Ground Floor: Women in the workforce were making a lot of headlines last week, although the discussion was not about women at home versus women in paid jobs, but the advancement prospects for women in the workforce, particularly women who have made significant progress in their careers. There were three different issues making the news.

The first was the fact, as reported in this newspaper, that the 500 companies listed on the Norwegian stock exchange have two years to appoint women to their boards in a government initiative to help women reach the top. If they don't comply, they face closure.

The demand comes because the government passed a law in 2003 obliging state-owned companies to have a minimum level of female representation on their boards, while giving public companies two years to make the appointments.

They didn't and so the Norwegian equality minister, Karita Bekkemellem, has threatened them with closure. She doesn't want to wait 20-30 years for "men with enough intelligence to finally appoint women" to their boards.

In Norwegian political life, one-third of the members of the parliament are women, so not surprisingly, Bekkemellem has government support for her demands. But in the business sphere, only 16 per cent of company directors are women.

Norwegian businesses are angry, but Bekkemellem feels that since state companies have managed a 45 per cent female representation, public companies won't risk sanctions and will make the appointments.

It's a novel way of doing things and I hope the companies will use the opportunity to appoint qualified women to their boards. Since over half of the women in Norway have a business education, it shouldn't be too difficult. But just because they are suitably qualified to do a job doesn't mean they'll get it or they'll be treated well if they do.

Which takes us to the $1.4 billion (€1.16 billion) lawsuit brought by six female employees of investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein (DKW). The women, who had high-powered jobs, claim they were unfairly and abusively treated. According to the suit, their male colleagues would regularly bring clients to strip joints, bring prostitutes to the office and subject their female colleagues to remarks of a sexual nature. One woman claimed she was forced to leave a business dinner so that the men could carry on to a strip club.

Considering the sum of money the women are looking for, it's hard not to think that they're just out for what they can get, yet the claims are not far-fetched.

I have worked with men who brought clients to lapdancing clubs and brought porno magazines into the office (though never, to my knowledge, a prostitute.)

Female colleagues were often given vulgar nicknames, although they were never used to them directly. And although there were some senior managers eager to promote the best women along with the best men, there were others who admitted that the idea of having women at their meetings ruined it for them because they wouldn't be as much fun.

Most men I worked with were great. Over a period of time, the limits of what was considered acceptable behaviour changed, but this happened because the guys were older, got married and had children and didn't feel the need to come across like alpha males. When they spoke about scantily-clad women, it was usually to comment that they'd "love to", but had no chance.

I think that nowadays, many men have less sexist and misogynistic views about women and younger men are more used to seeing women in senior positions.

Nevertheless, there is still a cabal of men who objectify women and think it acceptable in the workplace.

They're not working in Morgan Stanley in Phoenix, Arizona anymore. There, four male employees went to a strip club after attending a conference. They've been fired as the bank - which paid $54 million to settle a sex discrimination case in 2004 - bans "exclusionary" activities.

Discussing the case with some male friends, the general view is that the guys were on their own time and that this is taking things too far.

There is an issue over the fact that it appears that some clients were also at the strip club, although whether they were with the bankers is open to question.

If the guys were in the club in their free time, the action appears draconian. But having to shell out $54 million to badly-treated women probably alters your view of what's acceptable behaviour.

The bottom line is women are still treated differently at higher levels in corporations than their male counterparts. They're also still paid less for the same work.

The chances of a woman taking on an Irish company for the money the DKW women are looking for are remote, although some have probably endured similar behaviour.

The idea of the Government ordering companies to appoint women directors on pain of closure is a cloud-cuckoo scenario. Maybe they can talk it through at Stringfellows.