I was wondering where young Michael had got to after his terribly embarrassing balls-up last year for the Whie Ribbon Campaign. what was that about again, Mick?

Sadly, I sense another bout of the same sort of thing in this piece. Mikey tells us breathlessly:"Four of every five harassers are male, according to a recent national survey.", but he unaccountably fails to mention just what the "survey" comprised. Oh dear. While that sort of thing might be OK down in the 'gong's Social studdies department, it's not really good enough for the real world, especially when one has a history of being less than completely honest, as Dr Flood does.

As for "harassment" being "violence" - puhlease. As has been discussed here far more comprehensively and extensively than anything coming from the Flood ouevre, "harassment" is usually more a matter of whether the one being "harassed" is interested in the attentions of the "harasser" or not.

Of course, Michael Flood and the White Ribbon people know all this, but there's no room for honesty in the Brave New World of feminist propagandists.

Apparently there's no room for humour either: "Speak up when mates are making jokes".

Yes, feminist apologetics is a terribly serious business.

Part of “We like men, but they are evil”

The article starts with the normal “Most men don’t harass, and most don’t condone it”, then goes on to stereotype ALL men with “Men’s sexual harassment of women” and “men’s harassment of other men.” and “women are sexual objects and men are women’s superiors”.

Lets rephrase it to see if is discriminatory.

“Black’s sexual harassment of women” – would be discrimination

“asian’s harassment of other men" – would be discrimination

“women are sexual objects and university academics from the Australian Institute are women’s superiors” – would be discrimination.

The article is discriminatory.

Yes Vanna, as with anything to do with gender from Flood, the propaganda piece is blatantly discriminatory.

One small correction that the Forum editors might like to note is that Flood is no longer with the Australia Institute and hasn't been for years. He currently has a job at the Uni of Wollongong in the social studies department.

The lack of rigour in his output can be explained by the fact that he prefers "qualitative research methods", which is a nice way of saying he prefers not to allow hard, verifiable facts anywhere near.

No wonder the feminasties like him.

A very truthful and insightful article Michael, but only real men are going to actually agree with you and work towards lowering the awful harassment of women in the workplace and elsewhere.

The men these sort of ideas should be aimed at are not going to listen to such 'feminist propaganda', because they think sexual harassment is the usual way of 'chatting women up'.

These men are not bright enough to know the difference.

I was somewhat suprised that Dr Flood took such care to make it clear that most of us are not abusers or harassers. A step forward. Actually there was little I could really object to other than the assumption that "Men’s sexual harassment of women often reflects sexist social norms and gender inequalities in power."

I suspect that most of those who will change behaviour on that basis have already done so. It's generally only isolated subcultural pockets of society and male culture where rape or sexual acts involving animals would be considered in any sort of positive light but still some persist.

For some education is not the key, if anything it set's the benchmark to rebel against.

I think most of us are already doing most of what Flood proposes and have been doing for some time.

R0bert

I would bet anything that the behaviour that Suze's husband used to get together with her has been described as sexual harassment at other times. All power and no responsibility...we all know the type.