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.
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.
Same.
I managed to get it before I came to this comment, but it took all my processing power.
ahahaha I found it confusing too, I had to read the article a little bit to understand it better.
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.