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.
So a strange anecdote related to this story – I’ve worked for a small company before where there was a husband/wife employee couple, which had DV issues. The female-dominant senior managers, very quietly, would send the man on leave while looking for excuses to fire him each time there was an event. The wife refused to press charges, because she was seemingly the one starting the physical fights, she just lost cause she was weaker – the guy wasn’t a big dude though, so it’s not like he could easily just ‘restrain’ her, hence some visible physical injuries. So the company couldn’t use something like a criminal record to justify dismissal. But they still tried to find ways to fire the man, without really caring about who was instigating / innocent until proven guilty, or anything. It’s just “Man hits a woman for any reason? Women band together to cast out the man”.
These two people stayed together for decades like this, with mgmt periodically going through those motions apparently. Think they’re still together. Had like 3 or 4 kids.
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.”
I mean, it’s kinda expected that more women in power means more justice to women.
Thank you for this comment, it clarified some things for me. I read “dismiss” as “ignore”, not “dismiss” as in “terminate employment”.
Oh my goodness I still didn’t get it until I read your comment *facepalm*
I feel like they could have worded it better, I was trying to figure that out as well.
Agreed, but I realize that is a US-centric issue. “Dismiss” to the UK is equivalent to “terminate” in the US, and with The Guardian being a British newspaper, it makes sense they’d use that term.
Fair enough!
I managed to get it before I came to this comment, but it took all my processing power.
Same.
ahahaha I found it confusing too, I had to read the article a little bit to understand it better.
Yeah, I did after I saw your comment. Clarified it the rest of the way
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.
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.
They did use plain language … British English.
I would argue that British English is one of the least plain languages out there, and just about the only thing brits don’t prefer plain.
You should explore more languages. English is really quite direct when compared to many other languages; the English could have had a lot more fun with the language but they decided to be boring.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
Firms, not films.
Wow, imagine if Quentin Tarantino mixed up “film” and “firm”: “hello HR? Yes, the entire company.”
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.
