"Fear" of men

[ComradeJing]

I have a question that relates to two recent threads so apologies for thread about a thread.

Allhailtheaubergine (hope you don't mind - it's your thread I'm referring to) said that she was worried when she walked on the beach and when a man came between her and her exit she became nervous.

Another poster in AIBU said she was unhappy about a male nursery worker taking her daughter to the bathroom.

The OP in AIBU was completely torn to bits over this. Allhail was given support and most people (including myself though I didn't post) agreed that they would have felt scared and validated her response.

Now my question is why is one response valid and rational and the other one not? Is it because one is a person in a job and the other could be "anybody?" I would imagine you're more likely to be attacked by someone in a job (ie taxi driver, gas man, builder or someone else you would invite into your home) than just some stranger off the street but I could well be wrong.

I suppose I was thinking that if one is a feminist issue then the other one must be too as they are both about a fear of men and what men can do to women.

No! The point isn't whether they are his kids or not its that the fear of men cost this guy his job and about two years worth of his life only because he was a man and therefore must only look at children in a sexual way. Its absolutely disgraceful.

TBH I think your colleague is unlikely to be telling you the whole story.

Maybe he was on a final warning
Maybe they have a strict "no youtube" policy at work
Maybe he got them a virus into their systems
Who can say.

If they genuinely sacked him for being a pervert based on that, then he would be well placed to sue the pants off them.

Interesting how you compare it to others having photos of their own children. Assuming these are not his children, then why are you making that comparison.

Do you really think your friend would say "oh no I'm on a final warning at work as I'm a bit shit and they caught me looking at youtube for 6 hours a day and they sacked me"?

The men I know who have been sacked for looking at sexual material have been looking at very definitely sexual material and over a long period of time, and some of them just got a warning.

If he is telling you the whole story I will eat my hat. Tell him to sue them. Go on.

It's like that bloody bat sex bloke all over again...

Well, seeing as I have been a quasi legal adviser throughout and have seen all the hearing documents, the submissions to the hearings etc, I think I pretty much do know. Answers are:

Final Warning? No
YouTube Policy? Use encouraged as marketing tool
Virus? They didn't even mention viruses.

The people I know who have been sacked for gross misconduct also always lie about the reason, or genuinely can't see that what they did was wrong.

Bat sex man is a good example. He thought it was "pc gorn mad". Irrespective of the fact that numerous female colleagues had complained about his creepiness.

Then he needs to sue them missingfriend.

This is like a bad DM or snopes story.

Do you have evidence of those who were given warnings/sacked? I have suggested that he find such examples as dismissal seems completely disproportionate

whats a snopes story?

What do you mean "do I have evidence"?

I knew the people involved, and I knew what they were sacked for.

One man went to prison for fraud.
One man went straight to final written warning as he had a porn site open and minimised on his PC all day.
Three or four for circulating pornograpic pictures including some altered to depict their managers.
One for indiscriminate and inappropriate shagging.

Off the top of my head!

I don't understand your point. What I am getting at is that most of the people ^ up there didn't see that they had done anything wrong. They had rather selective memories, thought "everyone is at it", and generally misled themselves as to the severity of what they were doing. Bar the embezzling man, of course, I'm sure he knew very well that he was way in the wrong.

I don't mean I doubt you, I mean that one defence is that 'other similar organisations' wouldn't dismiss in these circumstances, so it would be helpful if I could find examples for him

Its interesting that you instantly think that he must be lying though, that is exactly how everything got escalated internally.

No organisation in the world will be able to make it stick that looking at a jokey video once on youtube = unhealthy interest in children = sacked.

Either there is more than he is telling you
Or they wanted him out for another reason and this is all they can think of

I think if they are really drumming him out on the basis of one youtube viewing, they are skating on thin ice.

I strongly suspect there is something else going on here. People in the UK are not generally insane, no matter what some people would have us believe.

You say that I think he is lying. On what you have told me I think he is not telling the whole truth. I think there is something else going on.

That does not tie in with your comment though.

People thought he was lying and that is why it was escalated. What did his colleagues think he was lying about?

Have to go to bed now.

My thing of "he's not telling the whole truth" is to do with maybe he was already on a warning, maybe he was looking at youtube 6 hours a day instead of working, maybe his work was shit, and this was the final straw. I don;t know, I don't know the bloke.

What his colleagues thought he was lying about is a more interesting question. He has told you that he watched an innocent video once, and that he was not in any other trouble and it's fine to watch youtube that is unrelated to work, at work. Then because he watched this video, everyone said he was a peeedo. he said "no I'm not a peeedo - look it's no worse than you've been framed!" and they all said "liar! you're a peeeeeedo" and he got sacked. That is preposterous, sorry.

So what happened is that the video was combined with knowledge of his interest in Art and a tiny picture of a painting by a friend of both of us that was a female nue - that was described as pornographic, then there were four investigations that found an article about amanda holden and simon cowell, an article about 18th century language, a magazine-type article for women about anal sex, and a death metal band. This was all used to 'show intention' of a will to view pornography. His defence - ' I know how to use the internet, if I had wanted to browse pornography I would have just browsed pornography' wasn't perhaps the best. After even more trawls they found less than 30 seconds of a video clip that looks like it could be pornography, that would take (yes he has done the calculation!) ?

And to give you a perspective of the effects, sometimes when I visit him, he obviously hasn't done the dishes or tidies up for weeks, has loads of drink cans lying around, he was paranoid that looking old was what made people think he was a pervert so he dyed his hair black and went to the disciplinary hearing looking really strange, he has lost confidence dramatically. He hides it very well to the outside world but it has really destroyed him. He has stopped seeing his nephew and neice because of it.

btw they refused to look at the video because it was described as 'a video with children in it' and 'distasteful' so they made the judgement on the description only.

Erm well there you have it

They found what was probably porn on his work computer and he had been reading articles about anal sex.

Wildly inappropriate and I am sure counter to their internet usage policy. He's not being sacked for looking at a "you've been framed" style joke vidoe once, at all. There is far more to it than that.

The fact that you didn't mention the possible porn and the anal sex in the first place is wrong - you are looking to imply that Kafka-esque things are going on when they are not.

"As I say he was the only male working there, and immediately pegged as a pervert." He had an article about anal sex and something that was probably porn on his computer. That's why he was pegged as a pervert, when women looking at photos of their own children were not.

What? The article about anal sex was just like ones in marie claire, cosmopolitan and the Metro newspaper (I first heard about 'pegging' from the Metro!). I am sure that those of us who have discussed anal sex on here hardly feel that is synonimous with being a paedophile.

The only information used to start the investigation was a) tiny jpeg of painting b) amusing video.

What has this bizarre tale of some man's employment issues got to do with women's perception of men as a potential threat?

I'm not getting the connection. A tale of possible flouting of employment law isn't going to be of much help to me the next time I find myself in the position of wondering if that male stranger is a normal guy or someone who is going to flash at me/verbally abuse me/follow me/assault me.

He had what was probably porn and an article about anal sex on his work computer.

What are you not getting here?

He had what was probably porn on his work computer and an article about anal sex. That is not appropriate for work and no doubt contravenes their usage policy. Which may have something to do with why he is in trouble.

For crying out loud.

Beachcomber I have no frigging idea what it has to do with anything it's all very odd. Apparently this one example is to show how men's lives are being ruined daily by peeeeedo hysteria, which is absolute tosh, frankly.

I know, Dittany.

The men I know who have got done for stuff at work have all been shocked, amazed, and sometimes spluttering indignant. Because they haven't done anything wrong, and they haven't done anything that everyone else isn't doing.

OK well read your employment contract, then see.