"A woman is at just as great a risk of sexual assault from a man who stands up as she enters his company as she is from any other man. To claim otherwise is to mislead women about what makes them vulnerable to sexual assault, and about where the threats to their autonomy come from."

Of course all women are at risk of sexual assault from evil white males.

In fact, evil white males are just so evil.

Best for women not to go anywhere near evil white male.

Why mention white males unless you're obsessed with race?

That's a very categorical assertion, Ms Pringle.

"A woman is at just as great a risk of sexual assault from a man who stands up as she enters his company as she is from any other man."

Are you sure of that?

In my - admittedly somewhat old-fashioned - view of the world, I am equally certain that you are wrong. In my experience, men who pay attention to the courtesies towards females are far, far less likely to be predatory towards women, than blokes who treat their sheilas like chattels.

I completely concur, by the way, that such a view should not be entered in evidence, per se. The guilt or innocence of the party should rely entirely on the facts of the case.

Nevertheless, there have always been opportunities for the defence to present "character witnesses". These are equally valid where, say, an accountant has been caught embezzling ("he's a pillar of the community m'lud, and gives often to charity") as it is for a footballer up for rape.

It is against this standard that the contribution "Any allegation that [the accused] forced himself on any woman or girl is completely inconsistent with the character of the young man I know" should be measured.

That was not, after all, an assertion that "he didn't do it". Simply a statement that it was "completely inconsistent with the character of the young man I know". Pretty much the same words, I would imagine, that a close friend could have used to describe our putative embezzler.

It would be an appalling perversion of justice, if the facts were overruled by the character reference. But that really is not much of an excuse for the generic bloke-bash provided here.

"To claim otherwise is to mislead women about what makes them vulnerable to sexual assault, and about where the threats to their autonomy come from."

I'm afraid that the "fear every man equally" approach is equally misleading, Ms Pringle.

And quite damaging.

"The accused" has also been found not guilty. So just maybe Mr Bellanto and Ms Cunneen were right in this case? Accusations are made against people for all sorts of reasons, not all of them honorable, and resulting charges are best judged by the courts, not by academics with an agenda to push. I'm a social worker with experience in counseling victims of assault, so I well understand the effects of assault on those who are subjected to it. But I've also counseled people who have been maliciously accused and know that the adverse effects can be just as great. Leave judgements to judges and juries. The application of generalisations in the context of specific cases is a very harmful (in fact abusive) practice.

The author is really saying (I think) that a man who is known to behave in a gentlemanly manner might one day make a mistake and commit a crime (in theory).

This fact is true, just as a woman who normally acts in a well mannered and ladylike way (however that might be defined) may still one day be guilty of an offence or of making a false accusation.

However, that said, the character of both the accused and the complainant are usually raised in these sorts of cases as 'character' is often used as a defence.

The bottom line in these sorts of cases is ascertaining guilt. Sometimes people are accused of crimes they have not done. That is also a fact.

None of us know the truth of this case only those intimately involved - the defendant and the complainant - but we should not dismiss the character of a person so easily. How does one ascertain guilt without any other witnesses - maybe character is sometimes all we have to go on. Unless we use polygraph but I don't know how reliable those machines might be - if they are reliable why not just hook both up to one and get on with it.

Would a character reference of the plaintiff be acceptable? In this line of argument, I think not. References would paint Stewart as a true gentleman and his victim as a bit of a bottom-feeder, whose father (conveniently close by at the time) has quite a criminal history, including prison time for fraud. If that doesn't skew a jury, I don't know what will. Of course, this sort of information could be quite relevant - one man has form as a liar and a crim, the other doesn't. Hmmm ...

I believe it might have been misplaced judgement for Margaret Cuneen to appear for the defence in this case.
In my opinion her previous position in successful and well publicised prosecution of previous rape cases would offer a unfair advantage for the defence. I feel the Attorney General's Department must be seen to be independent.

"A woman is at just as great a risk of sexual assault from a man who stands up as she enters his company as she is from any other man."

That is called scare mongering.

If I understand correctly, the vast majority of males would never, ever sexually assault a woman.

JamesH

>>> If I understand correctly, the vast majority of males would never, ever sexually assault a woman. <<<

Completely agree.

Out of the small percentage of men who do regard women as little more than sexual objects, these men may be from any station of life, be it a CEO or a brickies labourer.

A close friend of mine was sexually abused by her father when she was 12 - he was a professor at a very prestigious university, proving that there are no rules regarding social status and respect for others.

Jiplug,
I appoligize for my reference to "evil white male".

What I should have said was "Best for women not to go anywhere near evil evil male."

I hope that's better.

Thanks Vanna:

>>> What I should have said was "Best for women not to go anywhere near evil evil male." <<<

Could the evil, evil men please have their foreheads tattooed with something like; "I have evil intentions towards women" so that women won't have to find out through direct experience.

And the majority of men who really like women will not be mistaken for the bad guys!

And, this can work both ways, women who deliberately get themselves pregnant, leave the fathers of their children and demand money for the upkeep of their children, could have similar tattoos like: "I am a feminazi lezzo".

There now. No class distinctions just the outing of evil.

Cheers m'dears

A ' Foot in Mouth' article published a day too soon !

Of such things Legends are made.

Congratulations!

An interesting perspective, MAREELORRAINE.

>>I believe it might have been misplaced judgement for Margaret Cuneen to appear for the defence in this case. In my opinion her previous position in successful and well publicised prosecution of previous rape cases would offer a unfair advantage for the defence. I feel the Attorney General's Department must be seen to be independent.<<

As I understand it, she made it abundantly clear that she was offering her view as a private citizen, and not as a lawyer. She also accepted - how could she not? - that it is possible for someone to appear "nice" on the surface, but in fact be an abject villain underneath.

But what concerns me is the concept of an "unfair advantage to the defence". If you were to find yourself unjustly accused, would you not consider it a major disadvantage, if you could not call upon your friends to say a word or two on your behalf?

As for the Attorney General's Department, surely they, more than anyone, would be satisfied that one of their finest would not stoop to perjury, but would tell it like it is? One would hope so, at least.

But that isn't really the topic here, is it?

It is the fact that in Ms Pringle's view, a man's character is not a factor, when it comes to rape. That she perceives that all men, even those who treat you with unflagging respect and courtesy, are in fact simply rapists on the prowl. They just have found a smarter form of entrapmant, that's all.

What a terribly sad view of the world.

I can picture it now. A crowded suburban train. A gentleman rises from his seat, removing his hat as he does so, and asks the lady standing...

"May I offer you a seat?"

"Pervert!"

I am wondering how the prosecution went ahead at all where there was apparently a lack of DNA evidence, for example from the fingers of the accused to support it. The police and public prosecutors must be under tremendous pressure where sexual allegations are made against young footballers in particular to go for the throat, regardless.

This young man, his partner, family and friends have been through a meat grinder and are entitled to all of the forgiveness and support they can be given. It must be hell to be wrongly accused, interrogated by police (rough in a sex case), flung into a cell and have all of your innards spilled out in court, with fear you would be goaled, destroying your youth, relationships and career. Then there are the crippling financial costs.

It is grossly unfair but sad reality that because of the way sex crimes are regarded in this country, this young man will carry some grime from these serious allegations until he dies, notwithstanding the fact that he was acquitted by a court.

To Brett Stewart, a heartfelt sorry and I sincerely hope you can now get on with your life and athletic career and recover quickly from your ordeal. If I could will it, all of your costs for your defence would be reimbursed along with some compensation for your suffering. You were the victim.

To those who would want to make the awful misfortune that befell Brett Stewart a lesson for others, what about some honest recognition that young men are no different from young women, that the overwhelming majority are fine, upstanding human beings who wouldn't hurt a fly and don't deserve to be castigated for their gender or success in life. Of course a life history as a fine upstanding citizen is relevant to a defence if it can help prevent a wrongly accused person from going to goal.

I notice I said he was entitled to 'forgiveness', which is irrelevant because he was innocent. It just shows how prone we all can be to prejudice and leaping to wrong conclusions against the accused in sex cases. Sorry Brett, you were acquitted and deserve sympathy and support.

These cases do not get to court unless there is a very good case against the accused perpetrator. What a record for Australian justice. You can glass your girlfriend in the face, attack strangers or pack rape in hotel rooms and still in Australia in 2010 it is impossible to convict a sportsjock because the Australian psyche seems to refuse to allow that a sports hero with a good body would sexually assult a woman.

Failure to convict is not a proof of innocence. Getting off doesn't mean the accused didn't do it. Getting off just means the justice system worked in the bloke's favour this time.

Peacesong,

Your response convicts you for your obvious stereotyping and prejudice, not this young man who was acquitted and deserves sympathy for what he has been put through.

I put 'goal' instead of 'gaol' too I notice. Roll on the editing facility.

It would appear that certain feminists want all men who are accused of sexual assault to be found guilty, regardless of what the evidence indicates.

There is a certain element to allegations of sexual assault or even harrassment that seems to put the logical thinking part of the brain to sleep.

Like I said before, when my niece was allegedly raped(it didn't go to court) I wanted to do the worst things imaginable to the alleged perpetrator.

There is a certain lynch mob mentality that is extremely easy to get caught up in. Then when the hysteria settles down, the more decent people try to rationalize their own behaviour, or try to distance themselves from traversities in justice.

The use of words like rape, sexual assault and the guilty found innocent is enough for a number of people to suspend all rational and logical thinking.

There is an interesting new book out "My Lie" by Meredith Marans.

<Meredith Maran falsely accused her father of molestation. That she came to believe such a thing was possible reveals what can happen when personal turmoil meets a powerful social movement>

There is an extreme danger when public opinion and society are succesfully manipulated by activists.

"A woman is at just as great a risk of sexual assault from a man who stands up as she enters his company as she is from any other man"

That would appear to suggest that demographics are not at play here, (or that outward signs of respect for women mean nothing).

I've not found anything specifically about the factor mentioned above, perhaps the author will highlight the source of that claim. On a broader note there are demographic factors which might suggest something different to the authors claims.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf
"In the general population, sexual assault perpetrators have been identified as having higher levels of hostility toward women; lower levels of empathy; and being more likely to hold traditional gender role stereotypes, endorse statements used to justify rape, and hold adversarial beliefs about relationships between men and women (Seto & Barbaree, 1997). In addition, they are more likely to have experienced abuse or violence as a child, have engaged in adolescent delinquency, have peers who view forced sex as acceptable, and have had early and frequent dating and sexual experiences (Seto & Barbaree, 1997)."

R0bert

Maybe some women like to think that they are under constant threat of sexual attack particularly from white males,because most of them have no interest in sexually harrassing them.

I think Ms Pringle is quite right to point out the false assumptions that can be made based only on knowledge of a person's superficial behaviours.

Maybe there is no place for these personal character assessments in the courts. Dangerous people often don't seem that dangerous, unless you happen to be their victim. This makes character assessments by others pretty irrelevant.

It is misleading to construct identikits of the characteristics of rapists. Like the misleading stranger danger campaigns, when facts show most sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by people known to the child and its family.

And it's something of a cliche that when the neighbour is arrested for some crime, everybody says how quiet and polite he/she always seemed.

'He is, however, a conformist to destructive norms of male sexual behaviour that discount the importance of mutuality'

Really? People who rape are conforming to the norm?

I wonder what the destructive norms of male sexual behaviour are?

It sounds like one of those umbrella statements, so that all forms of male sexual behaviour thus become suspect and seen as being destructive. Or more correctly heterosexual male behaviour.

I think Briar Rose is pretty on the ball with this one. That said though, if it comes down to 'he said, she said' then personal references for either side can do no harm. In fact it could be thought to be fair to someone who has already been put on trial in the media for alleged offences that the scales are balanced a little.

A defence or prosecution lawyer who engaged in outright character assination of the other side would be playing a risky game as a jury's sympathy could swing the other way.

Educating young women (and men) about consent would be better covered at school level about such things as date rape than this case.

Off topic a bit, but overall justice I think would be better served if the subjects of this sort of allegation were never named publicly in the media until found guilty. Even when found innocent, they carry a life long stigma and some shadow on their character must remain. Hopefully it would never happen, but it might also stop high profile people being the targets of this sort of allegation without foundation.

Out on a limb here but it could also be easier on the person making the allegations too. If their claims have foundation, but they are let down by the justice system maybe just through a lack of evidence, their perceived motivations are fodder for the press, which can only be more salt in the wound.

JL Deland,

Another who likes to put "men" in brackets, as an after thought.

Of course he's guilty.

All men are rapists. Didn't you know.

Totally pointless and non-constructive post yours Vanna.

But keep at it. You will make any full on, one sided, all men are guilty poster to this forum look good by comparison to yourself.

It is interesting that Briar Rose and others would totally dismiss the worth of character references simply because the defence can use them in a serious criminal trial involving a sex allegation made by a woman.

They presumably don't see a problem with character references being used elsewhere in life, just in this particular circumstance - woman good, man bad. However they see no prejudice in that, no Siree and none of them are at all abashed to be making that bigoted assessment in a case where a young man has been acquitted, without any possible atonement or even apology from his accuser/s, no guvvy counselling just pick himself up as best he can and with a stain on his name until he dies. Being acquitted means nothing according to some here. They imply that he 'got off', how wrong they are. Could he ever be trusted with kids? Goodness, better watch him, he is probably one of 'those' too. Men are like that you know.

It is an interesting and novel idea isn't it, no examination of the character or credibility of any of the parties including the witnesses, just accept what they say at face value. Hold on, you only want that to apply to the prosecution you say, because stereotypes rule? So much for equality.

This article is outrageous, a disgrace, it does not represent the views of women, just a particular grouping of feminists who happen to believe that males are inherently defective and should apologise for being alive.

Cornflower, that's outrageous. I don't dismiss the use of character references, for men or women, I simply question their worth, given that a dangerous woman or man may only show that side of their character to their victim, leaving everyone else who knows them in ignorance of it.

My post has nothing at all to do with Brett Stewart's situation. I accept the jury's verdict, I have no wish to malign Mr Stewart, and it's my opinion that there's nothing more to be said on the matter as he has been acquitted.

As the mother of deeply loved sons,and as a woman who has close ,trusted and trusting male friends, I find your comments offensive.

briar rose, "I don't dismiss the use of character references, for men or women, I simply question their worth, given that a dangerous woman or man may only show that side of their character to their victim, leaving everyone else who knows them in ignorance of it."

You don't believe that courts already do that and have always done so? I would have though that establishing the credibility of a witness is always a factor and is crucial to the process.

What are you demanding that is new or different to what a court normally does?

It is hypothetical and I do not mean to imply that anyone in particular is referring to a particular person, sorry to yourself and others.

A man could always supply a character reference to get a job and earn money and pay tax.

That's what men are good for.

{JL Deland}

I'll leave you as an after thought.

"A man could always supply a character reference to get a job and earn money and pay tax.

That's what men are good for.

{JL Deland}

I'll leave you as an after thought".

Vanna. I'm reasonably intelligent if a few bits of paper from the ANU are any indicator, but your last post that I've pasted above made absolutely no sense to me at all.

If you are trying to portray me as a man-hater, then like Briar Rose you have the wrong woman. Same life partner for quarter of a century, adult sons, and a range of male friends both new and old who I've never had the slightest doubt about in anyway re them being 'safe' males. They like women too. You could try it sometime.

However taking a hostile and pretty strange approach to people who express what I thought was a fairly benign opinion on public forums seems to be your thing, so go for it. I won't waste anymore time on it.

The plot thickens, either he is a dam good actor or the interview I just saw was fairdinkum.

And more details are emerging about McInnes, and Fraser Kirk, it would appear that Fraser Kirk is after blood, even though McInnes apologised.

I guess feminists blood lust wont be satisified until they manage to lynch these two men from the nearest tree and if they cant get these two blokes, there will be some sucker somewhere that cant defend himself very well that they will have a feeding frenzy on.

"Ms Fraser-Kirk is suing David Jones, Mark McInnes and nine company directors, seeking $37 million in punitive damages."

"In papers lodged with the Federal Court, Mr McInnes admits he hugged Ms Fraser-Kirk at one function but says he was saying goodbye to her and other staff and it was not a sexual advance."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/24/3021527.htm

I think $37 million is just not enough if an evil male tries to kiss a woman. $50 million should be the starting price for a kiss.

Perhaps $37 million if an evil male comes within 5 metres of a woman.

{JL Deland}

Vanna, I'm beginning to accept that nobody can post a comment on anything to do with male/female relations on these forums without incurring torrents of abuse from you.

It doesn't even matter if the argument they put forward is positive - you'll spin it and abuse them anyway.

Then there's your issues with academics and universities -

And when its a female academic expressing an opinion, you go nuclear.

I don't know where you're coming from, Vanna, but judging by your posts it doesn't sound like a good place.

Stop stereotyping people. And if you're looking to be offended, you'll find something in the most innocuous opinion to offend you.

Cornflower, thanks for apologising.

I think we must agree to disagree on this topic for the time being, as I'm travelling and won't be checking in.

Cheers

Briar rose,
I haven’t abused, or been intolerant of anyone, except men.

But it is annoying when someone writes the word “men” in brackets, as in “women (and men)".

They really should leave the word “men” out, and just write “women”.

I understand the point of the article, that many rapists were previously seen as upstanding members of the community. However, lets not go too far and completely disregard issues of character. The more we heard about Dianne Brimble's alledged attackers, the easier it was to think that they were guilty.

Men who have a track record of good behaviour have a right to expect others will give that record a little weight before passing judgement.

Got thinking about the destructive (ab)norms of male behaviour.

If you are male, you more likely to be murdered, wind up with an acquired brain injury (I dont think they collect data on that) from being assaulted.

Much more likely to commit successful suicide than females.

I dont think the above is anything to with the norm, but sadly it happens much to regularly.

Such destructive behaviour I think is a symptom of something that is not going right in out society. I know feminists have the easy answer that is the 'male culture' but to really get to the bottom, means peeling off all the layers of society and putting it all under the microscope, not just the easily identifiable behaviours, attitudes, beliefs.

It can get really uncomfortable when the facades are stripped away, but then some groups would not really want it all laid bare, otherwise they just might have to look in the mirror.

James H
I don't think men are abnormal.

This taxpayer funded university feminist author wants everyone to be suspicious of men.

I wonder if this taxpayer funded university feminist also wants everyone to be suspicious of taxpayer funded university feminists.

Probably not.

Katie Rophie, wrote "the morning after" 1993

<feminism had always meant freedom — but as an undergraduate at Harvard and a graduate at Princeton, she was shocked to discover that the same movement that had once promised women a voice was now being used to tell them what they ought to say and think and feel.>

Looks nothing has changed.

I think it was Katie who pointed out how feminist researchers, when asking women if they ever had sex when they didn't want too, or had sex after a man had given them alcohol or drugs, classified these respondents as to have been raped.

I have a number of female friends who also wound up have sex with another female after they were given alcohol. But this is never ever discussed. Another gay female I know told me about how they use to target straight women.

Sexual assault by another female is rarely discussed, much less researched.

There are many things in my life that I don't want to do and given a choice I would not do them, but for various reasons, I do, do them. I do acquiesce to keep the peace.

JamesH I partly agree with the Katie Rophie quote you referred to above, although feminism is a broad church and I suspect much of the time it is the extremes (like with any movement) that are held up as the norm rather than the exception.

While some feminists may dicate to other women about what 'they should think and do' most normal women going about their business make decisions completely at odds with those feminists. As a woman who wanted to stay at home to raise my kids I did experience some negative reaction but it was minimal and when it comes down to it we are not here to please other people but to do what is best for our own situations.

The problems you raised about suicide and depression is more about other social changes that come down to an emphasis on the 'I' rather than the 'us' and an unhealthy obsession with material wealth over other aspects of human life or wellbeing.

There is of course much more to write on this topic alone, but feminism is not to blame for the economic characteristics that have arisen out of corporatisation or our obsession with growth. One might argue that feminism was an unwitting or unconscious (coincidental even) ally in aiding and abeting this economic fervour but it was not responsible nor was that its purpose.

Pelican,

Would the author be an extremist?

I don't think she has ever written a positive word about men, and continuously tries to portay men as being a danger to women, as this article highlights.

Dear everyone, thank you for your comments. I think that there are two issues getting mixed up in some of the comments, and I am sorry that I probably did not do enough to distinguish them in my original article. The first issue concerns the function and limits of character evidence in trials. I have been thinking a lot about this issue, sparked in part by my being asked recently to write a character reference for a friend who had traffic infractions and was in danger of losing her license. I discussed this issue with my friend, a lawyer herself, and the problem of why and to what extent it should make a difference that she had a good character when she had broken the law. We didn't come to any great conclusions, but I found it raised some very complex and interesting questions. But in her case, there was no question that she had done the acts of which she was accused, and the only question was the weight to be given to her otherwise good character (as evidenced in her references) in judging the penalty.

However, the issue to which Ms Cunneen spoke in the process at issue in this other case was different, at least as it was reported. Ms Cunneen seemed to suggest that a person could not be guilty of this crime given what she adjudged to be the good character of the accused, as evidenced by some rather superficial indices of character. That is a very different claim, and one that I find much less complex and much less interesting than the first case.

I think the comments on the role of character evidence were very interesting, and I would like to think more about this issue, so thank you!

Helen

I had to break this comment to meet word limits.

The second issue raised in the comments concerns my view about the crime of sexual assault. Contrary to the claims expressed by various commenters, I do not think that all men are evil, I do not think that all men are rapists -- and I do not hate men. In fact the last claim in particular has led to much amusement among the men in my life, who know it to be false. Frankly, it is risible.

The claim that I think all men are evil rapists is exactly the opposite of what I think and of what I have written here. My view is that sexual assault is not done by men because they are "evil", and indeed to think that is, in my assessment, to hold on to another of the oldest rape myths around. In most convictions for sexual assault, the perpetrators did not set out with evil in their hearts in order to rape someone. They simply set out to have sex – and were, for example, indifferent or careless as to the mutuality of the sexual act. That indifference or carelessness is not particularly uncommon, and indeed is often culturally rewarded – and this is what I meant by referring to "destructive norms of male sexual behaviour that discount the importance of mutuality" (I have written more on this elsewhere).

It is my view that such destructive norms are destructive not only to women, but also to men, or at least to many men. This is in part what JamesH is referring to – or what I understand him to be referring to, in noting the high rates of male to male violence, and of violence to self especially among young men. I am not careless of such considerations, and indeed such considerations are of great personal importance to me in relation to the men in my life for whom I care deeply.

As for Vanna's claim that I have never written a positive word about men, puhlease.

Helen

Destructive norm, now is that destructive behaviour that is seen as being normal, or is it normal behaviour that is seen as being destructive.

More importantly who gets to decide what sort of behaviour is destructive and what is normal.

If you want to write about character references then perhaps it would have been better to write about your dilemma about providing one for your friend, rather than this case.

It sounds like your friend was partaking in the destructive norms of breaking the road rules, running red lights and speeding etc. This sort of (normal, illegal) behaviour is intentional and premeditated. Basically your friend did not want to take responsibility for her own destructive normal behaviour.

The subject of sexual assault is a mine field, and highly emotive where logical clinical analysis is almost impossible.

<They simply set out to have sex – and were, for example, indifferent or careless as to the mutuality of the sexual act.>

Whilst this is maybe true in some cases, I fully suspect that there is something else at play here in the dynamics of human sexual interaction and I think it is the dynamics or perhaps more correctly how we view the dynamics that are to blame.

My own personal experience is that I was once accused of not taking "No" for an answer and I hadn't even tried to kiss her or touch her.

That experience only served to make me much more cautious.

On relection, it was rather dishonest of you to use the Brett Stewart case to explore your own dilemma about you giving your friend a character reference.

Lets suppose you gave your friend a character reference and that resulted in her getting a lessor penality and she then retained her license to drive.

She breaks another road rule and causes a serious accident resulting in the death or serious injury to another person.

Sometimes those who cause a serious accident do not get involved in the carnage and are at times oblivious to the carnage left behind them.

I'll describe a situation. I entered the on ramp of a major freeway and there was a car right at the end, I thought that by the time I got there the car would have already blended with the freeway traffic, so I got up to speed to blend with the traffic, looking for a gap in the traffic, and the idiot had stopped right at the end of the on ramp.

I had a number of choices and not much time to make them in, I could have run into the idiot who had stopped in the middle of the road, run up the embankment, or take my chances with the traffic.

Fortunately for me I avoided what could have potentially been a very serious accident and the driver of that vechile more than likely had no idea of how they very nearly caused a potentially serious accident.

Another point, that perhaps you are not aware of but your article, and then your admission about your friend and character references, demonstrates. This indicates that things are not always what they seem or appear to be. Sometimes there are hidden motives or agendas.

isabelberners,
It has been put to several people on OLO to find an academic from an Australian university who has written an article that says one good thing about the male gender.

One person did find something, hidden away in a PDF file, and it came from a small university. All else written about the male gender was negative or portrayed the male gender as being evil or a danger to women.

Asking you to show the article where you have actually written something positive about the male gender is not likely to get any response, but it is interesting that you choose the Stewart case to base your article, and did not choose the McInnes case. .

In the McInnes case, a woman is seeking $37 million in punitive damages for sexual harassment in the workplace. This so called “sexual harassment” included being given a hug and a kiss at a Christmas party (and I have seen countless women giving each other a hug and a kiss) and being asked to have a drink at a public restaurant.

This now constituents sexual harassment and is worth $37 million.

The continuous negative portrayal of men, that is so often lead by academics, now means that nearly everything a male does can be regarded as sexual harassment or oppression of women.

vanna
No I don't think the author is an extremist. Read Helen Pringle's comments above. Re your usual protestations, academics are not paid their salaries to write about why men are good/bad or why women are good/bad. Get off your high horse for a moment and come back to earth.

Helen
Thanks for your clarification. I think the issue came down to the relevance of character and how important this aspect in judicial matters.

Character is important, it is all we have to recommend us - that does not infer perfection or that mistakes cannot be made even if they are one-off aberrations. There has to be a presumption of innocence and that is not the same as a presumption of guilt on the accuser.

In cases like this, character might be all that is available for lack of direct witness testimony or other corroborating evidence.

Pelican,
There is almost no technology now being produced by Australian universities. To justify their extistance, so many of the staff have to concentrate on "social issues", with the attempt being made to show that women are being constanly oppressed by men.

"A woman is at just as great a risk of sexual assault from a man who stands up as she enters his company as she is from any other man" is the thinly disguised attempt to portray men as being sexual predators and oppressors of women, and that includes ALL MEN.

Here is an interesting article "Why do we demonize Men who are honest about their sexual needs"

<Although I’ve become more aware of it recently, I think I’ve always had the sense that men are particularly vulnerable to the judgment of “creep.” Over a year ago, I wrote a series of blog posts on the problems of masculinity, and in Part 3 I noted that — unlike men — “I can be explicit and overt about my sexuality without being viewed as a creep.”>

http://www.worldchangecafe.com/2010/10/02/why-do-we-demonize-men-who-are-honest-about-their-sexual-needs/

"In most convictions for shoplifting, the perpetrators did not set out with evil in their hearts in order to steal. They simply set out to shop – and were, for example, indifferent or careless as to the need to declare and pay for the goods. That indifference or carelessness is not particularly uncommon, and indeed is often rewarded – and this is what I meant by referring to "destructive norms of female criminal behaviour".

-Simply a case of arguing backwards from a desired result or belief, in this case a belief that women are much more prone to 'lifting' goods from department stores. It is a circular argument that begs the question. That are some well-known examples too if needed, from beauty queens to politicians' wives. Must be true, yes?
Of course most women are not indifferent or careless about other people's property and neither are men predisposed to taking sexual advantage of women ie being indifferent to the need to obtain consent. Alright, but what about women trappng men into marriage by falling pregnant? Gosh!

It is a rather quaint idea that Helen has got going that men are somehow programmed (hard-wired?) to keep following through once they get the scent as it were - just like that randy Fox Terrier next door (reptilian part of the brain?)- and that the 'culture' accepts and rewards them for that.

The 'little head' over-rules the one above the shoulders, they say. We can never civilise that out of them and that is why women must always be on the look-out, preferably with a panic button to push and a policeman on call.

Honestly, how many people would fall off their seats laughing if they read this stuff on the bus?

BTW, have you heard about women trapping men into marriage by falling pregnant? No, just kidding, but it sort of goes with the 'logic' used here. No wonder young women run screaming from the feminists.

We'll have to agree to disagree here, isabelberners.

>>Ms Cunneen seemed to suggest that a person could not be guilty of this crime given what she adjudged to be the good character of the accused, as evidenced by some rather superficial indices of character.<<

That is a very narrow interpretation of what she actually said, is it not?

"Any allegation that [the accused] forced himself on any woman or girl is completely inconsistent with the character of the young man I know"

Unsurprisingly, being a lawyer, Ms Cunneen chose her words extremely carefully. At no point did she assert that he "could not be guilty", merely that had he done so, this would have been "inconsistent with [his] character".

When I served on a jury, it was made clear to me that as a juror, I should not make up my own story of what might have been, but instead listen carefully to the evidence.

Your interpretation would not be admissible in the jury room, and should be treated the same way here.

Cornflower

The point that was being made is that most of these blokes didn't set out with the aim of raping someone (like the rapists in the cop shows), these blokes merely set out with the aim of having sex and weren't careful enough to ensure they had consent. The sex that they had might look alot more like consentual sex that many people's mental picture of rape.

As well as pay more attention to what Ms Cunneen said, I think the author had best re-read the anti-discrimination policy of the University of NSW.

Which states: -

UNSW aims to provide a study environment that is free from unlawful discrimination, harassment and vilification, and one that fosters fairness, equity, and respect for social and cultural diversity. Discrimination is treating one or more people unfairly because they belong to a particular group. In Australia, this behaviour may amount to unlawful discrimination, harassment or vilification.

Treating people unfairly because of their sex; race (including nationality, national or ethnic origin or ethno-religion), disability; homosexuality, political or religious affiliation, views or beliefs, marital status, pregnancy, transsexuality or transgender, age, responsibilities as a carer, and association with someone else who may have these attributes may be discrimination or harassment.

https://my.unsw.edu.au/student/atoz/Discrimination.html

By her statements concerning men, I can't see any evidence that the author's article would abide by that policy.

thank you helen for a timely article - acute in its thinking and concise in its writing.

Sigh. Here again we have another high profile player again in the media for alleged sexual assault offences. Despite the 'no comment' approach being taken at the moment, I'll give it 48 hours before the player's name is out in the media, even before charges, if they are ever laid, are made.

http://www.news.com.au/national/collingwood-players-in-sex-assault-probe/story-e6frfkx0-1225933803845

What ever the truth of the matter, whether any offences have happened or not, there needs to be a re-think of how the media handles these issues.

At the moment we are back to strapping witches on top of bomb-fires and lighting the match even before charges are laid.

I think the Author underestimates the relevance of character evidence. If the evidence in question had been from a woman saying the accused was a lecherous pervert who doesn't take no for an answer, I'm sure she would have seen the relevance in it

Rhys Jones that's gold!

'It is a rather quaint idea that Helen has got going that men are somehow programmed (hard-wired?) to keep following through once they get the scent as it were - just like that randy Fox Terrier next door (reptilian part of the brain?)- and that the 'culture' accepts and rewards them for that.

The 'little head' over-rules the one above the shoulders, they say. We can never civilise that out of them and that is why women must always be on the look-out, preferably with a panic button to push and a policeman on call. '

Yep, that's the gist of it cornflower.

I like men! They don't mean to rape, it's just in their nature.

Houellebecq,

Good sterotype. Excellent. I like it.

Which Australian university did you learn it from?

University of NSW?

Miranda Devine

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/why-footballers-are-always-guilty-until-proven-innocent/story-e6frezz0-1225936402023

Writes a different point of view, just maybe Brett Stewart was falsely accused.

<Stewart was caught in the remorseless legal machinery which swings into action once a young woman files a complaint about sexual misconduct. No one is willing to disbelieve her or test her version of events for fear of being accused of a cover-up.>

<The reason many men feel aggrieved by the hostile new sexual politics is not because the media has made them feel that way. It is because of their experience of a system that denies them natural justice. In the end it will do more harm than good to women, too.>

I think over the coming weeks, we will see a number of articles on rape and sexual assault. "I've raped too"

"Most women don't report rape"

Perhaps that is true, but then it could be an exaggeration, basically sexual politics especially heterosexual politics have become a mine field.

Basically by the tone of this article 'all men who are accused, are guilty.'

Both Nina and Leslie have articles to do with sexual assault, Nina's has topped over 300 comments.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/women-cop-blame-again-for-sex-assault-20101006-167pp.html

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/talking-about-rape-20101009-16d16.html

Sportsmen and footballers in particular are the much-needed targets of the 'all men are violent' brigade. Ritual sacrifice is part of this religion and Kerri-Anne has been invited to the party, as replacement for the pig on the spit. She did step out of line.

See, there is a problem with 'men' isn't there and that those guvvy grants just have to be continued.

This is another nail in the coffin of feminism though, over-stretching the credulity of the public yet again.

In other words...

All men are (potential) RAPISTS.

Sincerely,
Latent Man Hater.

Latent Man Hater,
Why not "All academics in universities are (potential) RAPISTS."