Gutless pussy-whipped 'men' need to stand up for themselves.

Taking hypocritical exploitation to another level !

Nothing meritorious about this extreme over the top hyperventilated hyperbole and risible rubbish. Horse feathers and bird's fur.
Alan B.

#.. Gutless pussy-whipped 'men' need to stand up for themselves….#

Or, a world ruled by the “Alphabet Mafia”.

Exactly the example of the internal pressure bringing Israel to its knees, and will ultimately lose them the current war. Democrats!

Dream on Diver.
Alan B.

Typical Arndt. Misrepresentation, selective quotes out of context, and an implied message that sexual harassment is not really a serious problem and employers shouldn’t be expected to do much about it.

For example:

“Jenkins and her team create a fiction of workplaces as cesspits of groping men intent on keeping women in their lowly place.”

Jenkins and her team actually examined many sources of evidence and research that point to workplace sexual harassment being a significant issue for both men and women. They did not seek to minimise the problem of male victims; read in context, the comments Arndt quoted (which incidentally are summaries of independent research not the conclusions of the report’s authors) express concern that harassment of men may be under-reported and taken less seriously that harassment of women. And Arndt conveniently fails to mention that most complaints of harassment by men are about male perpetrators.

Arndt attempts to downplay the problem by suggesting that most harassment is “mainly low-grade”. Think about that. Are we to tolerate leering and sexually intrusive questions because they are “low-grade”? And behaviour she deems “more serious” – unwanted touching, for example - affected about one in five employees. Is that ok?

Arndt takes offence that the report says that “criminal standards of proof are not appropriate”. But that is standard for workplace misconduct. In criminal law, an allegation must be proved “beyond reasonable doubt”. In civil matters, the standard is “the balance of probabilities “or “reasonable satisfaction”. That still means that an accused harasser is entitled to a fair hearing based on evidence. But the bar should not be set higher for sexual harassment than other workplace misconduct such as bullying.

Arndt says ‘the report doesn't mention fairness as a priority but instead calls for "prioritising the rights, needs and wants of victims"’. While the report does not specifically call fairness a “priority” it does call it “important” – for example: “The Commission agrees that it is important to balance the rights of victims and alleged harassers and uphold the law. This is important in terms of fairness and justice …”