Vanka,<"There are more and more companies not prepared to employ women, or they have women employed on a temporary basis, so they can easily dismiss them if there is any trouble."

Really? Where is your proof of such a statement?

Your comments to Pelican above seem a little paranoid to me.
You and 'the many men' who make sure they aren't alone in a room with a woman at work mustn't have very much self-control surely?
A bit over the top don't you think?

For goodness sake, anyone would think there is a huge conspiracy out there by the rabid feminists to 'get' all men by accusing all and
sundry of sexually harassing women.

If it wasn't such a serious subject, it would be laughable how some of the men on this forum carry on!

Cheers, Su(Z)eonline
(not suX, Vanna... please stop calling me by that name).

Vanna

Lets not go too far over the top. Companies will still employ women, just not Ms Fraser-Kirk. It is plausible that this case involved overt sexual harassment that no-one should defend. An arm up a blouse is more than a hug.

Most workplaces have policies regarding sexual harassment and if in doubt check with your human resources manager or your employer.
A safe workplace environment should be a given for both males and females. However if in doubt all you need do is ask to find out.
Most people however do know where to draw the line

Suxanonline,
It is incredible how so many have been feminist trained to automatically think of a male as always being in the wrong.

If a male doesn’t want to work with a female, the feminist training has been that the male can’t exercise self-control. The thinking is not that the female is impossible to work with, or too great a risk to work with.

I’ll tell you of a true situation. A cleaner had accused an office worker of sexually molesting her.

The office worker was interviewed by detectives (including a senior detective) and had DNA samples taken.

In one interview he told the detective that he had prostrate surgery a few moths earlier, and was still recovering and had no interest in sex. When this information was relayed to the accuser, she said that she had made the whole thing up and withdrew charges.

Amazingly, the woman was still employed by the cleaning company, but no other male cleaner would work with her or be in a room with her, and they avoided communication with her. Even the female cleaners wouldn't talk to her. Eventually (or finally) she was sacked because the cleaning company could lose contracts.

For the male office worker and his family, the situation was very traumatic, and he still has a black mark against his name, even though he had been found completely innocent.

For feminism => read money.

Throw enough mud at men, and some may stick, and then it makes it easier to get money from men.

Unfortunately for at least some women, they come off second best, and can actually lose out in the longer term.

Vanna said: <<For a male in the workplace, drawing the line basically means not touching any woman, and having as little communication with women as possible, or all communication has to be stickly work related.

It also means not being in a room with a woman unless someone else is present.>>

Interesting.

I'm a Muslim and in my workplace I am occassionally required to greet visitors. Some are women, sometimes more senior, sometimes less, and sometimes from outside company. As a Muslim i cannot shake hands (and haven't for several years) or mix when alcohol is being served (i avoid the Christmas party).

I once asked my Shaykh for his advice on how to deal with such situations. His advice was to say Islam intends to avoid all avenues that can LEAD to sexual harrassment, while recognising the hand-shake is, in and of itself, an innocent act and the norm in a Western context.

Vanna, your statement is precisely what Muslims are taught!

Salaams

Thanks for that information Grateful.
It sounds like Vanka would be more comfortable living in a Muslim country then.
See you all on another thread.