Men ejecting girls

[Tallim]

I don't understand, shouldn't the companies perform background checks of their employees anyway? If someone were to take advantage of their position and sexually harass someone, the guy wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

I believe male teachers are looked into thoroughly before they are hired to teach in all-girls schools. Needless to say, male teachers are surrounded by girls and don't need to be accompanied by women to teach or reprimand female students.

I'm assuming because it's a security company that the term "eject" covers a more hands-on approach if needed.

It's less about the fear the employee will actually do something, it's to stop the woman being "ejected" from falsely claiming that they did. Because if it did end up in a trial two male employees, however unfairly, will be presumed to be in it together.

While it is discriminatory it's just a side effect of the times we live in.

 

[Ian Caronia]

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?

Yes, it is. However the fact they allow two women to do the same is sexism. Your company must be very sure of itself to let something like that slide, because all it takes is one man who was raped in the past to be forcibly ejected by two female officers for your employers' bank accounts to decrease dramatically.
_Still, it's a less common occurrence for female-on-male than male-on-female, hence why your employers haven't fixed that crack in their defenses, and unless a male who was a victim ends up in such a scenario (God forbid), that sexism will just remain that way.

Nothing for you to worry about, though. You're a guy. So long as you play by the rules nothing will go wrong for you. If you have a friend who's a female officer for the same company, though, let her know to watch her back and be sure to try and have a male officer with her whenever something like that goes down.

 

[Ickorus]

Counter-argument time:

Is it not possible that the rule is in place to prevent false accusations of rape?

We all know that some teenagers are often cruel and vindictive as they search for their spot in society and teenage girls have the extra ammunition of being thought by society of having an increased risk of being raped by men anyhere and at any time.[footnote]Because all men are animals really and if given the opportunity would rape teenage girls all day long! (Please note: Sarcasm meter is off the charts)[/footnote]

I've known 2 guys who have been accused of rape by teenage girls, neither of these guys have been convicted because they didn't really do it and the girls in question got bored and admitted they were lying so the precedent is indeed there, is it not possible that they get a female employee to assist in the escort just to make it harder for a girl to falsely accuse the male employees of rape?

 

[bluewolf]

ridiculouse and frankly, quite odd.

 

[FuktLogik]

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.

So we should put up with this shit out of fear? You're what's wrong with the developed world. Keeping your mouth shut and being a doormat to these kinds of policies only makes it worse. These practices need to be fought, not accepted.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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

Question answered

 

[Nudu]

It's not that I don't see why they are doing this, but I believe in equality by principle, so I'm totally against this.

 

[Low Key]

I had to deal with a double standard like that at one of my old jobs.

When I used to work for a gas station, the girls weren't allowed to take out the trash after the sun went down because "all of the crazies". So why should I have to deal with "all of the crazies" just because I have a dick? If it's unsafe outside, then it's fucking unsafe. And do you know what makes the story even funnier? I was working at a gas station in probably one of the richest cities in a 500 mile radius. Lotsa crazy people like bums and crack dealers out there I tell ya...

But yeah, equality for women and all that. Hoorah!

[sub]My post isn't meant to be sexist. Don't treat as such.[/sub]

 

[SouthpawFencer]

So we should put up with this shit out of fear? You're what's wrong with the developed world. Keeping your mouth shut and being a doormat to these kinds of policies only makes it worse. These practices need to be fought, not accepted.

Are you opposed to the company policy in question, or opposed to the current cultural realities that make this type of policy necessary?

If it's the former, I'm guilty as charged. I work in a public school, and I self-impose restrictions on my interactions with the students that my work brings me into almost daily contact with, especially the girls. Specifically, my office door stays open if I'm talking to a student rather than an adult. If I have to render assistance using a computer, the student and I go to a public area where computers are available rather than using the workstation in my office. I have a female staff member with me at all times when I need to do work in a female locker room, and that staff member makes sure that the area is empty before I step foot inside.

In addition, any remotely questionable encounter that I have with a student is reported to the an administrator as quickly as possible, so that they have the facts in front of them if there's trouble later.

It protects the students from potential rumors spread by others, it protects me from false accusations, and it protects my employer from lawsuits based on any false accusations.

If it's the latter, I'm open to suggestions on how to single-handedly change our current cultural realities so that all hurtful rumors and false accusations of misconduct magically disappear. Until then, I guess that I'll have to continue being what's wrong with the developed world so long as I have to continue working for a living.