KPMG's sexism scandal.

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.

Scanlas The 2nd

Princess Peach wrote: »

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.

If a group of women put me on a top ten list I'd expect them to get a warning and some harsh words, I wouldn't wish serious consequences on them.

Wibbs

If a group of women put me on a top ten list I'd expect them to be sectioned.

Ectoplasm

Ah but Wibbs...there are top 10 lists for everything these days. :D

metrovelvet

I think apart of me would be worried that I was not being taken seriously professionally and another teeny tiny part of my might like it.

Lia_lia

The KPMG one (not the pwc one) was a joke. The email was sent around and people believed it and then they found out it was a joke. My friend works there.
Was in Dublin with him the last few days and he couldn't believe the amount of media attention it got!

WesternNight

Lia_lia wrote: »

The KPMG one (not the pwc one) was a joke. The email was sent around and people believed it and then they found out it was a joke. My friend works there.
Was in Dublin with him the last few days and he couldn't believe the amount of media attention it got!

Joke on who?

Lia_lia

Themselves!

FoxT

I think that the original email chain was childish & idiotic. In my view, not a firing offence but definitely a disciplinary one, because it is damaging or potentially damaging to the employer, even if not made public.

Some of the press coverage was far more vile & sexist than the original email chain. Printing the pictures of the women affected was not newsworthy or in the public interest. In fact, to the extent that it is another step on the race to the bottom for our national print media, it was contrary to the public interest, as well as no doubt being offensive or embarrassing to the women involved, their partners, & their families. I know if I was one of those women, I would have felt objectified by the original emails, then humiliated even further by the gutter press coverage.

I am fairly confident that no paper will print pics of the men involved. This, I think, is where the double standard is more sinister.

- FoxT

panda100

FoxT wrote: »

I think that the original email chain was childish & idiotic. In my view, not a firing offence but definitely a disciplinary one, because it is damaging or potentially damaging to the employer, even if not made public.

Some of the press coverage was far more vile & sexist than the original email chain. Printing the pictures of the women affected was not newsworthy or in the public interest. In fact, to the extent that it is another step on the race to the bottom for our national print media, it was contrary to the public interest, as well as no doubt being offensive or embarrassing to the women involved, their partners, & their families. I know if I was one of those women, I would have felt objectified by the original emails, then humiliated even further by the gutter press coverage.

I am fairly confident that no paper will print pics of the men involved. This, I think, is where the double standard is more sinister.

- FoxT

+1
Its really the media's role in this that is most worrying. I sincerely hope the women involved complain to the press ombudsman about the pictures being printed.

Batiste

'' This kinda rating thing goes on to some degree or other in every business and social grouping and men and women do it.''......Strangely not a lot of women could be bothered discussing their men folk,or rating them on escort sites,as strange as that may be to your ears,women who engage in porn as an idle watcher is also very rare,today(unless their menfolk encourage them to do so)..