Study asserts women are ten times more prone to sexual harassment in conract jobs

Submitted by WakeUp on Thu, 2008-09-11 18:08

This article is worded in a straight-forward way but is only backed by vague information. Not much detail is given about how the study was done. It simply says there was a study, then gives results. It also does not count for the possibility that some participants might lie or have been false sexual harassment accusers in the past. The one credible part is that the study was done at the University of Melbourne and not some by some random small group, yet colleges are a bastion of one-sided feminist ideology.

From the article: ""Our study shows that 79 per cent of those who experience unwanted sexual advances at work are women. People who are employed in casual jobs are about five times more likely to be subjected to unwanted sexual advances."

I'm posting this because I'm honestly not sure if this is legit or questionable. Does anyone have input?

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Sure calling it a feminist study full of lies and deception is a bit redundant, but...

Lets see:
Women as victims - check.
How they measured sexual harassment not defined - check
Headline blowing up the "problem" that women face - check

one quote from the article was interesting:
"There is a strong link between sexual harassment and mental health problems. This behaviour is costly and preventable. This research builds on the growing evidence that the workplace is an important setting for improving health and wellbeing," Mr Harper adds."

I think the mental health problems came before the sexual harassment. I'd bet money that most of that sexual harassment they mention never existed in the first place.

Of course when it comes to contract jobs, a contractor has few/none employee protections. Not producing? You're out the door! Employer decides they don't like you? Out the door.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by canaryguy on Fri, 2008-09-12 17:24

manonthestreet

You know the word harassment to me used to mean something that involved repeated
and serious intrusion. I doubt this is how it is seen now. I suspect that even an oblique passing encounter could be classed as harassment. Even something unintentional can be called harassment.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by trotter on Fri, 2008-09-12 18:07

constitutes an unwanted sexual advance?

Does a man asking a woman out for a drink after work count?
How about asking her to lunch?

Also, if 79% of the people experiencing unwanted sexual advances are women, that means 21% are men. It's been a while since I have taken a math course, but the last time I checked 21 was not 1/10th of 79. For the math to work correctly, each of the women would have needed to be harassed 2-3 times for each time a male was harassed.

Given how most companies seem to overreact at the slightest hint of sexual harassment, I can't see this being the situation.

I think this boils down to women being over-sensitive to what is actually harassment (the scenario's I mentioned above), and men not using the same "metric" to determine whether they have been sexually harassed or not.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by eastindyguy on Fri, 2008-09-12 18:10

manonthestreet

If one adds in disdain and contempt then I think you might find that men are harassed virtually all the time. Women sneeringly ridicule men as a matter of course and some men lap it up as a sort of attention.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by trotter on Fri, 2008-09-12 20:11