KPMG's sexism scandal.

Handsome Bob

Apologies if it's already posted but I didn't see anything on the first two pages. Anyway, if any of y'all worked in a financial institution before, this shouldn't shock you. I'd say they were a bunch of "Haw, haw" toffs too stupid to be even embarassed about it.

I hope the women take these "senior officials" to the cleaners and negotiate a nice hush hush package.

FURTHER evidence of the boys' club mentality in financial services emerged today after another sexist email emerged from a 'Big Four' company.

An email pertaining to be about KPMG employees was circulated around the city. This was revealed after yesterday's allegations about PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

The news came as accounting firm PwC launched a probe into a sexist email which featured pictures of young women nominated on a "top ten" list.
Now another email, which was allegedly a private conversation between colleagues within the accounting firm KPMG, featured a discussion about the employees' "luck with the ladies".

One of the conversations, allegedly from a member of staff at KPMG, went into chat up techniques and a so-called "k score".

This email was then forwarded to the girl in question and then went viral.
Hundreds of employees in banks, insurance companies, government departments and private companies across the country received the email.
Photographs of the three employees featured were also included in the viral mail.

Representatives for KPMG were unavailable for comment when contacted this morning.

Meanwhile it has emerged that the 'rating' system amongst new employees which appeared in the PwC email is an 'annual ritual' in many of the big accounting firms.

Sources said that it was common knowledge that this type of email was often circulated internally, but never sent "outside the firm".
Danger

It's alleged that this practice is a tradition which happens yearly within some of the country's biggest accounting firms.

The pictures of the 13 women, featured in yesterday's Herald, were accompanied by their names and departments within the email.
A number of the women mentioned in the emails are graduates from prominent universities.

Director of the National Women's Council of Ireland, Susan McKay criticised the email said that there is a danger of developing into "a culture that does not value women".

"You don't have to look much further than things like this to see why women fail to progress," she said.

UK-based PwC is the second largest accountancy firm in the world and previously acted as auditor for Anglo Irish Bank.

PwC, which employs 2,000 people in Ireland, said: "We are taking this matter extremely seriously and are launching a full investigation.

"We will take all necessary steps and actions in line with our firm's policies and procedures."The firm has declined to comment on what the ultimate sanction might be.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/now-kpmg-under-fire-as-sexist-email-surfaces-2416096.html

Silverfish

MOD NOTE: Please be mindful that this is the Ladies Lounge, which has a different set of rules. There are threads on this subject in the Gentlemen's Club and After Hours, if you feel your responses might be more suitable to there.

goose2005

So discussing the attractiveness of co-workers should be a sackable offense? That ought to add to the dole queues.

Das Kitty

I had a look at the email yesterday the subject line is: FYI. New Clunge

There is no doubt that these guys are eejits. It was inappropriate to have such a convo through work email. The original sender knew this as he asked for his work sig to be removed if it were to be forwarded. The main problem the company has is that it's representing them in a poor light and IMO it's fair enough if they want to take disciplinary action.

People still don't get that once to write an email or post it online it's permanent. It's not like having a conversation that is gone once it's over.

I feel sorry for the women, they never asked for any of this and they've found their photos splashed all over the media with their names too. It's almost as if the whole country is being asked to join in in the top 10 rating. Yes the guys were wrong but the media went to town on it and made matters much worse for the women involved.

Pembily

goose2005 wrote: »

So discussing the attractiveness of co-workers should be a sackable offense? That ought to add to the dole queues.

Eh no buy this was more than discussing, this was rating!!! It was set down on paper and it is not on... How would guys feel if women discussed the size of their male appendages?!?!?!

This really p!ssed me off as it's hard enough being a new employee in a company, but being a new female employee in a large male club and then being subjected to your looks being rated is just sickening...

It's the 21st century - discussing in private is one thing but putting it down on electronic traceable email is just stupid and arseholes!!!!

Princess Peach

I read in the paper yesterday that none of the women had made an official complaint yet.

If it were me I would feel so objectified. Big firms are already a "man's world" and these women have worked hard to get that job, and are trying to establish themselves as intelligent and competent workers, and these men just treat them as beauty pageant contestants that they should judge. And then the pictures were all over the newspapers.

I hope there is serious consequences for the men involved. This is not how you treat women in general, and especially not in a professional workplace.

LittleBook

goose2005 wrote: »

So discussing the attractiveness of co-workers should be a sackable offense? That ought to add to the dole queues.

Or rather ... being stupid enough to use your professional e-mail to discuss this kind of thing in this day and age when most people are IT literate and companies are exposed to charges of harassment and lawsuits is a sackable offence.

Anyway, has anyone ever actually been fired for this kind of thing?

Handsome Bob

goose2005 wrote: »

So discussing the attractiveness of co-workers should be a sackable offense? That ought to add to the dole queues.

I didn't mention sacking them, but it just goes to show that these guys have a complete lack of respect for their colleagues. Not just for the colleagues that got on their "ratings list", but also for the ones who didn't get on the list in the sense that these guys would have been objectifying every single female in the place to gauge their "worthyness" to be on the list.

It's tiring behaviour in the work place, and it would piss me off just as much if the gender roles were reversed (I am male after all). Fair play to the whistleblower.

IITYWYBMAD

I'm male. Many moons ago I was approached by a female member of staff, in a National Newspaper I was working in at the time, and was told that the girls "had voted me as having the best arse" in the office. She said it straight to my face, in those words. I felt embarrassed but I also very complimented (I stress it was 1999!!).

I didn't 'do' anything about it, as it didn't bother me that much at all. What I'm trying to illustrate is that this happens "everywhere", both males and females are objectified and categorized by their peers.

What would have been an issue, is if somebody had approached me and said, "we voted you the insert insulting comment x in the office" and that's the difference. I feel really sorry for the girls who had less than complimentary things said about them, and it must be embarrassing for them, but I don't think sacking people is the answer. Discipline them, educate them, and tighten up your I.T. infrastructure. But also, lets not kid ourselves that it doesn't happen.

g'em

goose2005 wrote: »

I hope there is serious consequences for the men involved. This is not how you treat women in general, and especially not in a professional workplace.

That's the key bit for me. In an ideal world it would be great to never be objectified in my personal life or at work but it would also make me a raging hypocrite - where my personal life is concerned anyway. I'm guilty of seeing a cute guy and making drool jokes or whatever as much as any guy is about a woman.

But the workplace is a different story, it's somewhere that it's entirely reasonable to expect to be treated like an equal irrespective of gender. Personally I think that it's quite just for the guys who did this to have to face serious consequences from their employers. Most big firms and establishments will have dignity and respect policies whereby it's reasonable to expect a level of treatment from colleagues that does not patronise, demean or belittle you and these emails breach all of those conditions. In large organisations it's often still hard for women to be taken seriously and when things like this happen and nothing is done about it it's sending a message home that it's ok for male workers to speak about their female colleagues in such a way.

Of course, and throwing the cat amongst the pigeons here, some girls would be delighted to be on such a list and spoken about favourably.

seamus

LittleBook wrote: »

Anyway, has anyone ever actually been fired for this kind of thing?

I'm sure they have.

As you say, the issue is not so much that this is the kind of discussion that goes on - go to any place where men or women congregate and the same conversations take place, day in and day out. The world would be terribly sterile if we weren't allowed to discuss eachother in this manner.

The problem is that some idiots use their work email to do it. The main reason that companies don't like it is because exactly this kind of incident happens - someone reads it and takes offence and because it's on a company email address and theoretically company property, there may be legal ramifications from the content of the communication.
It's the difference between sending an offensive letter on a blank sheet of paper, or using company-headed notepaper to do it. In the latter case it appears to be endorsed by the company.

hollypink

Pembily wrote: »

Eh no buy this was more than discussing, this was rating!!!

I agree - I wouldn't have a problem with someone commenting that x or y was attractive (in a respectful way), although that shouldn't be in emails either. But I was genuinely surprised that in threads in AH and tGC the general view seemed to be that the rating in itself was no problem, was in fact something that happened in most offices and was something that women were known to do as well. The issue for most posters seemed to be that it showed the stupidity of the men who emailed it around, that it damaged the reputation of PWC and resulted in the womens' photos ending up on the front page of some newspapers. I think rating women against each other in this way is demeaning and nasty.

Also the fact that none of the women involved made a complaint may not mean they are not bothered by it - it may be that having just started in a new company they don't want to be known for 'causing a fuss'. That may not be right but I can understand why someone might look it it that way.

Handsome Bob

hollypink wrote: »

Also the fact that none of the women involved made a complaint may not mean they are not bothered by it - it may be that having just started in a new company they don't want to be known for 'causing a fuss'. That may not be right but I can understand why someone might look it it that way.

Apparently they are still meeting together to try and decide what's the best move forward. Don't ask me how I know this, I protect my sources. :pac:

Ectoplasm

hollypink wrote: »

I agree - I wouldn't have a problem with someone commenting that x or y was attractive (in a respectful way), although that shouldn't be in emails either. But I was genuinely surprised that in threads in AH and tGC the general view seemed to be that the rating in itself was no problem, was in fact something that happened in most offices and was something that women were known to do as well. The issue for most posters seemed to be that it showed the stupidity of the men who emailed it around, that it damaged the reputation of PWC and resulted in the womens' photos ending up on the front page of some newspapers. I think rating women against each other in this way is demeaning and nasty.

Also the fact that none of the women involved made a complaint may not mean they are not bothered by it - it may be that having just started in a new company they don't want to be known for 'causing a fuss'. That may not be right but I can understand why someone might look it it that way.

I'll be honest and say I'm not that surprised that this happens - I think if you look at the average age of the guys who did this, it'd be early mid twenties. I personally think that rating women against each other this is a bit retarded but I think the kind of guys who do it are kind of like big puppys - mostly nice but a little bit dim and don't get the reality of the situation.

I don't think their motivations are nasty is what I'm saying. I've seen a lot of guys say that they wouldn't be bothered and may even be flattered by this, but I think that this is because they are not in a position where they have a personal history of being objectified and valued solely for their looks. They really don't get what the big deal is because it's not something they experience regularly. I'm not saying men aren't ever objectified, just that it's not necessarily a day to day thing the way it can be for women. It was stupid and a bit disappointing, but not shocking.

That said, these guys were muppets to do it in work. If they did this on their lunch break, I'd still think they were juvenile, but they didn't. One guy spent time scanning through pictures of new women in the office, selected his 'top picks', saved the pictures and then emailed it around. If nothing else, he's wasting company time. They deserve to get sacked and I've no sympathy. Also, if you reversed the situation and a woman had done it, I'd say the exact same thing. Juvenile, stupid, there's the door.

---

>

Wibbs

Sacked I dunno. Equally embarrassed would be nice though. Put out the guys photos and the rags would pick it up in milliseconds. Then dock a months pay for being morons.

yizorselves

Pembily wrote: »

Eh no buy this was more than discussing, this was rating!!! It was set down on paper and it is not on... How would guys feel if women discussed the size of their male appendages?!?!?!

This really p!ssed me off as it's hard enough being a new employee in a company, but being a new female employee in a large male club and then being subjected to your looks being rated is just sickening...

It's the 21st century - discussing in private is one thing but putting it down on electronic traceable email is just stupid and arseholes!!!!

Yes because guys rating how good looking these women are is the exact same thing as the women discussing the size of the guys todgers.

Ickle Magoo

yizorselves wrote: »

Yes because guys rating how good looking these women are is the exact same thing as the women discussing the size of the guys todgers.

What? You think they were rating from the neck up?

ztoical

yizorselves wrote: »

Yes because guys rating how good looking these women are is the exact same thing as the women discussing the size of the guys todgers.

Yes I'm sure they were discussing the womens looks based purely on a series of Mathematical equations and deep philosophical debate on aesthetics and there was no section of the email marked 'best knockers in the office'

Pembily

yizorselves wrote: »

Yes because guys rating how good looking these women are is the exact same thing as the women discussing the size of the guys todgers.

Eh seriously... They were being rated on breast size and cleavage (cause that's a huge part of a woman's ''beauty'' and to me it's as demeaning as us discussing the size of a man's penis!

Catari Jaguar

goose2005 wrote: »

So discussing the attractiveness of co-workers should be a sackable offense? That ought to add to the dole queues.

Never heard of sexual harrassment?

Since when is an email ranking system of "new clunge" the equivalanet to "discussing the attractiveness"?

You make it sound like it was civilised and respectful when it was anything but.


And I do hope that these total morons end up on the dole queue. As should anyone that can't show their colleagues the respect they deserve on a professional level. Seriously, grow the **** up.

Catari Jaguar

yizorselves wrote: »

Yes because guys rating how good looking these women are is the exact same thing as the women discussing the size of the guys todgers.

But the girls didn't send a forward around work discussing the size of the men at PWC's knobs. They didn't even send an email just based on good looking men. There is no tit for tat here.

They're professional women trying to be taken seriously in a highly competetive company. They didn't enter themselves into a beauty pageant. These mens behaviour is completely inappropriate. If you can't see that then I'm worried for you.

LegacyUser

I'm a girl (obviously!)

I saw the front page of yesterdays Indo and went home and reported it to the Press Ombudsmann, on the basis that it was a violation of privacy.

I don't know if the complaint will be upheld but honest to god, it enraged me so much to see the photos of these girls all over the front of the paper. Where were the photos of the men involved? They're the ones who initiated this, who have created this situation, the wrong-doers so to speak. I don't see their photos all over the place. I see a small article in today's Times naming several of the men involved. But can you imagine being one of these girls, firstly not realising that this was going on, secondly, probably being brought and being told about it by a manager, and thirdly, finding your photo on the front page of several papers the next day, and having to explain to your family what went on in the place you worked in?Most of these are fairly recent grads too.

To be honest, if I was one of those girls, I wouldn't want to set foot in that office ever again.

I might add here that I did Engineering in college - a male orientated course. I then went on and spent a number of years on a building site. I met with nothing but respect from all quarters out there. And the lads in PWC would probably consider a building site to be full of savages compared to their civilized environment. I never once had a problem...whatever opinions the lads had they kept solely to themselves. Among the office staff, yes emails were circulated with jokes, everyone had a bit of fun, but not once did it descend into this kind of cave-man rubbish.

I don't care that it's just a bit of fun, and sure it happens everywhere, and isn't it a great laugh. It's not. How stupid do you have to be to start an email from your work account with this kind of subject and circulate it in your office? And what kind of neanderthals are these guys anyway?

I don't know if I'm allowed say this here, but I hope every one of those lads loses their job over this. As someone who's work environment is almost all male, I understand so well what those girls must be feeling right now, and honestly, I'm truly disgusted by the behaviour of these scumbags.

Heavy stuff, I know, for around here, but yesterday's paper really made my blood boil.

Nevyn

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/three-pwc-male-workers-suspended-over-hot-mail-2010-11/

Three PwC male workers suspended over ‘hot mail’
12/11/10, 9:04 am

THREE MALE EMPLOYEES of the PricewaterhouseCoopers accountancy firm have been suspended, it has been reported. The Irish Sun says today that the three were told to stay at home as the company investigated the circulation of an email which ‘rated’ 13 new female employees into a top ten based on their looks.

An internal company message has since been circulated by PwC bosses, warning that anyone who breached the company’s code of conduct and regulations would face “serious disciplinary action”.

The Evening Herald and The Irish Daily Mirror are also reporting that a second sexist email scandal has hit another major accountancy firm, KPMG. The Herald says that the email started as a discussion between two colleagues at KPMG about their “luck with the ladies”, chat-up lines and a “k-score” for rating women. The email went viral – with photographs of three employees mentioned in the mail included – and has apparently popped up in the inboxes of companies across Ireland.

Meanwhile, The Irish Daily Mail has today printed pictures of three of the male employees believed to have been involved in circulating or commenting on the email. (It is not suggested that any of the three pictured in the Mail have been suspended by PwC). The Irish Times noted yesterday in a blog post that several newspapers, including the Mail, had reproduced the pictures of the female PwC employees whose attractiveness had been rated in the email.

The PwC email which caused such huge controversy when it was revealed by The Irish Independent on Wednesday has made headlines across the world. The New York Daily News also reprinted some of the staff photographs of the female PwC employees under the headline: “Hot water after email rating new hires’ hotness goes viral.” The reporter wrote:

One employee replied (to the email), ‘Great work…’ and made a remark about how he had ‘reservations’ about one of the girls pictured. In another response, an employee uses a vulgar British term to refer to the group.

The Globe and Mail said “Ranking women? Not just something you’d see on Mad Men”. The leading Canadian newspaper said:

We like to think that Mad Men, with all its office catcalls and “sweetheart”-ing, is a period piece. But a group of male execs at PricewaterhouseCoopers in Dublin have once again proven us wrong, after sending around an email ranking the new female recruits to the office, complete with about 13 headshots for individual assessment.

Tracy Corrigan in The Daily Telegraph in England concluded that “sending stupid emails is a male preserve”. She wrote of the PwC male employees involved in the furore:

The problem is not that they indulged in a harmless bit of banter about who’d be top of their list, given half the chance. Over a pint of beer in the pub on a Friday night, such talk is both predictable and forgiveable. It is the idea of a young PwC executive sifting through corporate photos of female colleagues and carefully ranking them, when he was supposed to be, I don’t know, looking at an insurance company’s balance sheet, that makes me cringe.

The controversy even touched the other side of the world, with TVNZ – a New Zealand news organisation – reporting on the incident. TVNZ noted that PwC is “no stranger to controversy”, saying:

Two years ago, it paid millions to former partner Christina Rich in Australlia following a dispute over claims she had been exposed to sexual harrassment and sex discrimination.

ABC News in the US called it a “crude email chain” and The Huffington Post carried the story after it was reported on Newser.com. Newser noted wryly:

The company’s website lists “behaving professionally” and “respecting others” among expected conduct.

The Gawker website reported on “the ‘Top Ten’ office email that’s scandalizing Ireland”, calling the email an example of “frat boy behaviour”. They predicted that the controversy would be a “nightmare” for PwC, which has 160,000 employees nationwide:

Perhaps this will serve as a warning to office-working dudes across the corporate world: Don’t do this.

Iago

Eng Girl 21 wrote: »

I don't care that it's just a bit of fun, and sure it happens everywhere, and isn't it a great laugh.

It does, on both sides of the gender fence. They just generally aren't dumb enough to put it in writing.

Eng Girl 21 wrote: »

How stupid do you have to be to start an email from your work account with this kind of subject and circulate it in your office? And what kind of neanderthals are these guys anyway?

Pretty stupid

Eng Girl 21 wrote: »

I don't know if I'm allowed say this here, but I hope every one of those lads loses their job over this.

They will, they have failed the stupidity test.

Eng Girl 21 wrote: »

As someone who's work environment is almost all male, I understand so well what those girls must be feeling right now, and honestly, I'm truly disgusted by the behaviour of these scumbags.

Scumbags is beyond harsh to be honest. Maybe the reason you haven't experienced both sides of this is because you were in a predominantly male college course and are in a predominantly male workplace?


It does happen everywhere, both men and women do it, sometimes it's beyond inappropriate, it's always unprofessional, and putting it in an email should lead to that person being sacked. However if anyone thinks there's a single mid to large company out there with a split gender workforce where this doesn't happen, then they are deluded.

LittleBook

Some sackings here but not for similar transgressions.

Worse Than PWC - Top Five Workplace Computer Scandals

I must admit when they happened I LOLed at the stupidity involved in the Vegas escort, Facebook and sperm incidents.

The sacking for the accidental mis-directed invitation to the "porn party" is new to me.

The Gary Glitter one is just pure wrong. :mad:

dfx-

Das Kitty wrote: »

I feel sorry for the women, they never asked for any of this and they've found their photos splashed all over the media with their names too. It's almost as if the whole country is being asked to join in in the top 10 rating. Yes the guys were wrong but the media went to town on it and made matters much worse for the women involved.

That was my first thought when I was confronted by the faces in the Independent (in my defence on that point, it was only 80c and the other option was the Evening Herald ) before even reading the story below.

Ectoplasm

Wibbs wrote: »

Sacked I dunno. Equally embarrassed would be nice though. Put out the guys photos and the rags would pick it up in milliseconds. Then dock a months pay for being morons.

You know what, if this hadn't gone global I'd totally agree. It sounds unfair but I'm thinking about it as a greedy mercenary capitalist here. As a business owner I would get rid of them as an equally public display that my company wouldn't condone this - and as I said, I'd do it whether the culprits were male or female.

the_syco

Das Kitty wrote: »

I feel sorry for the women, they never asked for any of this and they've found their photos splashed all over the media with their names too. It's almost as if the whole country is being asked to join in in the top 10 rating. Yes the guys were wrong but the media went to town on it and made matters much worse for the women involved.

Agreed. I wonder can the newspapers be held accountable for publishing the pictures of the women without their consent. I'd say there'd be some law prohibting the posting of the victims names and photos into the public domain?

Darlughda

Iago wrote: »

However if anyone thinks there's a single mid to large company out there with a split gender workforce where this doesn't happen, then they are deluded.

Well, maybe it has something to do with the corporate culture then. I have never heard of anything like this happening in the Arts, Heritage/Culture or Voluntary/Charity sector. Then again those areas tend to have more progressive harrasment policies.

This behaviour is sexual harrasment pure and simple. Check out http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?docID=342

The definition of sexual harassment includes any:

• act of physical intimacy

• request for sexual favours

• other act or conduct including spoken words, gestures or
the production, display or circulation of written words,
pictures or other material that is unwelcome and could
reasonably be regarded as sexually offensive,
humiliating or intimidating.
Many forms of behaviour can constitute sexual harassment. It
includes examples like those contained in the following list
although it must be emphasised that the list is illustrative rather
than exhaustive. A single incident may constitute sexual
harassment.

If I had started work in that place, you can bet your ass I would be in the HR office right now submitting my complaints.

Yes, I would want everyone of those scumbag neanderthals fired.
Nobody should have to put up with that kind of shít in a workplace.

seamus

Darlughda wrote: »

Well, maybe it has something to do with the corporate culture then. I have never heard of anything like this happening in the Arts, Heritage/Culture or Voluntary/Charity sector. Then again those areas tend to have more progressive harrasment policies.

Nothing to do with that at all, and everything to do with differences in communication.

I've found that outside of "corporate culture", email is really only used for sending "stuff". Most communication is done by telephone or face-to-face. People seem to be find it very odd when you send them an email when you could have called them. In big corporations, email is the primary communications tool above even telephone - hell I send emails on a daily basis to people sitting within 100m of me.
This is because most people are at their desks, most of the time, so email is as instant as anything else.

Of course, once you get outside of an office environment, email has no use for real-time communications and so this kind of idle chatter and bravado is much less frequent over email.

They do it in the pub after work or during lunch across the table instead. The industries you mention wouldn't be typical "office" industries, so this kind of discussion wouldn't tend to take place over email.

Darlughda

Seamus, I still think that this kind of mindset and chat is particular to the corporate environment.

Even as idle banter, well it just would not happen amongst men or woman in the sectors I mentioned. If someone did come out with a comment that was a bit off colour, they would be met with a silence and the subject would be changed.

Maple

Darlughda wrote: »

Seamus, I still think that this kind of mindset and chat is particular tosome people in the corporate environment.

Fixed that for you. Not everyone who works in the corporate sector is a sexist sleaze bag.

Darlughda wrote: »

Even as idle banter, well it just would not happen amongst men or woman in the sectors I mentioned. If someone did come out with a comment that was a bit off colour, they would be met with a silence and the subject would be changed.

Nonsense. Not everyone who works in the Arts/Volunteer/Heritage/Culture sectors are the lofty paragons of virtue you're making them out to be. Perhaps in your experience of some people working in these sectors, this is how they react to off-coloured remarks. It is not in mine but i'm not about to make some sweeping statement dismissing the entire sector as mindless apes, instead I prefer to judge an individual on their own merit.

Any decent individual would be horrified by the horrible sexist derogatory remarks made by these fools in KPMG, it's not dependent on the industry that you work in.

WesternNight

And to think that people accuse women of being overly-imaginative about sexism, and that it's not really a big deal and it's all a bit of a laugh.

Once women are discussed in this kind of way, I'd imagine the esteem in which they're (perhaps) held changes fairly dramatically. It's difficult to see someone as being professional and capable of doing their job well when you've just been giggling over their photos and ratings.

Blowfish

WesternNight wrote: »

And to think that people accuse women of being overly-imaginative about sexism, and that it's not really a big deal and it's all a bit of a laugh.

Once women are discussed in this kind of way, I'd imagine the esteem in which they're (perhaps) held changes fairly dramatically. It's difficult to see someone as being professional and capable of doing their job well when you've just been giggling over their photos and ratings.

I already posted this in AH, but it should be reiterated that stupidity is not gender specific.

Obviously though both in the linked and recent cases should never have happened, but it's the papers in particular who are being incredibly hypocritical by pretending to 'out' sexism, yet are splashing the photos on their front pages.

WesternNight

Blowfish wrote: »

but it's the papers in particular who are being incredibly hypocritical by pretending to 'out' sexism, yet are splashing the photos on their front pages.

I don't think many would disagree with you. But the questionable motives of a newspaper doesn't mean that sexism (this particular case as well as others) isn't a problem.

Dudess

I've worked in some "blokey" environments and have to say they were a brilliant laugh - and of course there's nothing wrong with commenting on how you find a person attractive. Plus, flattery is good. But there's being a dick (male or female) about it too. If a bunch of girls I was working with put together an "operation" like that re male colleagues, I'd have nothing to do with it and would tell them I think it's idiotic and puerile.

Maguined

WesternNight wrote: »

And to think that people accuse women of being overly-imaginative about sexism, and that it's not really a big deal and it's all a bit of a laugh.

Once women are discussed in this kind of way, I'd imagine the esteem in which they're (perhaps) held changes fairly dramatically. It's difficult to see someone as being professional and capable of doing their job well when you've just been giggling over their photos and ratings.

Do you honestly view this as sexism? I think it was incredibly stupid and disrespectful but I honestly wouldn't consider it sexist as sexual preference is not sexist but just a preference. If one of the group that took part and forwarded on the emails was a lesbian woman would you view her actions as sexist?

I would also disagree with your second point, to me physical attractiveness is completely separate than their professional capabilities. Just because I might find one colleague where I work more attractive than another does not mean I find them more efficient or capable at their job.

I don't believe these actions are sexist, but I do believe they are incredibly stupid and showing poor judgement and so deserve to lose their jobs.

Nevyn

Reducing people who work in the same firm as you to nothing but "New Clunge" is sexist.

Crash Bang Wall

Pembily wrote: »

Eh seriously... They were being rated on breast size and cleavage (cause that's a huge part of a woman's ''beauty'' and to me it's as demeaning as us discussing the size of a man's penis!

I agree with this entirely. However I heard a rumour that may change my opinion slightly, in that firstly this goes on every year, but more strangely the second bit, where some of the girls actually want to be near the top of the list. If this is the case then I dont buy the discrimination argument at all, as there are (in theory) some of the girls actively encouraging it.

I had an discussion with some friends re this and the general concensus was that the girls could take PWC to the cleaners.

Apologies if people think Im a wind up merchant re this, the rumour may be untrue, but if there is some truth to it then I think its a debateable subject

dfx-

WesternNight wrote: »

Once women are discussed in this kind of way, I'd imagine the esteem in which they're (perhaps) held changes fairly dramatically. It's difficult to see someone as being professional and capable of doing their job well when you've just been giggling over their photos and ratings.

I disagree entirely.

goose2005

Pembily wrote: »

Eh no buy this was more than discussing, this was rating!!! It was set down on paper and it is not on... How would guys feel if women discussed the size of their male appendages?!?!?!

Rating and discussing are very similar; "Sheila's better looking than Jenny" - "Sheila 8, Jenny 7" - much difference?

And if women discussed male appendages, the men might feel bad, but no-one would care about how they felt.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I didn't mention sacking them, but it just goes to show that these guys have a complete lack of respect for their colleagues. Not just for the colleagues that got on their "ratings list", but also for the ones who didn't get on the list in the sense that these guys would have been objectifying every single female in the place to gauge their "worthyness" to be on the list.

It's tiring behaviour in the work place, and it would piss me off just as much if the gender roles were reversed (I am male after all). Fair play to the whistleblower.

tbh I've never seen a convincing explanation that distinguishes "sex object" from "attractive woman." And, again, if the roles were reversed no-one would care - apparently women are delicate little flowers who need the full force of the law to protect them.

cherub rock wrote: »

Never heard of sexual harrassment?

Yes, I read through all the definitions on wikipedia and couldn't find one that equated to "discussing the attractiveness of co-workers without their knowledge."

Since when is an email ranking system of "new clunge" the equivalanet to "discussing the attractiveness"?

How isn't it?

You make it sound like it was civilised and respectful when it was anything but.

They looked at a few photos and decided which they liked best, for God's sake. They didn't make them strip naked and run the gauntlet.

WesternNight wrote: »

And to think that people accuse women of being overly-imaginative about sexism, and that it's not really a big deal and it's all a bit of a laugh.

Once women are discussed in this kind of way, I'd imagine the esteem in which they're (perhaps) held changes fairly dramatically. It's difficult to see someone as being professional and capable of doing their job well when you've just been giggling over their photos and ratings.

So you've never giggled with a female friend about the looks of a male colleague?

Maguined

Thaedydal wrote: »

Reducing people who work in the same firm as you to nothing but "New Clunge" is sexist.

Is all sexual preference sexist then? If a man asked me out and I said sorry no I am not attracted to men does that make me sexist?

Rude, obnoxious, disrespectful, stupid behaviour is not the same as sexist behaviour.

If an identical email was sent around by several bisexuals listing their top ten of PWC that included both men and women with similar offensive language would you consider that sexist as well?

metrovelvet

It sounds like something new out of college boys would do and forgot to leave locker room humour at the door.

krankykitty

I don't think it matters whether this behaviour is labelled sexist. It was downright disrespectful to the people involved - to the extent that their pics are now plastered across the national media where other idiots can rank them :rolleyes:

Its just not appropriate to do this sort of thing in the workplace. People (yes, men as well as women) should be able to expect to come to work and be treated with respect and in an appropriate manner, treated as equals etc.

Whatever about a private conversation with friends about which guy or girl you find attractive, writing such a mail on your company email in that manner and with such an objectifying tone was pure stupid and leaves your employer open to litigation, that's why they have policies on the appropriate usage of email!

Blowfish

goose2005 wrote: »

tbh I've never seen a convincing explanation that distinguishes "sex object" from "attractive woman." And, again, if the roles were reversed no-one would care - apparently women are delicate little flowers who need the full force of the law to protect them.

I seem to need to do this a lot, but did you read the link I posted? In every company of that size, you'll inevitably end up with a minority of people who do stupid things like this. Their gender is irrelevant.

Wibbs

This kinda rating thing goes on to some degree or other in every business and social grouping and men and women do it. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's not. It's when it gets written down it becomes "official" and that takes it to a new level.

There's an underlying rule in society that the written word is seen as more "edited" and "proper" than the spoken or thought word. The average office conversations over a single day would not look so good transcribed in black and white. If you work in an office, actually listen every so often and you'll see what I mean.

Modern communications do blur this line a lot more IMHO. The private becomes more public and the there's less editing between the brain and the mouth. We see more of the inner mind at work. We see it online, we see it here on Boards(though boards is more "old fashioned" in a lot of ways*) and we see it in emails and texts and all the rest.

These eejits forgot that what people will laugh off in idle water cooler chat, the same people will go ape if it's written down in black and white. OK another office example. People discussing their boss. I've been in enough offices as a passer by to hear convos about same from all sorts of people that would cause utter ructions if they were circulated in an email that went viral.

That's why I suggested the punishment fitting the crime earlier in the thread. Name and shame and picture the members who were part of this circle jerk, dock a months pay and I would add, if you can track down where the wider leak originated then sack him. Not for sexism per se, but for being too thick to not understand where the public/private line is drawn.




*I don't see this as a bad thing necessarily

metrovelvet

^ Exactly and excellent reminder. THings can seem amplified in text. You are also missing 70% of the meaning because the words are disconnected from tone and body language.

People across the board spout stuff and there is no consensual agreement on its weight and things can take on much more meaning than they should.

Handsome Bob

goose2005 wrote: »

tbh I've never seen a convincing explanation that distinguishes "sex object" from "attractive woman." And, again, if the roles were reversed no-one would care - apparently women are delicate little flowers who need the full force of the law to protect them.

Well, to me, a sex object is just that, you are looking at someone solely as a sexual object without taking anything else into account such as intelligence, personality, ability to do one's job etc etc.

And to be honest, if I as a male was the victim of this I would be infuriated. I'd make sure HR punished those responsible to the full letter of their own policies on sexual harassment, e-mail and internet usage, code of conduct etc etc.

WesternNight

goose2005 wrote: »

So you've never giggled with a female friend about the looks of a male colleague?

Not in a professional work environment, no.

yizorselves

cherub rock wrote: »

But the girls didn't send a forward around work discussing the size of the men at PWC's knobs. They didn't even send an email just based on good looking men. There is no tit for tat here.

They're professional women trying to be taken seriously in a highly competetive company. They didn't enter themselves into a beauty pageant. These mens behaviour is completely inappropriate. If you can't see that then I'm worried for you.

Please dont be worried for me I was being sarcastic. And I really dont take this thing too seriously like yourself and others.

I actually think its quite funny and if you have an issue with that you can save your breath because I really dont care

Wibbs

Well if that's the level of your debate then please don't post again in this thread.