Men ejecting girls

[Starp]

Aright, I work for a security company (not going to say which one, for fear of getting fired), and I was going over some rules when one struck a chord with me-

I have the power to eject people from the premise, as long as a colleague/superior agrees that they need ejecting. Now, I'm not allowed to eject someone under 16 years old unless they have an adult with them (fine), but, if that person is female, I need to be accompanied by a female colleague or I can't eject them.

Now why is this? Two females can eject a male, but two males can't eject a female? Maybe it's just my warped mind, but is it down to a risk of paedophilia? I appreciate the risk of sexual assault is greater with 2 men and a girl than it is for 2 women and a boy, but is it really so much so that it's necessary to have a woman present when removing a girl?

Or am I missing something?

(Captcha: "oodsivi exists" huh.)

*EDIT* Fixed the subject. In hindsight, it was a bit much.

 

[Berethond]

They're just being extra-careful to cover their bases to avoid dangerous lawsuits.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

This isn't what I expected, but I'd say no, but I'd suggest most men are in fact ephebophiles, attracted to teenagers, and if societal rules and ideas were stripped away, there'd be more men having sex with girls around the 15-17 age range. I'm not being pervy, it's a simple case of the baby making equipment is switched on then and biology dictates the rest.

I'm personally highly sick of the idea that we need to keep doing things 'in case of paedos' however, they're not a new threat, and I'd like to see some real numbers on how many cases there are compared to 50 years ago, and how much of it's just media fearmongering.

Essentially however, your company is covering your back, so the girl being thrown out can't just say you touched her up to get away with whatever you've grabbed her for doing.

 

[Cabisco]

Their are occasional weird things like this which pretty much seem sexist, I was once told by someone it's because their can be situations where someone abuses the circumstances (i.e. a male escourting a young girl) and suggest something indecent happened to her and try to get a tonne of money etc.

I know, fucked up, I don't think that is true but thats what I was told. It really can't be true, anyone else ever heard anything like that as the reason?

I assumed the reason would be something like it normally calms the women being ejected down, something like that.

 

[Mechanix]

Society is under the belief that men will take every opportunity possible to rape women. It's a retarded logic, but that's just the way it is. Maybe in the future people will smarten up.

 

[SouthpawFencer]

It's for your company's protection, and for your own, and you should be very grateful for that policy.

It greatly reduces the chance of you being accused of sexual improprieties with whomever you're ejecting, who probably isn't very happy with you and probably realizes that your being accused of putting your hand inside her shirt is going to be far more of a headache for you than her. True or not, you'd probably get fired so that the company wouldn't get sued on the basis of "tolerating a culture of sexual harassment by male employees", or something like that.

And, believe me, you do NOT want to have your name in the local papers being accused of shoving your hand down the pants of a fifteen-year-old girl, even if the story is obviously ludicrous, because your next employer will probably see the article and decide that the other guy applying for the job, with a resume that is ALMOST as impressive as yours and has never been accused of fondling a girl the age of this guy's granddaughter, will be a better fit for the job than you will be.

You also don't want to defend from those charges in civil or criminal court. And you REALLY do not want to be on a sex offender registry somewhere. Or serving a prison sentence for a sex crime, especially against a minor (a lot of those large men with arms the size of your legs and a history of violent crime longer than a russian novel have daughters on the outside, whom they're currently helpless to protect...).

This way, if there's any question, the female coworker pipes up and says "Nah, he didn't do anything REMOTELY out of line. That girl is so full of shit that it's leaking out of her ears", and your butt is covered (and still employed).

Now the company most likely couldn't care less about you, but this reduces the chance of a lawsuit. And, if you ARE a pedophile (or ephebophile, if we're talking about teenagers), this makes it less likely that you can molest a kid even if you are a predator who managed to get past whatever screening process your company has.

 

[Gaiseric]

They're just being extra-careful to cover their bases to avoid dangerous lawsuits.

Probably this. Lawsuits are too common nowadays for companies to risk otherwise.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

They're just covering their arses. No man is going to scream "sexism!" if two women tell him to get the fuck off their property, but some women have been known to use the sexism excuse at the slightest provocation and two men telling her to take a hike could unfortunately bring pointless and stupid legal ramifications.

 

[barash]

It's mostly to protect your employer from lawsuits (crying wolf for settlement-payout) and secondary to protect the (male) employees.

At least, that's what the owner of the security-company I worked for told me back in the day. Of course, we had his permission to do things how we saw fit, and if wolf should be cried our female colleagues had our backs and would say they were present. No such situation ever arose though, as we usually paired off with female colleagues since we did A Lot of bodysearches.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

They're just being extra-careful to cover their bases to avoid dangerous lawsuits.

Seconded...

From a company point of view you are a male in a position of power and this raises the likelihood of an accusation taking place. Not the likelihood of you committing the crime, or else they would never hire you to begin with. Just the likelihood of an accusation, and they have this concept because it is true!

It also raises the chance such an accusation will 'pay off' if it comes to court or a public relations battle. In fact, the more they fight it the more it will seem to be accurate and that they are guilty of covering it up. For this reason they want to ensure you are accompanied by a 'neutral' party at all times just to avoid the whole mess to begin with. They don't want to be in a loose/loose situation and I can't blame them.

Also: society does view woman to be 'weaker' and therefor less likely to break the law concerning sexual conduct. This is a complete fabrication of course, woman are just as likely to abuse position of power and carry out sexual abuse as males. It is just a higher possibility that a male wouldn't report a sexual abuse at the hand of a woman, due to the stigma of being 'too weak to protect yourself from a girl.' The same stigma also means their accusation will be more closely looked at, and likely dismissed before it even gets to the 'bad press' stage. Even if truthful, and the accusation comes forth, the chance of the case being 'won' is a lot slimmer so the company doesn't feel as much need for the extra protection.

The company is just protecting itself from the irrational nature of human society.

 

[daemon37]

The title of this thread is misleading. I thought this would be a discussion on the nature of male sexuality. Wherein I would've said, "Yes, to a certain degree men are usually attracted to women younger than the legal age of consent in most western societies. However, women are generally not attracted to younger men. But individuals who are attracted to pre-pubescent children are not normal and need psychological help."

But to answer your question, sure it's sexist discrimination, but it makes sense considering what I wrote above.

 

[Erana]

It's for your company's protection, and for your own, and you should be very grateful for that policy.

It greatly reduces the chance of you being accused of sexual improprieties with whomever you're ejecting, who probably isn't very happy with you and probably realizes that your being accused of putting your hand inside her shirt is going to be far more of a headache for you than her. True or not, you'd probably get fired so that the company wouldn't get sued on the basis of "tolerating a culture of sexual harassment by male employees", or something like that.

And, believe me, you do NOT want to have your name in the local papers being accused of shoving your hand down the pants of a fifteen-year-old girl, even if the story is obviously ludicrous, because your next employer will probably see the article and decide that the other guy applying for the job, with a resume that is ALMOST as impressive as yours and has never been accused of fondling a girl the age of this guy's granddaughter, will be a better fit for the job than you will be.

You also don't want to defend from those charges in civil or criminal court. And you REALLY do not want to be on a sex offender registry somewhere. Or serving a prison sentence for a sex crime, especially against a minor (a lot of those large men with arms the size of your legs and a history of violent crime longer than a russian novel have daughters on the outside, whom they're currently helpless to protect...).

This way, if there's any question, the female coworker pipes up and says "Nah, he didn't do anything REMOTELY out of line. That girl is so full of shit that it's leaking out of her ears", and your butt is covered (and still employed).

Now the company most likely couldn't care less about you, but this reduces the chance of a lawsuit. And, if you ARE a pedophile (or ephebophile, if we're talking about teenagers), this makes it less likely that you can molest a kid even if you are a predator who managed to get past whatever screening process your company has.

This.

And just statistically, men do more of this sick stuff. And women are much less likely to be prosecuted than men in these sorts of situations, too. Its not impossible, but PR doesn't work on facts, it works on contemporary perception. Which includes the myth that women don't rape.

Also, an important point is this:

Two females can eject a male, but two males can't eject a female?

The women aren't alone, either. Sounds like when ejecting anyone, you have to be accompanied by a co-worker, and they just tweaked it to make sure a woman's there. Its not like you, yourself, have to be escorted.
It really does sound like they're just covering their and their employee's bases, as Southpaw has said. With policies like this, there shouldn't be a possibility for an issue to arise in the first place, no matter how ridiculous the grounds for someone's claim was.

 

[WishThisWasIGN]

I'm personally highly sick of the idea that we need to keep doing things 'in case of paedos' however, they're not a new threat, and I'd like to see some real numbers on how many cases there are compared to 50 years ago, and how much of it's just media fearmongering.

I'd wager there are most likely fewer. It's a nihilistic society we live in where you can't video your child's sports events without explicit permission "in case of paedos" and where you must prearrange for your (trusted, i presume) extended family to pick up your child from school "in case of paedos".
In all seriousness, and without condoning, I'm not even sure that it is always 100% the adult offender's fault, not entirely.

Kids are becoming sexually aware at younger ages so it's no great surprise they are seeking sexual activity, with that in mind the sexual deviancy of one adult might not always be to blame. I for one have been propositioned by a teenager below the age of consent, this was when I was 21. I'd never met her, but it certainly shocked me and made me rethink my stance on the malevolence of paedophiles.

On topic though, I imagine there is some psychobabble rubbish about how two men would inflame the situation for a young woman being removed from premises. Personally, if you're being forcably removed from a place for flouting the rules, you kinda lose the right to comment on their conduct when kicking your ass out. Still, in a world where a mutually decided one night stand can result in a rape charge if one party decides to regret it enough, we gotta cover our asses.

Edit: lose the right to comment for a given amount of bad conduct. law breaking is clearly not included

 

[Dastardly]

Now why is this? Two females can eject a male, but two males can't eject a female? Maybe it's just my warped mind, but is it down to a risk of paedophilia? I appreciate the risk of sexual assault is greater with 2 men and a girl than it is for 2 women and a boy, but is it really so much so that it's necessary to have a woman present when removing a girl?

Or am I missing something?

(Captcha: "oodsivi exists" huh.)

It's an unfortunate product of stereotyping. In a perfect world, you could do without it... but any company has to first deal with the world that is, rather than the world that should be.

It's not that they think a man is more likely to commit these crimes. It's that the public is more inclined to believe a woman who falsely accuses a man (or men) than the other way around.

For the same reason, a lot of bank transactions require "dual control," in which two people perform the entire task. That way one person isn't left unsupervised with the money. It's not necessarily that the bank thinks everyone is a thieving bastard. It's just that a customer wanting to claim something got stolen is a big problem that is easily fixed by having two people involved in the transaction, keeping an eye on each other.

Perception is nine-tenths of reality, I'm afraid. Just follow the rule. Fight it some other day.

 

[Biosophilogical]

They're just being extra-careful to cover their bases to avoid dangerous lawsuits.

And froma PR perspective I'd imagine that security guards are seen as 'man' men, and men still have the stigma of being unable to think past their second head (and having gone to an all male high school, it is disturbingly accurate). I mean, the public view of a security guard (male) isn't some scrawny kid with glasses worrying about his chemistry final, it is going to be more along the lines of the jock, getting drunk, bragging about his sexual conquests.

As for whether that view has some foundation in reality? I don't know, but I'd imagine it at least has some semblance of merit (not the sexual assault, just the position along the stereotype scale), and when it comes to a business you want to prevent all reasonable risk.

 

[Lucane]

Now why is this? Two females can eject a male, but two males can't eject a female? Maybe it's just my warped mind, but is it down to a risk of paedophilia? I appreciate the risk of sexual assault is greater with 2 men and a girl than it is for 2 women and a boy, but is it really so much so that it's necessary to have a woman present when removing a girl?

Or am I missing something?

(Captcha: "oodsivi exists" huh.)

Maybe it's in like that in part so that the event of sexual assault can never occur(Not because of every man but to prevent any man)If they didn't have the rule then sure maybe you're a decent guy(No offense but I don't personally know you.) and your job wouldn't differ much,but it would be alot more difficult for a less than decent guy to harass a woman without getting the female guard on his side(unless she's a less than decent lesbian?)than a guy of similar lacking morals.(just as a possible worst case scenario not an absolute.)

Plus,if the ejected person tries to press false charges on you of sexual assault a 3rd poinr of view by a woman would fair better than a mans in most courts.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

All that girl needs to do is scream "Sexual abuse!" and you will quickly understand why a woman must be present. A jury is inclined to believe a woman over a man when it comes to these sorts of things. The only safe way to combat it--sort of video taping every single ejection you do--is to have another woman present who, if she doesn't do the all of the ejecting, is at least a part of it. That way you have a woman on your side. Is it sexist? Yes. But that's how it works. Same reason why women police officers tend to guard women prisoners.
At my work, the security guards can arrest a woman, but after that they have to leave her in the office until the police show up. Why? Because we don't have a female security officer, and the company is too worried about getting sued to risk anything involving women. As they should be. Women lie a lot about that sort of thing when they get into trouble. They try to turn the tables so they're the victims.