Companies who employ more women in senior roles are much more likely to dismiss men accused of sexually or physically abusing their colleagues, according to analysis of international and UK data.
Men were more likely to get sacked for abusing a male colleague rather than a female colleague, according to a recent Finnish study, cited in research about the economic impact of violence against women and girls gathered by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
It found that in female-managed organisations (those with a higher than average number of women in high-earning positions) were “significantly more likely to dismiss perpetrators”, while male-managed ones were more likely to see the victim of abuse leave the company.
The IFS cited studies that found women who are sexually or physically assaulted at work experience a major hit to their careers, “including job loss, reduced hours and lower income”. One study found that women who move in with an abusive partner see their earnings drop by an average of 12%. “These losses persist even after the relationship ends, indicating long-term damage to labour market attachment and career progression,” said the IFS.
Please note this article comes out of Great Britain where the usage of the word ‘dismiss’ means fired.
Feels like this should have been expressed the other way, “firms without women in leadership roles cover up more abuse.”
Excellent point
Okay great, but do those firms with more women in leadership outpace the profitability of those that let men get away with abuse in the workplace? Because the only thing that really matters is finding out if abusive workplaces make more money so I can do that.
- every CEO
I mean, it’s kinda expected that more women in power means more justice to women.
Research is still important to be sure.
There have also been some studies on women led organizations concluding that they would take more aggressive and ruthless decisions, the reasons for these are contested, but some suggest that due to women being seen as less performant in leadership positions, they tend to placed in those positions when times are rough or the pressure to focus on short term gains is the highest.
Sending male abusers away is the right thing to do. I’m glad women in positions of power are doing that.
I would like to inform that in the Finnish article mentioned (which can be accessed via Google Scholar) the authors use the word “Fire” and not “Dismiss”, so it’s even clearer.
The title/article is confusing. What does “dismiss” mean - ignored or fired? Seems like ignored.
Its an especially interesting choice of words in this context considering issues like this have been dismissed (as in ignored) for decades.
The second paragraph makes it more clear when they say “sacked” but they could just use plain language.
But the second is talking about abuses against males. If anything, using two words “dismissed, and sacked” one in each paragraph, makes it even more confusing. Felt like it was saying women in senior positions protected women less (dismissed abusers) while protecting men more (sacking abusers). Just say sacked both times.
They did use plain language … British English.
The second paragraph is about male and male abuse - they get sacked. Male and female abuse - they don’t get sacked as much.
Yeah i had to do a double-take because the way I originally interpreted seemed so backwards.
I was really confused until the end where it said dismiss meant firing.
Somewhere, there’s someone out there that thinks “firing” means “this person was literally thrown into a bonfire.”
“Dismiss” is the wrong word to use in that title. Yes, it can mean “fire”, but it can also mean “ignore”. It seems like this is a case where you want to be clear which interpretation you mean.
I’m guessing “dismiss” never means “ignore” in British English. Maybe a British can confirm.
It does mean ignore in BE. To deem unimportant/not worth bothering with.
In my opinion the headline is unclear, possibly deliberately in order to engage clicks.
A person of either gender could be helpful or abusive and support abusers.
And yet!
Whataboutism at its finest.
Was what I said true or false?
I’m not sure why there is a distinction. Toxic behavior is toxic. Fire anyone who acts inappropriately. End of story.
The study is showing that what you are advocating is more likely to happen at a company with more women in leadership positions.
deleted by creator
Firms, not films.
Mb
I read films too.
this headline could have been worded a lot better.
That’s what I first read. It’s how I knew how you got there.
Wow, imagine if Quentin Tarantino mixed up “film” and “firm”: “hello HR? Yes, the entire company.”
