Oh do I have a ton of jokes to crack about this - or what?
Apparently, I only expected promotional models and Hooters/Moxies shootergirls/waitresses to sell their "sex appeal" in this sort of way (trust me, I've heard stories), but not a business woman, vixen-type Christina Hendricks who complains about sexual harassment (like in the hit series "Mad Men").
What a double standard. In a patriarchal society, men still believe they can dominate women. Even though women now work and bear children in this day and age, society's past still raises an effect on how men perceive the opposite sex, unless women find this type of sexual harassment to be empowering. I mean, they can lure men with their ASS-ets to notice their other assets qualify for a higher position in a company, while men take advantage of the women's willingness to succeed, as a means to get off. Remember that saying from My Big Fat Greek Wedding. "The man may be the head, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she wants." Or can she?
According to The Star, sex with the boss can still be implemented to aid a woman's ambition in a company. But, companies and the people involved risk the consequences, according to new research.
Some 15 per cent of executive women asked by the New York-based Center for Work-Life Policy confess to becoming intimate with a higher-up.
And 37 per cent of the women think such scandals lead to job promotions and other benefits, the investigation also discovered.
The question was pricked and pried for a more expansive study that assesses how a boss influences in amping a woman’s career by recommending her for major "work" projects.
They do research and join forces with employers to establish rules that encourage "work-life balance."
The entire study won't be complete or released until later this fall, but centre president Sylvia Ann Hewlett exposed chosen results in her blog this week in the Harvard Business Review online.
She was putting her two-cents in on the effect of the controversy at Hewlett Packard Co. on ambitious women.
Hurd quit earlier this month as chief executive officer after an H-P investigation discovered he was personally involved with Jodie Fisher, a contractor who got many "inappropriate payments" from the company.
Such incidents can indirectly sabotage all accomplished female executives if it means less male leaders hiring or promoting them, says Hewlett, an economist, author and director of the gender and policy program at Columbia University. Could this be because the women in these incidents give the rest of us women a bad name or a sexy standard we are expected to adhere to under a male boss's authority?
The likelihood of a woman rising to the top are low without a high ranking boss who can advise and promote them, Hewlett indicates. (So, again, the usually "male" boss is in charge here).
She suggests companies note more strict regulations, legal settlements in sexual harassment cases to be more practical, and people i.e. workers to act more cautiously.
“Hitting on a female colleague is never okay. And up-and-coming executive women need to exercise similar restraint,” Hewlett wrote.
As well, 60 per cent of male executives and 65 per cent of female executives presume the woman involved is acquiring salary increases and high-end projects in trade for sexual favours, the survey demonstrated.
So, basically, from this article, I've learnt that sexual harassment - or you - might not be taken seriously, if you succumb to the pressure to have sex with a boss for more money, work, whatever. A little like prostitution, but without the street-walking. Or a little like sexual harassment, if the boss coerces her in a position of power, but the woman doesn't say "no" (because she's scared or smells opportunity). Which one is it? Where do we draw the line?
