Severin

Let me explain it simply. There is a problem with some men who sexually harass women. You are happy to ask men to solve this problem by stopping this behaviour, thereby rescuing women from their predicament. On the other hand, you reject any expectation that women change any behaviour that feeds the problem. In short, you want men to fix this problem but don’t expect women to do anything to fix the problem.

CJ

If she has contributed to the problem, that needs to be discussed. If she hasn’t contributed, she has my unreserved sympathy. It’s a quite simple argument that has remained consistent throughout this thread. Nothing obtuse about it.

Cossomby

Once again, I believe that sexual harassment is unacceptable and agree with legal measures to stop it. As you mentioned, using these legal remedies can be difficult. Therefore other efforts, such as discussing people's behaviour can assist in stopping the problem.

“No wonder women don't complain more often! They know that they will be on trial.”
All people’s behaviour is scrutinised. Why socialise women to get angry over something that is a part of everyone’s existence?

“Behaviour that might be OK elsewhere is out order at work.”
I can see why you might believe that pursuing co-workers is inappropriate. If you want to argue that co-workers are off-limits, then it needs to be a rule that is applied consistently. If that means that men need to avoid pursuing co-workers they are attracted to, then women can do the same. It is the price of having principles.

Benk: How does anything this young woman has done, ever, negate HIS refusal to accept "No." ?

No amount of vilifying her is going to shine him up any better than he is. Nevermind that he was her boss and senior exec; nevermind that he admitted that he'd done that which he was called out on and nevermind that he has about 20years more world experience than her, especially in a workplace environment - where one would expect a senior to set the pace for juniors to follow.

Men and women are going to be attracted to each other in any setting. The difference is graciously accepting a no thanks when some sort of interest is expressed. It's also preferable to simply ask someone out, rather than grab a quick squeeze in the elevator or cornering someone to chase them around the desk. For men, they might have a rebuff - accept it and move on. For women, fraternizing in the workplace means either (1) being blamed for sleeping her way to the top (or bottom) or (2) having to leave the job.

The relative attractiveness of the male is irrelevant. What you consider an attractive male might not coincide with what some woman thinks. Even women amongst themselves rarely agree on who is desirable and who isn't.

If your "principles" stop you from persisting even though your perception is that simply disregarding the female's response is the path to success (eg a bonk); maybe you could take the trouble to just be a good work mate and stop thinking of females as perpetually available for pursuit. Some women (most I would say) really are just interested in getting on with their work.

- and Benk, no rule about harrassment is going to be applied consistently if the first thing that happens, even when the bloke admits it, is that the woman is terrorized and her character assassinated.

Bravo to this young woman for speaking out to stop unwanted behaviour when the silly old fool wouldn't accept a no.

Benk

I don't know what you are reading, but it is never my posts. One small part of campaigning against sexual harassment (by either gender) is by speaking out against it whenever there is an opportunity, such as on OLO.

Well said, Pynchme (again). Unfortunately Benk will still try to prove the brave young woman who spoke out against her CEO's behaviour is somehow to blame.

“How does anything this young woman has done, ever, negate HIS refusal to accept "No." ?”

She may have rewarded other men who have persisted after the first knock back. If this is the case, then she is part of the reason why many blokes are so reluctant to take “no” for an answer. If she has never rewarded persistence, then she has all my sympathy.

“No amount of vilifying her is going to shine him up any better than he is.”

Criticising her needn’t amount to any defence of him. He is a douche either way.

“no rule about harrassment is going to be applied consistently if the first thing that happens, even when the bloke admits it, is that the woman is terrorized and her character assassinated.”

She won’t have her character assassinated if she has acted with integrity. People who are sensitive to criticism need to consider their behaviour.

“maybe you could take the trouble to just be a good work mate and stop thinking of females as perpetually available for pursuit.”

Huh! Who says that I do?

These social conventions that we both support will never work as long as individual women judge some men’s behaviour as “confident” and the exact same behaviour from another man is judged as “harassment.” What’s more, given that “even women amongst themselves rarely agree on who is desirable and who isn't”, the only way for blokes to find out they are attractive enough is to try their luck. Let’s see what we can change to make these rules work. Solving the problem should be more important than making ourselves look caring by showering the victim with empathy.

Severin

““One small part of campaigning against sexual harassment (by either gender) is by speaking out against it whenever there is an opportunity.”

Keep up the good work, just don’t pretend that this social pressure is the whole solution. It is just one part of the solution. The one part that just happens to cost you nothing.

Dear benk,

A young woman spoke out because her old creepy boss wouldn't take no (twice) and he admitted he did it.

NOT picking on her is hardly showering her with anything.

I am really disappointed in your one eyed view on this.

Therefore when you talk about people using 'confident' and 'harassing' to mean the same thing, I can't have confidence in your perceptions. They are entirely different things to me. What evidence do you have that people do use those terms to describe the same behaviour?

In any case what's wrong with expecting people to err on the side of caution by accepting the first response?

Wouldn't THAT teach muddled females to speak up at first go or forever hold their peace? I could therefore argue in response to yours, that ANY bloke who has ever given a female a second chance to say yes to his advances has contributed to the problem.

Now can you see that your 'point' is pointless?

sheesh!