

Summary

Spat on. Deprived of food. Assailed with obscenities and
insults—“whore,” “cum dumpster,”
“slut,” “faggot,” “wildebeest.” Threatened
with death by “friendly fire” during deployment. Demeaned. Demoted.
Disciplined. Discharged for misconduct.

It is no secret that the US military has a sexual assault
problem: the Department of Defense estimates that 18,900 US service members
were sexually assaulted in fiscal year (FY) 2014.[1] But the slurs, sanctions, and scorn described above are not the punishments
that soldiers and their superiors have meted out to those who have perpetrated
sexual assault in the armed forces, but rather what happened to victims
who reported their experiences.

Military sexual assault survivors almost never see a remedy
for these actions, for which virtually no one is held accountable. Military
surveys indicate that most respondents—62 percent—who experienced
unwanted sexual contact and reported it to a military authority faced
retaliation as a result of reporting.[2] In other
words, military service members who reported sexual assault were 12 times more
likely to suffer retaliation for doing so than to see their offender, if also a
service member, convicted for a sex offense. Just 5 percent (175 out of 3,261)
of sexual assault cases in the Defense Department’s jurisdiction
investigated with a reportable outcome in FY 2014 led to a sex offense
conviction.[3]

It is estimated that only one in four victims reports sexual
assault to military authorities. In surveys, service members consistently cite
fear of retaliation from the perpetrator or the perpetrator’s friends, or
concern about their careers, as reasons for not reporting.[4]