Men ejecting girls

[kurupt87]

It's more likely to protect the company from false charges, and litigation, from ejected women than to protect women from the employees.

 

[Craorach]

Theoretically the rules should make no mention of gender. Equality is just that, treating everyone without consideration of their race, religion, age, gender, etc.

However. The sad reality is that this is to protect you from possibly life ending legal action.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

I misread the title as, "Men injecting girls." Me: "Uh,...with what and why?" O_O;;

Though it's probably just to protect the company against false claims of sexism or abuse. Even if a woman or girl deserved being removed from the premises, they can easily say it was because of their gender and not how they were acting. The presence of another female who is on your side and able to provide an unbiased and truthful view of anything that happened is protecting men from petty accusations from some women who continuously want to play the victim. It's sad to say, but some women can quickly turn a simple escort out of a building into a near rape and molestation case.

It seems to be an unfair life-altering situation for men who are just trying to do their job.

 

[vxicepickxv]

However. The sad reality is that this is to protect you from possibly life ending legal action.

It's not about protecting him at all. It's all about the company protecting itself. Just because it protects you as a side effect, doesn't mean it's for your at all.

 

[spartan231490]

It's both sexist and not. Fist, of course it's sexist. but on the other hand, it doesn't really make your job any harder, and it reduces the risk that kids will get hurt. They might also be considering the risk of a big guy physically throwing some girl out the door, or some girl making a scene because she doesn't believe your a security guy and you're just trying to get her outside. It's justified, because the fact is that men and women are different. Always have been, always will be. These differences need to be understood, and accounted for, not ignored.

 

[Liberaliter]

If it bothers you that much then you are clearly the problem here.

 

[Artina89]

I am going to go along with what a lot of other people have been saying, which is, think it is more likely to be there to cover you legally. It's just so that a girl can't cry "wolf" and accuse someone of making advances and/or assaulting her.

 

[Gigano]

It's a sensible company policy reflecting a paranoid society increasingly throwing suspicion on men for being men.

 

[Enkidu88]

what I wanna understand is how the hell do you eject them and from wherre?

do you fire them out of a cannon or something

This. Also, when you say "Security Company" are we talking Mall cops, the guys that ride around in little faux-police cars, or full on mercenary?

On topic, given how much anyone given any type of power becomes a complete asshole, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to put restrictions on what you can do with girls. It is sexist, but then we don't live in a perfect world, and let's face it, most women won't know the martial arts or have a gun handy if the two rent-a-cops decide they want abuse their power.

 

[FamoFunk]

I agree with most of the others; it's to keep the company legally safe.
Some dumb Girl would scream harrasment which will involve job losses and money losses for the company.

I think it's so backwards, but what can you do, eh?

 

[bitCrusher]

I don't understand, shouldn't the companies perform background checks of their employees anyway? If someone were to take advantage of their position and sexually harass someone, the guy wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

I believe male teachers are looked into thoroughly before they are hired to teach in all-girls schools. Needless to say, male teachers are surrounded by girls and don't need to be accompanied by women to teach or reprimand female students.

 

[Craorach]

It's not about protecting him at all. It's all about the company protecting itself. Just because it protects you as a side effect, doesn't mean it's for your at all.

It protects him which protects them which protects him which protects them which protects him which protects them which protects him which protects them which protects him which protects them...

I guess we could go around in circles like that all day...

Yes, the company's primary concern is probably to protect itself.. and the people who own/run it. Any company worth its salt also wants to protect its employees...

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Society is under the belief that men will take every opportunity possible to rape women. It's a retarded logic, but that's just the way it is. Maybe in the future people will smarten up.

Humanity has the uncanny ability to advance technology while simultaneously losing more collective IQ every year.

Also it's a norm that men will abuse women. I don't see this clause as being perfectly reasonable, however.

 

[kurupt87]

Society is under the belief that men will take every opportunity possible to rape women. It's a retarded logic, but that's just the way it is. Maybe in the future people will smarten up.

Humanity has the uncanny ability to advance technology while simultaneously losing more collective IQ every year.

Also it's a norm that men will abuse women. I don't see this clause as being perfectly reasonable, however.

Seriously? It's a norm that men will abuse women.

If you think you'd be a rapist given the chance then fine but, don't taint the rest of us with your brush you sexist bigot.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Society is under the belief that men will take every opportunity possible to rape women. It's a retarded logic, but that's just the way it is. Maybe in the future people will smarten up.

Humanity has the uncanny ability to advance technology while simultaneously losing more collective IQ every year.

Also it's a norm that men will abuse women. I don't see this clause as being perfectly reasonable, however.

Seriously? It's a norm that men will abuse women.

If you think you'd be a rapist given the chance then fine but, don't taint the rest of us with your brush you sexist bigot.

This, seriously.

If I were you, I'd take it up with the company. If they refused to change, I would leave. I don't associate myself with such discrimination (I had a teacher my senior year who would let the female students leave first every day, eventually I said "fuck it" and just started walking out when they did. Had he tried anything, you'd better believe I would have handed the school their asses.

Captcha: "Night daysting." Weird...

 

[Tallim]

I don't understand, shouldn't the companies perform background checks of their employees anyway? If someone were to take advantage of their position and sexually harass someone, the guy wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

I believe male teachers are looked into thoroughly before they are hired to teach in all-girls schools. Needless to say, male teachers are surrounded by girls and don't need to be accompanied by women to teach or reprimand female students.

I'm assuming because it's a security company that the term "eject" covers a more hands-on approach if needed.

It's less about the fear the employee will actually do something, it's to stop the woman being "ejected" from falsely claiming that they did. Because if it did end up in a trial two male employees, however unfairly, will be presumed to be in it together.

While it is discriminatory it's just a side effect of the times we live in.

 

[Ian Caronia]

Aright, I work for a security company (not going to say which one, for fear of getting fired), and I was going over some rules when one struck a chord with me-

I have the power to eject people from the premise, as long as a colleague/superior agrees that they need ejecting. Now, I'm not allowed to eject someone under 16 years old unless they have an adult with them (fine), but, if that person is female, I need to be accompanied by a female colleague or I can't eject them.

Now why is this? Two females can eject a male, but two males can't eject a female? Maybe it's just my warped mind, but is it down to a risk of paedophilia? I appreciate the risk of sexual assault is greater with 2 men and a girl than it is for 2 women and a boy, but is it really so much so that it's necessary to have a woman present when removing a girl?

Yes, it is. However the fact they allow two women to do the same is sexism. Your company must be very sure of itself to let something like that slide, because all it takes is one man who was raped in the past to be forcibly ejected by two female officers for your employers' bank accounts to decrease dramatically.
_Still, it's a less common occurrence for female-on-male than male-on-female, hence why your employers haven't fixed that crack in their defenses, and unless a male who was a victim ends up in such a scenario (God forbid), that sexism will just remain that way.

Nothing for you to worry about, though. You're a guy. So long as you play by the rules nothing will go wrong for you. If you have a friend who's a female officer for the same company, though, let her know to watch her back and be sure to try and have a male officer with her whenever something like that goes down.

 

[Ickorus]

Counter-argument time:

Is it not possible that the rule is in place to prevent false accusations of rape?

We all know that some teenagers are often cruel and vindictive as they search for their spot in society and teenage girls have the extra ammunition of being thought by society of having an increased risk of being raped by men anyhere and at any time.[footnote]Because all men are animals really and if given the opportunity would rape teenage girls all day long! (Please note: Sarcasm meter is off the charts)[/footnote]

I've known 2 guys who have been accused of rape by teenage girls, neither of these guys have been convicted because they didn't really do it and the girls in question got bored and admitted they were lying so the precedent is indeed there, is it not possible that they get a female employee to assist in the escort just to make it harder for a girl to falsely accuse the male employees of rape?

 

[bluewolf]

ridiculouse and frankly, quite odd.

 

[FuktLogik]

It's for your company's protection, and for your own, and you should be very grateful for that policy.

It greatly reduces the chance of you being accused of sexual improprieties with whomever you're ejecting, who probably isn't very happy with you and probably realizes that your being accused of putting your hand inside her shirt is going to be far more of a headache for you than her. True or not, you'd probably get fired so that the company wouldn't get sued on the basis of "tolerating a culture of sexual harassment by male employees", or something like that.

And, believe me, you do NOT want to have your name in the local papers being accused of shoving your hand down the pants of a fifteen-year-old girl, even if the story is obviously ludicrous, because your next employer will probably see the article and decide that the other guy applying for the job, with a resume that is ALMOST as impressive as yours and has never been accused of fondling a girl the age of this guy's granddaughter, will be a better fit for the job than you will be.

You also don't want to defend from those charges in civil or criminal court. And you REALLY do not want to be on a sex offender registry somewhere. Or serving a prison sentence for a sex crime, especially against a minor (a lot of those large men with arms the size of your legs and a history of violent crime longer than a russian novel have daughters on the outside, whom they're currently helpless to protect...).

This way, if there's any question, the female coworker pipes up and says "Nah, he didn't do anything REMOTELY out of line. That girl is so full of shit that it's leaking out of her ears", and your butt is covered (and still employed).

Now the company most likely couldn't care less about you, but this reduces the chance of a lawsuit. And, if you ARE a pedophile (or ephebophile, if we're talking about teenagers), this makes it less likely that you can molest a kid even if you are a predator who managed to get past whatever screening process your company has.

So we should put up with this shit out of fear? You're what's wrong with the developed world. Keeping your mouth shut and being a doormat to these kinds of policies only makes it worse. These practices need to be fought, not accepted.