Inappropriate calendar

Inappropriate calendar

Didn't find your answer?

I have a colleague who annually has an FHM girly calendar on his wall. I object to this as being both unprofessional and sexist - but the general consenus among the (entirely male) partners is that he has always done so and will be retiring in a couple of years anyway. Do I really have to put up with this? This month's is Carmen Electra in a wet t-shirt and skimpy knickers...
Rachel

Replies (163)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
04th Aug 2005 09:09

I'm not surprised Rachel hasn't re-entered the debate.
Just look at the first comment posted by "Relaxed".

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JonLucas
19th Aug 2005 10:52

The link.....
provides the picture in question, so we can all judge for ourseleves.

And it's a fabulous picture. In fact, I might print it out and pin it to my office wall.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th Aug 2005 17:49

Where's Your Mind At ?
Rachel, dont welch on the poor guys poster deal. May I remind you that it is a fact that sexual harrasment gives offence to all and is not only a male visited upon females problem. Accept differences in your sexual politics. Garden of Eden anyone? Life is a two way street. Anyway I thought Mary Whitehouse had long gone...

Perhaps the reason you dont like the poster is you have something of a repressed and dirty mind? Seeing as, you obviously object to the artistic freedom of a female to exhibit and the right of any men to enjoy the resulting calendar. Your like some character out of Viz.

Enjoy your fundamentalist's politically correct weekend and just ignore the calender or page 3 tabloids.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ACDWebb
21st Aug 2005 22:35

But
The person posting the initial enquiry needs to get out more. Is she objecting because she is jealous? One cannot help but wonder. - Others have already wondered and been responded to. I believe the answer was No

Rachel and Sartoris Taliban party will come round and poke your eyes out for looking at a woman! - Has Rachel actually objected to a man looking at the calendar, or a woman? I think not, merely its display in the open office. Hopefully not putting words into her mouth, but I doubt she would care if said calendar was pinned up in the colleagues home rather than the office (as had been promised before).

....you obviously object to the artistic freedom of a female to exhibit and the right of any men to enjoy the resulting calendar. - Again, & as above, not so sure that she has.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
10th Aug 2005 13:54

helllllooooooww??!!! (not sure of the spelling!)
If she feels she shouldn't do anything now, then why post a question on here requesting advice?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
04th Aug 2005 11:09

Rachel,
good luck with getting the Sartoris removed. Would you come back here and give us an update in due course?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Aug 2005 13:09

Why should Rachel do anything now?
She has made her feelings clear to the individual concerned who has gone back on his word, however relevant that may or may not be. After being completely ignored and/or treated with contempt the problem persists and she made her employers aware of her feelings. Surely anything she does now will only serve to aggravate the current situation and may even cause trouble with her working relationships with other colleagues, the calendar owner included.

The only person who needs to do anything is the person who owns the calendar in question.
Even some of the respondents, who are now demanding to know what Rachel has done since posting the original question, have acknowledged this fact earlier on this debate.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
12th Aug 2005 10:59

Kenneth, to be perfectly honest,
I have lost interest at this stage.
We are taking this Rachel woman at face value, fair enough.
She may be just an attention seeker who likes seeing grown men making fools out of themselves debating a topic which is of very little consequence.
However, I still stand by my posting that her colleague should take down the sartoris, having offered to do so.
This would have been back in December last year remember.
Again, if one were so concerned, why not post something on here seeking advice around January time?
Again the tone of the question raises some interesting issues. It says that Carmen Electra is wearing "skimpy knickers". Having seen the photograph, this is not the case at all. They are just an ordinary pair of knickers. I wouldn't describe them as skimpy. Why describe things in such a fashion. Is this type of description designed to get the ball rolling, so to speak?
This is why I have asked this woman to come back here and give further clarification.
All may not be what it seems to be in the Cyberspace World!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
10th Aug 2005 13:55

answer to kenneth
you are making assumptions that are not supported by the postings that rachel has made to this thread.

she was not apparently completetly ignored. As far as we can tell, the colleage promised to take action but appears to have forgotten. the partners listened to her complaint - considered it, and decided that no action was merited.

we have to know how much effort she has made before we can fully sympathise with her "whinge". whatever her colleague and the partners of the firm are, they are not able to read her mind.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
10th Aug 2005 11:30

rachel - a clarification please
you mention that you have spoken to your colleague, and that he promised to get a different sort of calendar this year, but that then he then reneged.

Have you spoken to him about it since - so is he aware of your concerns over the current calendar? Or is it that you have simply asked the partners to intervene?

It would be helpful if you would clarify this point.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jacp400
11th Aug 2005 21:50

Respect
Apologies for coming in late, I really must spend more time browsing the non-software pages(!)

Despite all the off-topic ramblings, the real issue is of respect. Apologies if I misquote you Rachael but your objection is not to the calendar per-se but the fact that it's displayed so prominantly? You have asked for, and been promised, a different calendar (presumably of the non-sartoris variety). Out of respect to you the offender should remove his calendar.

All other arguments are irrelavent. Is the calendar offensive in itself? Is Rachael a babe? Should Matthew Harrison go to lapdancing clubs? Has Mr Sartoris got too much time on his hands? All irrelevant, they are subjective questions with no right answer.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
12th Aug 2005 08:23

Crude relativism

The previous respondent asserts that subjective questions do not have right answers.

But he presumably thinks that he has given the right answer to the subjective question whether subjective questions have right answers.

Crude, shallow, self-defeating relativism is the intellectual curse of our age.


Thanks (0)
avatar
By andymeeson
12th Aug 2005 09:16

Mr Clough is also clearly wrong...
...in suggesting that "has Mr Sartoris got too much time on his hands?" is a subjective question with no correct answer.

This whole thread shows that it is clearly an objective question to which the answer must inevitably be "yes"!

PS He is clearly not the only one with too much time on his hands.... ;)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
12th Aug 2005 09:58

to sartoris, and his supporters
Sartoris, you appear to have a strong opinion on the question and the issues that derive from it, but much of your comment on this thread is to attack those with different opinions. That is neither constructive nor deconstructive, but simply fillibuster.

That you choose to attack those arguing rather than their arguments demonstrates that your opinions are "up the creek and missing the paddles".

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Aug 2005 10:33

Erm.. Mr Harris , I'm making assumptions???!!!!
A man promises someone not to do something but does it anyway. That fits the meaning of "completely ignoring". You say he appears to have forgotten. Where exactly does Rachel say that? If I'm making assumptions not supported by what Rachel has posted, then so are you. As for the partners deciding no action was merited, their recation was one of the problem won't exist shorthly rather you are wrong to have a problem.

Mr Kelly, after her first clarification, you reached what struck me to be a definitive opinion on what should happen, none of which called upon Rachel to do anything.

"He should remove the Sartoris immediately and apologise."

Now you are demanding she comes here and tells us what she has done since reaching that opinion. Therefore, your post in reply to me does not hold any weight.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
12th Aug 2005 10:59

hi kenneth
there is no assumption, but simply a summary of the facts that rachel has posted. There is a follow up question to rachel asking her to provide more information. the purpose is to establish more facts about how her colleague has acted. Many others have chosen to castigate said colleague on basis of scant facts - hence the request for clarification.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
09th Aug 2005 17:53

She could be a bit of an old dragon
We cannot be sure of the age of the "Rachel" one. We are only surmising.
She may 20, 30, 40, 50, .....who knows.
Mr. Sartoris, using psychosexual estimation techniques has pin-pointed her age around the thirty mark.
I have made repeated requests for this woman to re-enter the CC (Cyberspace Court), but my requests have fallen on deaf ears.
She has certain issues to clarify, viz:
how old are you?
what news on the Sartoris? have you approached the partners?
have you approached the perpretrator?
is it really a jealousy thing?
are you envious of babes like Carmen?
(never mind, I believe next month it is Myleene Klass).

Rachel, whilst not wishing to be offensive to you, these issues need clarifying.

Also, only you have the power to stop this thread before it spirals totally out of control and causes havoc with the internet etc.

Unless you are hiding something, you need to clarify these outstanding issues.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
10th Aug 2005 08:39

As i said ...

...last week the second question that arises is why Kelly, Dalzell, Evans, Harris etc feel compelled to defend what is the patently indefensible conduct of Rachel's colleague.

Just as a reminder, the indefensible conduct is not having or looking at lewd and lascivious images of women.

What is indefensible is the colleague's psychosexually driven display of putting such images up on the office wall where they have to be seen by women in the office (especially younger women) and those women have to know that it is the colleague who put the images up.

The conduct is clearly indefensible, so what motivates the defenders?

As I explained last week, they are not really defending Rachel's colleague at all. They are defending themselves.

They have their own similarly unpleasant behaviour patterns which they know, either consciously or unconsciously, are unacceptable.

They have to reason: if Rachel's colleague is guilty, then we are guilty; but we cannot be guilty, therefore he is innocent.

To prove the colleague's innocence they then wriggle and squirm to invent all those transparently false excuses for his behaviour that they have tried to deceive everyone else with.

But it doesn't wash. They deceive only themselves, which is why they too require the sort of psychosexual therapy that Rachel's colleague requires.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
10th Aug 2005 09:13

Inappropriate calendar - who cares?
I am a similar age to Rachel's colleague and I have an AC/DC calendar up on my wall (heavy rock group for those not in the know) with a small amount of flesh exposed with Angus in his shorts. my clients seem to like it, those who have chosen to notice. Probably quite innapproprate for an accountant's office but, who cares? Any employee who does complain needs more work to take their mind off such trifles; obviously under-employed. I am far too old to take any notice of this PC rubbish.

Wendy

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Aug 2005 09:17

If he was in my office......
I would rather he letch over Carmen Electra than me, or any of my other female colleagues!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Aug 2005 10:02

Some seem to be missing the point
An AC/DC calendar may show a little flesh - as does another colleague's Beyonce calendar but whilst maybe these are not entirely appropriate they are not the sort of soft [***] that is the FHM calendar. These are deliberately sexually provocative images using wet t-shirts, baby oil and pouting poses. Not the images on the WI calendar at all.

This calendar is not in a client's office, it is entirely within the control and confines of the practice. It is not a magazine on a desk which is hardly noticeable. It is not the calendar of a client and has no connection with our work.

Mr Sartoris is not very far out with his age estimations. I think it just proves my point that it is inappropriate when some of those who defend the calendar are more interested in my appearance and age than my professional qualifications. And no I will not be posing for one such calendar as was suggested and then deleted in one posting by a calendar supporter.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mark.finapps.co.uk
10th Aug 2005 10:02

Ooooo...
...what about wallpaper on an office computer?

I've got a colleague who, er, sits near me, who sometimes has pretty girls in the background (of his computer, obviously, not his life, or perhaps he has as well, who knows, I don't know him that well, honestly, it's not me, it isn't).

Fortunately my office could hardly be called professional so perhaps it doesn't count.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Aug 2005 10:33

Replies
Sartoris - so the problem is not that he looks st the calendar, but that he has one knowing that young women will see it and knowing tht they will know he put it up. A female work colleague of mine 9 days out of 10 wears a low cut top and a fairly short skirt. Does she therefore have psychosexual problems? She knows, after all, that young men will be seeing her, and she knows that they will know it was her that dressed herself that way.
Rachel - I agree that what you wear, what you look like is irrelevant. If you ask for the calendar to come down it should. I just take issue with Sartoris making massive assumptions about people he's never even met.
I'm not defending Mr Scapegoat, I just take issue with the flawed psychological profile put forward by Mr J Sartoris

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
10th Aug 2005 10:46

we are going round in circles here
many thanks to Rachel for coming back, but the additional info provided is very little, I am afraid.
We have confirmation that Mr. Sartoris' psychosexual estimation techniques have proved reliable in respect of Rachel's age.
We also know that Rachel is not willing to pose on a calendar herself.
I hold my hands up and admit it was my posting you are referring to which I subsequently deleted, as I thought you might find it slightly offensive.
We are almost halfway through August now and Carmen Electra will be history in another couple of weeks.
Rachel, if you object so strongly to the Sartoris, why have you not done something about it in the last couple of weeks (apart from posting on here that is)?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
09th Aug 2005 11:34

Where's the problem?
If ths poor chap has had to take his calendar down because of some narrow-minded individual (who is probably jealous of Ms Electra if the truth be told) can I just ask one thing.....
Can I borrow it?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By david reed
09th Aug 2005 11:34

Rachel's calender
Totally inappropriate for a professional office

I insist that we have pictures of Swindon Town footballers displayed and steam locomotives

No doubt some sad individual will say I have repressed sexual hang ups probably caused by the death of a kitten when I was 3

My question is

"Where the hell can I get a copy of this calender"

And for that matter isn't the Hiscox advert to the left of this very screen demeaning to women

May I suggest we all get a life

Cheers

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
09th Aug 2005 11:43

PC Fascism
This sort of politically correct fascism must be fought at every turn. One of my staff has a picture of Robbie Williams in his underwear pinned in her work area. I find it offensive, not least because the man is a p**t. Should I ask for its removal? Give me a break. I shudder to think of the time being wasted by the thought police on PC issues like this. In another example this week our company received an eight page questionnaire from a client (public sector of course..) asking us to sign on to their own internal 'values'. One of the questions demanded the ethnic breakdown of our staff. I gave the totally honest answer 'I haven't a clue. I have no prejudices and don't go around clocking the race/ethnic background of my people.'

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
09th Aug 2005 11:47

why can't people give it it's proper title?
The item in question should be referred to as the Sartoris. To call it just a "calendar" is offensive and just downgrades it to the level of your common-garden piece of coloured paper.
No, it fully deserves the status of a "Sartoris".

One final point: Rachel has scoffed at the idea of being called a wind-up merchant.

However, by her refusal to revisit this Cyberspace Court and give an update, she will be seen by many as just that.

Rachel, get your act together and get back here and give fresh evidence.


Thanks (0)
avatar
By pgittins
09th Aug 2005 14:31

I'm tremendously impressed ....
.... that this thread has managed to overtake "AIA and ACCA merger" for the greatest number of hits on the current list. Good to see that us bean-counters have got our priorities right.

But it does make me wonder .... are any of Rachel, Ms Electra or the guy with the calandar members of AIA .....?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
09th Aug 2005 14:55

For newcomers...

... to this thread who, quite understandably, do not want to waste time trawling through all last week's postings, it is worthwhile recapping the important points.

The erring colleague is man about 62 - 63 years old. Rachel is under 30.

There would probably have been no objection at all if the colleague had kept the calendar on his desk or, preferably, in a drawer.

But he did not do this. He put the picture up on a wall where he knew that young female colleagues would have to see it and they would have to know that he was responsible for putting it up.

Those are just the uncontested facts.

The dispute comes about when it is said that, because the calendar causes offence to Rachel (and probably other women in the office), it should be taken down.

Those of a politically correct frame of mind (such as the HR/legal people we have heard from) say dogmatically and without qualification that, if it causes offence the calendar must be taken down.

But that is just intolerance. That certain actions cause offence is not, of itself, sufficient reason to stop someone doing something. Tolerance and respect for the freedom of the individual require us to put up with many things that we find offensive.

What makes the difference in the case of Rachel's colleague is the reasons he has acted as he has.

There can be no doubt that this sort of behaviour is driven by psychosexual forces, as, indeed, is so much human behaviour.

The colleague has a certain view of women as solely sexual objects whose proper function is the sexual gratification of men. That view is probably grounded in sexual inadequacy, fear or immaturity combined with a resentment of women who are more, or potentially more, successful than he is and that has resulted in a castration complex for him.

Such strong psychosexual forces cannot stay repressed. The colleague is compelled to express them in a public psychosexual display. That is why he chooses that sort of calendar and hangs it on that particular wall so that everyone, and especially young women, in the office will know that it is his psychosexual display and that he is forcing them to look at it.

Once you understand the pychosexual motivation behind the colleague's behaviour, you see it is an aggressive attempt to dominate and to restrict the freedom of others, especially young women.

Such behaviour does not need to be tolerated, not even in the name of toleration and freedom of the individual.


Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
09th Aug 2005 15:11

sartoris
your actions in presenting your own views in your latest missive betray your desire to control the world, but never fear as superman is near, and will seek out and destroy all powercrazy despots for the benefit of all mankind (and womenkind).

or failing that then rachel should return to the site, declare the result, and cause this thread to close.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
09th Aug 2005 15:11

Mr Sartoris
"The colleague has a certain view of women as solely sexual objects whose proper function is the sexual gratification of men."
That is one massive assumption to make based on the facts available.
I think women are beautiful. I find seeing them scantily clad very pleasant. This does not mean I see them "as solely sexual objects whose proper function is the sexual gratification of men" (I'm very tempted to just say that "they also make a v nice cup of tea" and leave it like that just to annoy the PC posse).
I agree that if someone you work with is seriously offended by anything, even if no one else sees it as serious, that steps should be taken to sort it out even if just for the sake of a peaceful working environment and that if Rachel asks Mr Scapegoat to remove the calendar it should be removed. But to jump to psychological conclusions when all you know is that he's male,60 years old, works with Rachel and likes the aesthetic beauty of the female form is laughable.


Thanks (0)
avatar
By Briar
09th Aug 2005 17:50

What do auditors do?
What do I do if one of my staff visits a client where there is such a calendar hanging?
Management Review letter?

I have a client where one of the directors (female) has a calendar every year of Cliff Richard! It could be argued that each month's picture offends everyone of decent taste (whatever their sex). What am I to do? Can I send male staff (or even female staff) to the client's to do the audit or will I be sued in the future?

I have another client who is producing a calendar for 2006 with photos of rescue greyhounds with models (female) in various states of undress (none explicit - maybe the odd wet t-shirt, etc). The calendar will raise money for a greyhound rescue charity. Will the auditor have to be very careful who is sent to verify the calendar stock at the year end?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
05th Aug 2005 11:22

John,
I have neither said you are right, nor have I said you are wrong. You are entitled to your opinions.
What I have said is that you have strayed off the point. The point is as I mentioned in my last post.
There is only one person that can stop this debate and her name is Rachel.
If she tells us the Sartoris has been removed, her problem will be solved and this matter can be laid to rest once and for all.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
05th Aug 2005 11:34

This debate...

...has not just been about the offending calendar. So, even when it is removed, the debate would not be at an end.

The calendar incident triggered the debate, but it has really been about morals and respect for other people, especially the issue of respect by men for women.

Regrettably, that issue still causes problems for some men, even in 2005.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
05th Aug 2005 11:36

Very sad
This is, in my opinion, all a bit sad and petty and perhaps explains why accountants have a poor image in alot of peoples eyes. This site is very useful and at times interesting but to have this many repsonses is quite sad when you see some of the unanswered questions which are bona fide tax / accounts problems! Rachel posted a valid question but I doubt whether she is even interested by all the rubbish now been posted.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
05th Aug 2005 11:51

Definitely not,
Quote from JS: "So, even when it is removed, the debate would not be at an end."

Once Rachel comes back here, and she has a moral duty to come back, and declares that the Sartoris has been removed, then this debate will be over.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
05th Aug 2005 12:30

No it won't

The debate will continue as long as anyone wishes to continue it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
05th Aug 2005 12:46

what debate?
it stopped being a debate some time ago. the key protagonists should adjourn to the nearest quayside, complete with wet fish, and fight it out to the bitter end.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
05th Aug 2005 12:47

Once that there Sartoris
finally comes down, it will be like the Berlin Wall all over again. There will be celebrations in offices up and down the country.
Therefore, the debate will be over, as people will be too busy celebrating, going to lap dancing clubs, etc. etc.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
05th Aug 2005 12:50

Apparently...

...we are now debating whether our previous debate really was a debate.

How long will this debate continue (if, indeed, it is a debate)?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Helen Crowley
05th Aug 2005 12:53

Suggestion
Rachel - hope you get it sorted one way or another. Print off a copy of this debate and leave it on your colleagues desk that will probably do the trick! Don't be bullied into coming back into the debate either! As for some of you - don't you have any work to do?!!!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
05th Aug 2005 13:04

Helen, you're a tax barrister,
can we get a subpoena to force Rachel to come back here to this Cyberspace Court?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
05th Aug 2005 13:50

remove the sartoris, or the Sartoris
the calender is now a side issue. Sartoris has created a monster, and it is growing out of control. More and more innocent bystanders are finding themselves drawn in. its becoming addictive. Sartoris must be stopped, before it takes over the various AIA threads.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Helen Crowley
05th Aug 2005 14:29

Challenges
Tony,
Don't you have patients to attend to as a Tax Doctor? You have bought the label after all as I recall. Should I be flattered that you think I'm a tax barrister? There are after all worse things you could call me! Would you be free to attend my next salary review to ensure that I am amply remunerated for my new role?
To Tony and everyone else - there is a clear gap in the market here for an Accountancy calendar to suit all tastes - Aweb why don't you produce one for 2006?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
05th Aug 2005 14:35

accountancy calendar
like the idea - perhaps someone could get carmen dressed up in various accountancy disguises - purely humourous of course - nothing lewd or suggestive.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
05th Aug 2005 15:26

Message to Rachel
If your question was really "Should I have to put up with this?" (rather than "Do I...") then the answer is patently NO! However, the reality, as borne out by many of the comments posted below, is that women in accountancy DO have to put up with some depressingly negative attitudes from their (male) colleagues. Good luck!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
05th Aug 2005 15:36

Isabelle, you are opening another can of worms,
but I, for one, am not going to take the bait.
This "Sartoris" saga has been going on almost nigh on 3 days now, plenty of time to have done something about it.
Rachel has a moral obligation to come back here to this Aweb forum (or whatever you want to call it), and update the interested parties.
I have been sucked into this debate. It has cost me a lot of time etc. No matter, my choice, maybe some would say a foolish one.
All she has to say is:
The Sartoris has been removed, or
He has refused to remove the Sartoris.
Either way, we can hopefully draw a line under this one.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
09th Aug 2005 11:27

Poor little scapegoat
I feel the calendar-displaying chap is being made a scapegoat here. Surely the problem is with Ms Electra? If she didn't whip her clothes off as soon as she sees a cameraman with a pile of cash there'd be no picture to put on the calendar and Mr Scapegoat would have to make do with a calendar showing pictures of cars instead.
Oops, just offended the environmentalists :(

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
04th Aug 2005 16:37

sartoris
are you Prof Tots Snr?

Thanks (0)

Pages