A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Feels like this should have been expressed the other way, "firms without women in leadership roles cover up more abuse."
Excellent point
I mean, it's kinda expected that more women in power means more justice to women.
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.
I was really confused until the end where it said dismiss meant firing.
Somewhere, there's someone out there that thinks "firing" means "this person was literally thrown into a bonfire."
Sending male abusers away is the right thing to do. I'm glad women in positions of power are doing that.
I would like to inform that in the Finnish article mentioned (which can be accessed via Google Scholar) the authors use the word "Fire" and not "Dismiss", so it's even clearer.
So a strange anecdote related to this story -- I've worked for a small company before where there was a husband/wife employee couple, which had DV issues. The female-dominant senior managers, very quietly, would send the man on leave while looking for excuses to fire him each time there was an event. The wife refused to press charges, because she was seemingly the one starting the physical fights, she just lost cause she was weaker -- the guy wasn't a big dude though, so it's not like he could easily just 'restrain' her, hence some visible physical injuries. So the company couldn't use something like a criminal record to justify dismissal. But they still tried to find ways to fire the man, without really caring about who was instigating / innocent until proven guilty, or anything. It's just "Man hits a woman for any reason? Women band together to cast out the man".
These two people stayed together for decades like this, with mgmt periodically going through those motions apparently. Think they're still together. Had like 3 or 4 kids.
The title/article is confusing. What does “dismiss” mean - ignored or fired? Seems like ignored.
The second paragraph makes it more clear when they say "sacked" but they could just use plain language.
They did use plain language ... British English.
I would argue that British English is one of the least plain languages out there, and just about the only thing brits don't prefer plain.
You should explore more languages. English is really quite direct when compared to many other languages; the English could have had a lot more fun with the language but they decided to be boring.
The second paragraph is about male and male abuse - they get sacked. Male and female abuse - they don’t get sacked as much.
But the second is talking about abuses against males. If anything, using two words "dismissed, and sacked" one in each paragraph, makes it even more confusing. Felt like it was saying women in senior positions protected women less (dismissed abusers) while protecting men more (sacking abusers). Just say sacked both times.
Its an especially interesting choice of words in this context considering issues like this have been dismissed (as in ignored) for decades.
Yeah i had to do a double-take because the way I originally interpreted seemed so backwards.
"Dismiss" is the wrong word to use in that title. Yes, it can mean "fire", but it can also mean "ignore". It seems like this is a case where you want to be clear which interpretation you mean.
I'm guessing "dismiss" never means "ignore" in British English. Maybe a British can confirm.
It does mean ignore in BE. To deem unimportant/not worth bothering with.
In my opinion the headline is unclear, possibly deliberately in order to engage clicks.
Okay great, but do those firms with more women in leadership outpace the profitability of those that let men get away with abuse in the workplace? Because the only thing that really matters is finding out if abusive workplaces make more money so I can do that.
I’m not sure why there is a distinction. Toxic behavior is toxic. Fire anyone who acts inappropriately. End of story.
The study is showing that what you are advocating is more likely to happen at a company with more women in leadership positions.
A person of either gender could be helpful or abusive and support abusers.
And yet!
Whataboutism at its finest.
Was what I said true or false?